Feminism (and the larger SJWism) has spread with the assistance of Conservatives who are not just clueless, but militantly clueless. If someone points out the culture war, they say lighten up Francis, or they smugly accuse them of not understanding what is really going on in the larger culture (you must not get out much!). Sure your group is infected with the disease, but mine is immune! As a result feminism and gay marriage and gender bending complete their long march through the institutions, while Conservatives stand watch to make sure no one notices or responds.
G. K. Chesterton famously wrote:
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.
This is true. But there is an earlier stage Chesterton didn’t mention, the stage where the Progressives are in the process of making the mistakes, and the Conservatives are telling everyone to lighten up, nothing is happening.
Note: This started as part of a comment in reply to Derek Ramsey, but strikes me as worth posting separately as well.
Pingback: Militantly clueless | @the_arv
This is true. But there is an earlier stage Chesterton didn’t mention, the stage where the Progressives are in the process of making the mistakes, and the
Concuckservatives are telling everyone to lighten up, nothing is happening.Other versions include “It’s just this one issue”, “it’s just this one time”, “Are you threatened by change?”, “Do women scare you?”, various accusations of mental illness of the “******-phobe” type.
It’s often arrogance combined with short-sightedness and ignorance.
@Frank K
https://infogalactic.com/info/No_true_scotsman is still a fallacy of reasoning.
Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes
instantlyeventually a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob.It doesn’t become a tradition until after some time has passed.
This is true. But there is an earlier stage Chesterton didn’t mention, the stage where the Progressives are in the process of making the mistakes, and the Conservatives are telling everyone to lighten up, nothing is happening.
This allows time for these transitions. Today’s conservatism is the previous generations leftism. The Sarah Palin’s of today are yesteryear’s left wing feminists.
As a single man in my Corps I mention anything in these matters we discuss here on Dalrock:
“That is why you’re single Jason”
“The Bible says ‘we win’ if you are not aware” (lol, it also warns ‘depart from me, I never knew you’)
“You’re waaayyyy too serious”
“Jesus said we are not allowed to judge”
“So you think you are better than everyone else?”
This list goes on…….yet…..YET we will hear every week how our Corps is “bold n biblical” and “our church is 100% ready for His return”
Yet as the pews get more gray, the few teenagers leave as soon as they turn 18….the wringing of hands “well, people just don’t want to learn about Jesus”
Progressives try to accelerate the car over the cliff, conservatives try to slow down the car going over the cliff.
The nutjobs are the ones who say….TURN THE CAR AROUND, WE’RE HEADING FOR A CLIFF!
So what are we who say “$#!%, we’ve gone over the cliff!”
Thanks for exposing this pathology.
Here is another example. A cuckservative here is insisting that the androsphere is not needed, since ‘we have all of these issues covered’ :
http://www.antifeministtech.info/2015/07/sorry-tradcons-no-one-is-impressed-by-you-being-worried/
The cuck (who of course has a punchable gayface) actually says that SoCons have successfully resisted all of the advances of ‘feminism’, and that the androsphere is not needed. How militantly clueless can a cuck get?
JDG
So what are we who say “$#!%, we’ve gone over the cliff!”
Passengers. With open eyes.
Take that brief time you have left to get yourself ready for the next life that is fastly apporaching.
Here is Mytheos Holt’s punchable cuckservative gayface :
He truly believes that he has successfully fought off feminism, and his biggest concern is ‘overdoing it’, which leads to ‘the androsphere should disband’.
If that’s true…then he doesn’t realize that when it comes to fighting off the evil ethos, there is no reason to ever stop fighting it or overdoing it. Feminism today was Communism yesterday which was worshiping Baal thousands of years ago.
‘Be sober-minded and alert. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in your faith and in the knowledge that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering. And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself restore you, secure you, strengthen you, and establish you.’
1 Peter 5:8-10
He truly believes that he has successfully fought off feminism, and his biggest concern is ‘overdoing it’, which leads to ‘the androsphere should disband’.
So? His delusions are not our problem. Plenty of other men need The Glasses and it is worth the time to fit a pair on them.
Triage. It’s not just a word.
Dear Anon:
ce n’est pas un cigare
Side question: Whatever happened to the PMAFT blog? Hoping the author got bored, rather than something more tragic. Either way, I’m grateful it didn’t vanish (a la the spearhead).
Best,
Boxer
Side question: Whatever happened to the PMAFT blog? Hoping the author got bored, rather than something more tragic.
Technically, no one knows if something more tragic happened. He has never even commented there after the abrupt cessation of posts. I emailed a couple of times, with no response. As he was fully anonymous, we may never know.
Either way, I’m grateful it didn’t vanish (a la the spearhead).
Yeah. To stop new writing is one thing. To delete existing archives is quite another.
The fact that the blog is still up suggests we can cross out option 14, namely “married a potatozone feminist, thereafter surrendered completely”.
“No_true_scotsman is still a fallacy of reasoning.”
Whether or not that’s actually true, *accusations* of “No True Scotsman” are themselves almost always logically fallacious.
Pingback: Militantly clueless | Reaction Times
“Yet as the pews get more gray, the few teenagers leave as soon as they turn 18….the wringing of hands “well, people just don’t want to learn about Jesus””
By their fruits you will know them
Seriously, Jason, why stay there? Maybe you should consider Orthodoxy, We have an Orthodox Church in my town that is growing by leaps and bounds, and from what I can tell, it’s full of former Protestants.
“https://infogalactic.com/info/No_true_scotsman is still a fallacy of reasoning.”
FWIW, being conservative by definition means wanting to conserve things the way they are. If you are in cahoots with progressives, even if you are on the trailing edge, means you are not conservative, no matter what you call yourself.
Some might not want to…but I’m sure some do. They just found out the place they are going to isn’t teaching about Jesus well enough.
And that’s why these feminist infiltrated churches will eventually crumble….because they forgot who the Savior is.
That’s good to hear…I would think eventually a Prot must come to the determination if the church they are going to is preaching about Jesus and the Gospel or preaching about the world.
This list goes on…….yet…..YET we will hear every week how our Corps is “bold n biblical” and “our church is 100% ready for His return”
Yet as the pews get more gray, the few teenagers leave as soon as they turn 18….the wringing of hands “well, people just don’t want to learn about Jesus”
Most people’s Christianity is “Sunday morning deep.” They’re fine with learning about Jesus. Living Him? Not so much.
Frank K
FWIW, being conservative by definition means wanting to conserve things the way they are.
In other words, “don’t rock the boat”, “steady as we go”, etc. Exactly what Dalrock wrote. Also exactly what Chesterton wrote…
If you are in cahoots with progressives, even if you are on the trailing edge, means you are not conservative, no matter what you call yourself.
Then there are no true conservatives…because all conservatives are perpetually conserving the previous generation’s progressive gains. This can be observed easily.
To put it another way: Conservatives haven’t even conserved women’s bathrooms. A remarkable failure. Sorry if that makes your porridge taste a bit sour.
Whether or not that’s actually true, *accusations* of “No True Scotsman” are themselves almost always logically fallacious.
Please prove this claim. Thanks in advance.
Frank K,
FWIW, being conservative by definition means wanting to conserve things the way they are, by telling yourself that all the changes have not happened, loudly asserting this externally despite irrefutable evidence, and then congratulating yourself.
Fixed it for you.
“As a result feminism and gay marriage and gender bending complete their long march through the institutions, while Conservatives stand watch to make sure no one notices or responds…”
While most of us by now (except in the most Leftist of Humanities faculties) have understood that political Marxism is dead, having been killed off by just seven words uttered by a petty bureaucrat (“As far as I know, effective immediately ” -Günter Schabowski ), we have yet to come to grips with Cultural Marxism.
It was Marx’s disciple, Antonio Gramsci, who coined the phrase “long march through the institutions”. He noted this as a response as to why the Communist Revolution did not take world wide immediately after WW1.
Can today’s crop of conservatives grapple with Gramsci? Are they even aware?I certainly wasn’t, not up until I almost drowned in the cultural Marxist miasma.
…conservatives are perpetually conserving the previous generation’s progressive gains.
Conservatives haven’t even conserved women’s bathrooms.
Bullseye. Eventually they go along with everything, just late to the party, and I have to include myself.
Bullseye. Eventually they go along with everything, just late to the party, and I have to include myself.
It is even worse. Their token protests before the planned capitulation actually make the speed of leftist advance seem slower than it is.
If leftists knew how useful cuckservatives are to advancing the leftist agenda, leftists would not attack them.
I agree with the thrust of this comment and this is incredible evidence that as a movement conservatism has been wholly ineffective in the culture wars.
Oddly they have been more successful (until recently) in generating a broad consensus that economic freedom is preferred, businesses usually generate wealth not government, free trade is good, etc. Its almost as if libertarians have been winning because for the most part we have more free markets and more debauched culture. A slide into materialism where we are free to chase our lusts to our own contentment.
While conservatives were at best complicit in the advance of feminism; in gay marriage they fought hard and won most the elections at which the issue came before the people. They developed a rigorous intellectual position and successfully promoted it at the ballot box as the issue heated up. They were winning enough that Obama needed to conceal his true position. The evilness of our courts outdid them not their lack of effort in defence of marriage between man and woman.
Feminism only in its most extreme position phases the modern conservative intellectual. Almost all these male intellectuals have a wife they are always bragging about that they met in DC and is busy pursuing her career and their 1-2 children are taken care of by the nannies. That works well for them so they cannot imagine anything different would work for the average person.
Today’s crop of American conservatives are disciples of Gramsci. It began in the Reagan administration, with guys like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle. Watch Oliver North’s testimony to congress. When he talks about “hegemony” and makes allusions to the dialectic of history, it’s not for nothing.
They boast about it, in code, and guys like you are too ill-read to get the allusions.
Boxer no, just no.
Boxer I mean the gravatar. No just no.
Ilíon says:
January 5, 2018 at 2:34 pm
“No_true_scotsman is still a fallacy of reasoning.”
Whether or not that’s actually true, *accusations* of “No True Scotsman” are themselves almost always logically fallacious.
Ilion I posted before finishing. I just wanted to say… Yep, and it’s been used fallaciously on this very site.
I’m shocked that you don’t think she’s super hot. What’s wrong with you? Don’t you know that beauty is socially constructed? If a fat old bag with a bright green dye job comes on to you, it is your duty to take her out, buy her stuff, and sex her up (provided enthusiastic consent exists).
Your right, there is a lot wrong with me, and I have indeed failed to conform to the new morality of the new world order. But, for cryin’ out loud, think of your previous line up of gravatar’s. Would they approve of being placed in the company of someone who represents such diversity, empowerment, and open mindedness?
Feminism only in its most extreme position phases the modern conservative intellectual. Almost all these male intellectuals have a wife they are always bragging about that they met in DC and is busy pursuing her career and their 1-2 children are taken care of by the nannies. That works well for them so they cannot imagine anything different would work for the average person.
Yes. Which is another way of saying that they are themselves feminists in virtually all meaningful ways other than contemporary academic radical feminism, which they attack from time to time as a means to bolster their “anti-feminist” bona fides, to the extent they even care about that (which most of them don’t — most will admit that they are feminists, just “not that kind of feminist” — to not be a feminist in this group is tantamount to saying one is a misogynist).
Which is another way of saying that they are themselves feminists in virtually all meaningful ways other than contemporary academic radical feminism, which they attack from time to time as a means to bolster their “anti-feminist” bona fides,
One very visible example of this is RS McCain. He bashes the radical bluehairs with great skill. But he never, ever begins to see that divorce laws are sufficiently unfair to men that they have damaged the very institution of marriage. He also believes that women who vote Republican are automatically against ‘feminism’.
The only aspect of contemporary ‘feminist’ dogma that we see even National Review fight against is the ‘pay gap’ myth. Their opposition to that tends to be their ‘broken clock’ moment.
As we know, the Republican position on abortion is even more misandric than the Democrat one, so that certainly does not count as being ‘against feminism’.
Boxer I mean the gravatar. No just no.
I wasn’t going to bring it up because at least the woman (woman?) he chose is slightly less disturbing than the time he was using Futrelle.
I wasn’t going to bring it up because at least the woman (woman?) he chose is slightly less disturbing than the time he was using Futrelle.
Frutrelle? Well I guess diverse, empowered, and open minded representation will be no problem in the Boxer hall of gravatars.
Almost all these male intellectuals have a wife they are always bragging about that they met in DC and is busy pursuing her career and their 1-2 children are taken care of by the nannies. That works well for them so they cannot imagine anything different would work for the average person.
I suspect that this is more a trait of the UC Punditry than anything specifically cuckservative, as both “conservative” and “liberal” men in this class display these habits. UC men tend to be progs anyway, probably because they can afford to be and are less likely to suffer from the fallout of prog ideology in action than are those of us among the Great Unwashed Masses.
TL;DR version: these guys live in a protective bubble and can’t even begin to relate to the lives of real people.
It’s always “fine” right up until you’re served the divorce papers. Then “fine” disappears to be replaced with NOT fine.
Type “online divorce” into Google. I got over 66 million results in less than a second. Yes, she’s seen them. You should be so lucky because what she’ll likely do is use a real divorce lawyer and your life will never ever be the same afterwards. Enjoy. -MGTOW
Saw a post in which a father (in the military) is seeking a divorce attorney to fight for his child custody rights:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/seattle-area/2867861-custody-attorney-seattle-area.html
Perhaps someone here knows of a good attorney? Preferably in the Seattle area.
One of the worst things so called conservatives in government did recently was double the child tax credit from $1k to $2k per child as part of the tax bill. The majority of children born today in the U.S are out of wedlock. This is rewarding unwed mothers who choose to have children with bad boy primitives. This is a transfer of wealth from single childless men and also raises our debt (which Republicans no longer seem to care about). I have voted Republican all my life but will no longer do so because of this. I have no political home.
http://www.returnofkings.com/145181/ann-coulter-reveals-that-she-is-experiencing-pain-as-a-childless-woman
IBB,
I don’t think Ann Coulter, as a conservative, would deny that, so RoK is barking up the wrong tree.
Remember that both Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are alpha widows of Dinesh D’Souza from back in the 80s (despite him being nerdy and the infrequency of inter-ethnic coupling at the time). Laura Ingraham was actually engaged to D’Souza, and never married anyone else or had any biological children (as with Coulter).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219974/Dinesh-DSouza-Conservative-pundit-resigns-Kings-College-New-York-amid-infidelity-claims.html
Ann’s point is that single people shouldn’t be forced to fund married people having children, but what she inadvertently revealed is that she has some unhappiness at facing the prospect of being a childless spinster.
Yet another feminist (this one of the “CONservative” persuasion) regretting the foolish, short-sighted life decisions she made in her youth now that consequences are making themselves felt. The only thing missing is blameshaming men for her predicament. That’ll start soon enough.
uh, ANN is correct
single people should not have to fund breeders
men stupid enough to impregnate a woman should not get a tax break.
Also Ann has written countless about how the traditional PATRIARCHAL family is the ideal model for family.
did she make that mistake in her life, perhaps but she is not a feminist
as for subtle feminism.
In my church circles unless men cook diners, cook dinners for their girlfriends, look after babies or baby sit the children of single mothers they are not worthy enough to married.
When I said that what they were doing was basically feminism I was told to man up and get real
Ann Coulter is not a feminist. Ann Coulter is just admitting that her life choices have left her lonely. She isn’t blaming anyone other than herself. A feminist would blame EVERYONE but themselves for their own misfortune. Ann just doesn’t feel that she needs to have her taxes subsidize breeders. She has nothing but loneliness to look forward to in her golden years which are rapidly approaching (she is 56.)
Also Ann has written countless about how the traditional PATRIARCHAL family is the ideal model for family.
did she make that mistake in her life, perhaps but she is not a feminist
And yet Ann herself would sooner be burned alive than submit to a patriarchal order. The fact that she is a childless spinster who sacrificed her natural role in the patriarchal order for her own aggrandizement makes her no different from any self-proclaimed feminist. That she refuses to call herself one doesn’t make her any less of one.
Women who reject their God-given roles always ultimately wind up in a state of despair, whether they call themselves conservative or liberal, religious or non-religious, whether they’re white or colored, rich or poor, educated or ignorant.
“Yet another feminist (this one of the “CONservative” persuasion) regretting …”
You guys really ought to at least get yourselves a screwdriver.
“Ann Coulter is not a feminist. Ann Coulter is just admitting that her life choices have left her lonely. …”
She has also said, in print, that she knows that she isn’t “mother material”. Likely, had she married and had children, she would have discovered that she is, after all.
She has her flaws as everyone does, but having her in the modern culture is a net plus. She can get into people’s minds in a way that no man can, at this point.
Only God will be able to judge how good her path was, but it was not necessarily as bad as it would be in another age.
False.
This woman just argued against her gender having the right to vote. She is extremely patriarchal.
Not just that, but Ann Coulter is the only woman who slams single mothers (note the sleazy pastorbator defending single mothers) :
single people should not have to fund breeders
Why not?
men stupid enough to impregnate a woman should not get a tax break.
Impregnating women is a man’s only responsibility in life. Everything else is optional.
This woman just argued against her gender having the right to vote. She is extremely patriarchal.
Really? You must be new to women. Women will go to amazing and contorted lengths for attention. Seeking attention is Feminism 101, voting and other male shit is irrelevant.
This woman just argued against her gender having the right to vote. She is extremely patriarchal.
You and I both know that this woman regularly votes (Republican Cuckservative), so that statement of hers is pure nonsense one its face, one that even further erodes her credibility.
Sure, Ann wants other women to have tbeir voter registration cards torn up, especially if they’re women from non-UMC/UC WASP demographics. I’ll believe she’s serious and not a hypocrite when she publicly burns her own voter registration card and provides certified proof that she’s been removed from the registered voter roles.
By all means I agree that women (AND many men) shouldn’t ever be allowed anywhere near a polling place. But Ann doesn’t really believe that. Like all CONservative pundits, she tickles gullible ears with one set of words, but lives/does their opposite and would shriek bloody murder if forced to walk her own talk.
She has also said, in print, that she knows that she isn’t “mother material”
How noble of her to publicly admit that she’s useless as a woman.
“How noble of her to publicly admit that she’s useless as a woman.”
Says the waste of protoplasm.
“Impregnating women is a man’s only responsibility in life. Everything else is optional.”
Let me fix that for you.
“Having a son to love from birth,invest his time,energy and soul into making a man who can continue his legacy is a man’s only real objective in life.”
So FAR different from
“make any old baby and never see it.”
Daughter by single mother is worse than death,man loses time,energy,money,receives only hatred in return.
I think it’s time for God to step up to the plate and make a lesbian version of AIDS.
Virulent,deadly,final
Yeah, but the SJW’s are totally harmless. It’s not like they would take over your organization and have you thrown out of it or anything. They would never have you fired from your job for bad think. And conservatives just want to make sure that when we engage with these sweet loveable and harmless wonders that we be decent and play fair because we MUST have standards or we are evil. Virtues MUST be signalled.
feeriker,
What the hell is the matter with you? Taking the red pill means hating feminism not hating women. A red pill man should be able to recognize a good patriarchal woman and be ready to commend her for her willingness to submit to a man’s authority. That is what Ann has been doing her whole career by blessing out the rot and lunacy in our decayed society. Did you even look at my youtube? Did you look at the Father Albert youtube. She puts herself out there knowing that she will receive nothing but condemnation from feminists for her comments. She doesn’t need any cr-p from you.
@IBB, feminine is as feminine does, and the medium is the message.
Regarding conservatives, at least we know that someone will still be calling balls and strikes when the SJW’s start marching folks behind the chemical shed, bringing sanity to chaos is their purpose in life.
May I apologise. I am reading Helen andelin atm and she discusses not talking man to man which I have been guilty of here. I apologise to those who have given me time of day here especially Dalrock, seventiesjason and earl.
@ rachel…
This one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascinating_Womanhood
Even if not I thought this was a laughable statement…
‘According to Time Magazine, Mrs. Andelin wrote Fascinating Womanhood when “she felt her own marriage wasn’t the romantic love affair she had dreamed of.’
How about that…a book which was more on the anti-feminist side, created because a woman wasn’t haaaaaaaaaapy. Marriage is not a fairy tale romance…it’s work and sacrifice.
Yes Earl , that is the one. I believe she changed her tune. Maybe i’m wrong. All I can say is I have been reading excerpts to my husband and he says he likes what she says. Anyway, I apologise to you for my forward tone at times.
Well I don’t remember it…but if you said it happened then I forgive you.
Thank you Earl, I appreciate that.
Ann Coulter stays as thin and as pretty as she can for 56. She keeps her hair nice and long. She has been taking red pills since she graduated law school. She can not manufacture a husband out of thin air. What more do any of you want her to do?
Dear Peeps:
Helen Andelin is a Mormon, and whenever a Mormon writes a book without being explicitly Mormon, you guys should question it carefully, and treat it with suspicion.
One question you might ask, is “Why is a Mormon trying to influence our Christian wives?”
Best,
Boxer
‘She can not manufacture a husband out of thin air. What more do any of you want her to do?’
She’s had plenty of chances.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1401932/I-love-to-pick-fights-with-liberals.html
Was that her intention for writing that book? From what I read it was another case of a woman who wasn’t haaaaaaaaaaapy in marriage. There’s plenty of women trying to influence other women in that arena.
From the small excerpt I read her examples included people out of books and an Islamic woman in India.
Although if what I read about the book is correct…her solution was to be more feminine and more obedience to her husband rather than going full retard (feminist) and blowing up the marriage.
Dear Earl:
When Mormons write books for other Mormons, they almost always have a Deseret Book imprint. (Many Mormons, particularly those of the LDS variety, are so uptight as to refuse to read anything that is published outside). Andelin’s book was from another publisher.
I don’t expect you to understand all the details; but, we’re not taught to be friends with Christians. We’re taught to blend in with you in public. When we’re alone among ourselves, we get all open about our prejudices. In short, if a Mormon is writing a “self-help” or “therapy” book, and targeting it toward non-Mormons, you should be wary.
Best,
Boxer
I figured that out the minute I would tell the 19 year old door to door missionaries that I’m a Catholic, this is the Gospel I read, and invited them to Mass. I would never see them again.
I’m surprised they didn’t jump at the chance to go. You should be thankful they didn’t. They’d have embarrassed you by disrupting the service, handing out literature and trying to get new prospects.
IBB: “What more do any of you want her to do?”
Well if I was a 75 year old billionaire (to satisfy her hypergamy while still having a chance at being interested in her myself) I’d probably prefer she not be the conservative archetypal castrating bi!ch.
Coulter is still searching for Mr Right-Wing. “I’ve been engaged many times. Four, I think. But I’m not like every other American. I thought I’d meet the right person before getting married and having children.”
Who were these dumped fiancés? “Oh, I don’t even remember all of them. I really don’t think about exes five minutes after they’ve gone.”
I rest my case. Imagine any woman getting away with shittiness like that under the “Patriarchy” to which Coulter is paying so much lip service.
Boxer: If a fat old bag with a bright green dye job comes on to you, it is your duty to take her out, buy her stuff, and sex her up (provided enthusiastic consent exists).
I have to remember not to read this blog while eating until you change your avatar. ;). She wouldn’t come on to a man unless he was over 6’2″, athletic, high income, etc. About Anne Coulter, someone should send her a link to the Dalrock post “Are women done with men after 55?”
@Boxer and @Earl
Boxers conception of Mormons sounds like he was raised in a small town in Utah or by parents who had a very narrow provincial view of the world that went contrary to even what the church explicitly teaches.
“Mormons are taught not to be friends with Christians.”
I don’t know what you were taught but that’s sad to have anyone associated at any time with the LDS people leave feeling that. Avoiding being friends with your most likely moral allies (other people who follow Christ) is a crazy approach for any LDS outside Utah. I tell my children the opposite – there is probably one other LDS kid in their high school but tons of other upstanding Christians that want to live a moral life.
Earl I was a missionary. I went to lots of other churches (and amazingly did not hand out any pamphlets or invite anyone to my church while there). But in general most missionaries would say no because that’s not their focus. I love Christmas Mass so I would have reasons to say yes.
Lots of Mormons write books for a broader audience. There is nothing unusual about it any more than Catholics writing for Christians in general. Mormons are a small group and any serious author with social commentary is going to try and write to a bigger group.
Feeriker,
You don’t have a case. Her engagements ended. SFW? Engagements quite often came to an unfortunate end at all times during our more patriarchal time periods. She didn’t divorce these men. She’s never been married. So she gave the ring back, big deal? All those men (whoever they are) probably married other women.
I have been engaged 3 times, and married only once. Still married. Does that make me a monster that I ended the previous 2 engagements? I found out things about those two women (during the engagement) that clued me into the fact that there was no way we were going to make it as husband and wife. So I ended it before I said “I do.” That was right and good and just. Perhaps Ann did the same thing?
Ann is your ally. Ally! Please, do not try and alienate or denigrate our allies. It pissed me off when some of you guys did that to Sunshine Mary. I am so sorry that Ann Coulter is not the perfect woman feeriker. I got news for you, there is no perfect woman. But she is freely admitting now that all she has to look forward to in her later years (which are rapidly approaching) is single loneliness and childlessness. She’s miserable. Its likely that she will die alone, with no one at her bedside. She will have no one and that makes her sad. But she isn’t blaming men for that. She takes accountability for that the way a woman should. That is anti-feminist feeriker. You should be happy that (finally) there is a never-married woman that would take such a refreshingly honest position regarding her own unfortunate circumstances.
Denominations apart, what ultimately matters is our relationships with Christ. It is very common to be a “Christian”, a “Catholic”, a “Mormon” or a “Pentecostal”, and never met Christ on a personal level. There is far more to being a believer in Christ than belonging to a denomination.
I had a conversation with a young woman just yesterday. Her father is a retired pastor, and she literally grew up in the church. She told me she was “done” with Christianity; that she wanted something else. After further conversation, I realized that, even though she had not been “far from the Kingdom of God” all her life, she had never really understood what it meant to have a personal relationship with Christ. When I told her so, she said I wouldn’t be the first person to tell her something similar.
And that is a danger which we all face. Having been exposed to the influences of religion since childhood, we think we are OK. But we really are not. We need to have a personal experience with Christ Himself, and have the assurance that we are indeed born of God, and walking with Christ daily.
Nicodemus, a religious leader, was in the same boat (John 3:1-4).
You don’t think she was like, fucking them, do you? Lol! Feeriker’s got you beat here. Ann Coulter, like Lauren Southern and Faith Goldy and all the other ‘conservative’ bimbos are merely huge wastes of time. Never mind that she didn’t care enough about them to even remember their names….
She’s never been married because, A) she fucked around before marriage and B) is just another conservative pretend woman making use of what feminism gave her by working as a man.
It’s all a game to them IBB, she had four chances, four fucking chances, and she blew it.
Fortunately, IBB we get to pick our allies.
Denominations apart, what ultimately matters is our relationships with Christ. It is very common to be a “Christian”, a “Catholic”, a “Mormon” or a “Pentecostal”, and never met Christ on a personal level. There is far more to being a believer in Christ than belonging to a denomination.
No, this is a protestant understanding, it is not the understanding of Catholics or Orthodox. I will not get dragged into a sectarian debate, because that is not the scope of this blog, but it is exceedingly annoying to see an obviously protestant perspective like that being peddled as objective Christianity. Suffice to say — it is not.
That would be the reason some of us could never go to the RCC or Orthodox Churches Novaseeker. I have had a personal relationship with Jesus for over 40 years now, so ignoring that for man’s rules would be too much.
Many stupid and evil things may be done under that same claim, but so have they been done otherwise. You are correct about a key difference many forget.
Mormons do believe in a different Jesus, so I would not include them as Dave does though. The key base is Romans 10:9-10 – confessing Jesus’ right to rule your life and believing God raised Jesus from the dead. I was reborn while in the RCC, but I diverged from it for the point you bring up.
Not meaning to argue. Just adding a comment.
Dave, you are right, but all do not see it that way.
And many will say in that day, “Lord, Lord! Didn’t we [do all manner of Good Work] in your name?”
And he will say to them, “Depart from me; I never knew you.”
—
Apparently, *Jesus* is operating under a “Protestant understanding”.
Without re-running the Reformation, for the 100,000th time over the last 500 years, we’re in a spot where we can say the “personal relationship” stuff is a bunch of feminine-appealing half-truth. It’s correct in the technical sense, as those of Christ are part of the Body. It’s false in the context it is normally used, as an egalitarian appeal to feminine emotions.
In the instance Dave brings up, that Woman wants the attention of the carousel, thus her issue isn’t knowledge. It’s Faith, Choice & Dedication. While rhetoric does matter in most contexts, Dave is never getting anywhere with that Woman because he’s not fully dealing within the Truth in the situation. She fully understands the version of the “kingdom of God” being sold, and she’d much rather have the World.
Oh, and Mormons aren’t Christians. Something they’ll tell you, on some days, while claiming they are on other days.
“Personal relationship with Christ” is Protestant-speak for the more widespread concept of union with Christ – we in His body and He indwelling us through the Holy Spirit. The “personal” part is based on the Scriptural promise that we can now come boldly before God’s throne without intermediaries – we can “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace” (Heb. 4:16).
OT: Dialing down the witch hunt
innocentbystanderboston says:
January 8, 2018 at 12:36 am
Back to thirsty-beta whiteknighting again, I see.
And people wonder why cuckservatives are such a laughingstock.
““Personal relationship with Christ” is Protestant-speak for the more widespread concept of union with Christ – …”
Or, to put it another way: God has no grandchildren; you can’t “go to Heaven” (as people say) on your “sainted mother’s” apron-strings.
feeriker: “Back to thirsty-beta whiteknighting again, I see.
And people wonder why cuckservatives are such a laughingstock.”
You sad, little fellows (*) really ought to look into getting some more tools.
(*) surely, I’m not the only one who has noticed that most of these “man-o-sphere” types “reason” just like the worst of women do (and for that matter, in the same defective manner as Marxists and Freudians and Darwinists).
“OT: Dialing down the witch hunt”
Feminists are insane; they’re not stupid. They know that their hegemony to brow-beat normal men (and their cushy positions in universities) depends upon the support of a certain class of powerful men, whose interests they serve. They have to dial down the witch hunt, because the witches and their patrons/sponsors are the same class of powerful men.
‘But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”‘ [Luke 9:50 NASB]
Was Jesus whiteknighting? No. I know He wasn’t talking here about a woman speaking in favor of patriarchy, but I think the principle Jesus gives is what IBB is saying.
There is enough absolute feminism to be battled without condemning those who are open to patriarchy.
Well, perhaps not “most” but there are many whose reasoning is poor. Unfortunately, pointing out such a failing is likely to result in the same type of vitriol I associate with the groups you mention. That is, if all else fails, proceed with ad hominem attacks, etc.
A large number of the males (note the word I used) who “hate feminism” — and they are well-represented amongst the regulars here — don’t actually hate feminism. What they hate is that feminism’s promise of consequence-free no-strings sexual activity was a classic bait-and-switch. What they want is not Christian sexual morality, which is indeed patriarchal, but rather the false picture of Christian sexual morality that feminists paint, which is quite contrary to actual Christian sexual morality; they want something more akin to Islamic mores.
@innocentbystanderboston:
“You don’t have a case. Her engagements ended. SFW? Engagements quite often came to an unfortunate end at all times during our more patriarchal time periods. She didn’t divorce these men. She’s never been married. So she gave the ring back, big deal? All those men (whoever they are) probably married other women.”
Ann Coulter is a feminist. By definition. You’re doing exactly what the post is about. You’re defending the current status quo and pretending it’s conservatism. You have to accept that Ann Coulter is the epitome of a CC rider. What do you think she’s doing in New York City hanging out with the likes of Donald Trump? Bible studies?
She’s an entertainer. She’s perfectly formed to be the perfect fantasy for male conservatives. She’s gorgeous if you’re into that sort of woman. She says all the right stuff, she’s brilliant, and has an incredibly wicked sense of humor.
Is she an ally? She’s probably a better ally than the Republican establishment. I’m not convinced she’s 100% sincere, which means there could come a time where her support is crucial and it would fail us. In the meantime, she takes a lot of fire for things that need to be said and most people won’t say. I can admire that.
I’m really sick of the Fox News bimbo brigade, though. All the conservative sites are getting eaten up with it. How many Tomi Lahrens are waiting for their shot to get on the View and rescind their beliefs? Meghan Kelly is off being a progtard on MSNBC now. How many “conservatives” defended her bias against Trump? You have to step back and realize how little respect these people have for you (and how deserved) when they can flash a set of legs or boobs and you automatically believe anything they tell you.
I will say Laura Southern helped get Cantor thrown out of office and I think that’s significant. The biggest problem seems to be that the left approaches the entire thing like a war (strategic targets, cutting off support, diplomacy) and the right seems to approach it like a college debate club (Only approved members allowed, play by the rules, etc). Probably the biggest reason the right is losing the culture war so badly, if you don’t assume the deliberate enemies in our own camp.
On Friday’s discussion of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy:
We need to be careful, because there is a “no true Christian” version of this that is Scripturally sound; hence not a fallacy. Example: Galatians 5:19-21 – “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
What Paul says here is that “no true Christian” continues to do such things, and if we see them persistently in a person, we have a right to call their conversion into question.
In my experience though, most “no true Christian” accusations do not rise to this level of Biblical faithfulness.
@innocentbystanderboston:
Sorry. I also meant to throw in one more thing. If you consider yourself a conservative let me ask you to consider to yourself (You seriously don’t have to respond. This is for your reflection, only.) two questions:
1. What is the purpose of granting women the right to vote?
2. What benefit have we seen after the passage of women’s suffrage?
If you can’t even consider those two questions, I have to laugh that you would refer to yourself as a conservative. If you don’t understand why that would be an issue, then I would start there in search of your answer.
Conservatards haven’t conserved a damn thing. They won’t conserve the current status quo either. Conservative women are feminist, they are both first and second wave believers. Fully. I will not trust them one iota and will not support them either.
Bring back the full Patriarchy, rescind female suffrage and all its destructive laws, bring male only spaces back in full swing, bar the bitches and rebuild your society; or watch it burn. I care not which but stop your shaming.
@feministhater
“bring male only spaces back in full swing”
If you want to know what the left considers the biggest threat to women, it’s this right here. Which is to say that it should be fully implemented if the balance is going to tip back. Just listen for the loud screeching every time you try to do anything male only. You get it from the news. You get it from the politicians. You get it from the women. You’ll even get it from your conservative wife and fundamentalist preacher.
I’ve often stated how much of a trap the whole idea that the basis of sexual morality is only on consent. Because we all know it’s really the woman’s consent….which can change if her feelings change. And the court system seems to think her feels are more than enough evidence.
Moral, licit sex is in marriage only because that’s how God set it up. Not if she says ‘yes, yes, yes’ during the whole time of fornication.
That being said…the fact that marriages and sex deprivation can be destroyed because of feelings and the court system agreeing with those feelings is just as bad.
Hmm
We need to be careful, because there is a “no true Christian” version of this that is Scripturally sound; hence not a fallacy.
Then it is not an example of No True Scotsman. Perhaps you should review the fallacy itself, with an eye towards seeing how it differs from the Bible quote in question?
At least that Bible quote list of negative attributes is observable and verifiable; testable, in other words. That is a considerable improvement over the usual “my denomination can stand more angels on the head of a pin than yours can” wrangling often seen here.
Not picking on Hmm, but…
TruConservatives almost always are just ankle biters who would rather endlessly split hairs over who is more TruCon than whom…than actually reach any conclusion about an actual, real world issue. Don’t even ask them for a practical, real-world-applicable, plan, they don’t do that.
“By definition.”
“By definition” is like an accusation of “No True Scotsman”, it’s almost always not the case.
“In my experience though, most “no true Christian” accusations do not rise to this level of Biblical faithfulness.”
My experience is just the opposite. Almost all accusations of the “fallacy” are used to elide the difference between being a Christian and being a Scotsman.
The notion that Conservatives are trying to prevent mistakes and do not dive headlong into ruin as well is quite amusing.
There are too many recent examples to count whereby Conservatives have repeatedly and with much the same wreckless abandon, degenerate fervor and glee on their faces as their progressive rivals, dove headlong into fail.
For American foreign, domestic, social and economic policy, Americans have been repeatedly ripped off with incompetence and stupidity. It’s become a race to the bottom for some reason. The team in the lead doesn’t really matter anymore.
This is exactly why Americans are so angry, frustrated, despondent and fatigued by a two party system that can no longer represent common sense and compromise. It is so chock full of hypocrites, thieves, bribery agents and sexual deviants as to make that idealization impossible.
For example, there are political and social Conservatives who still adamantly believe that George W. Bush was a great President because he was a Methodist, prayed openly and was a proponent of Christian values. Except we all know for a fact that George Bush did not become a Methodist of his own volition at all. It was his fed up Texas wife who gave George the ultimatum – “It’s either the bottle or me, you f*&#@ng asshole!”
Despite his cheerleading of the housing bubble and crash with a “homeownership society”, the prolific pre-9/11 incompetence and ignoring repeated warnings from intelligence, lying about an optional war in Iraq, wholesale incompetence in carrying out that war, agreeing to wars and tax cuts that expanded the national debt by $5.9 trillion, giving Americans a meaningless tax cut check for $200 to $600 (now don’t spend it all in one place, dumbasses!), effing up Hurricane Katrina with FEMA, willful suspension of habeas corpus, approving “enhanced interrogation and torture and extraordinary rendition”. This was a horrible President by any standard.
The comeback is predictably “so what!”, Obama “was sooo much worse!”.
I don’t disagree with that comeback. Obama sucked as well.
Are conservatives clueless and asleep at the wheel? Yes.
Are they militantly clueless? Sure.
However, the suggestion that Conservatives are a decisively different known quantity than Progressives is just folly. The very best that the political and social Conservatives, or Republicans, can ever be, compared to their Progressives rivals, is a nanometer of variance on policy.
This is because they are all vipers and thieves on the take – operating in a den of lies, debauchery and STDs known as Washington DC.
So Americans vote for the lesser of two evils, and the predictable avalanche of negative consequences from that forced decision.
If you can’t even consider those two questions, I have to laugh that you would refer to yourself as a conservative. If you don’t understand why that would be an issue, then I would start there in search of your answer.
Remember that a “conservative” is someone dedicated to conserving yesterday’s Progressive gains. By that definition it would make perfect sense for a self-described “conservative” to object to the mere thought of revoking female suffrage, this being one of the biggest (and most destructive) Prog gains of the last century.
Thirty years from now “conservatives” will be fiercely defending gay marriage.
@Ilion
“it’s almost always not the case.”
In this case, it is.
@freeriker
Yeah, I know. I gave up trying to convince so called conservatives they were pushing progressive ideologies. The best part is when they demand chivalry from men to protect the women living the modern, free woman lifestyle. As if men should adhere to a philosophy hundreds of years old to protect women who refuse to live a more practical lifestyle from the last century.
LG,
A point is not invalid just because others twist it. The twisting tends to indicate its validity. Knowing Jesus directly, and agreeing with Him that He has the control over it, is a key part of being born again, which Jesus notes is a requirement. Anything that does not include that is missing the requirements, even if they outward signs seem good.
Those today who do their own thing and think they are fine with Jesus are likely to be in for a rude awakening: “Depart from Me, I never knew you.” That is a thought that should concern us all to make sure we really do know Him.
FH,
Do we not make any progress, or slow the rot down, until we can jump completely to the proper situation? That is the flaw in your argument.
Conservatives conserve nothing of value, thus the term cuckservative is much more applicable. I will occasionally let it slip through to describe me, but I have long since left what I used to value.
Conservatives conserve nothing of value, thus the term cuckservative is much more applicable. I will occasionally let it slip through to describe me, but I have long since left what I used to value.
Both the late, great Joe Sobran and Gary North have pointed out that American Conservstism is almost unique among political ideologies in that no one from within the movement has every codified in written form exactly WHAT Conservatives bdlueve in, what are the pillars of Conservative ideology.
This explains volumes; for example, how Republicans who claim the Conservative mantle can spout one set of beliefs one day, then flip-flop the next day and champion causes and talking points straight out of Das Kapital. They clearly have no principles other than their own aggrandizement and the most expedite means of attaining it.
@feeriker:
“Conservativism” is a term given to Whig-descended Anglo perspectives that are heavily focused on Order & Process. It’s actually the bastardization of the Christian perspective and Leftwing ideology, which is why it does both terribly. It is the classification of intellectuals that would rather the trains run on time.
It’s a temperament that’s been used to create a hard-left & soft-Left while making sure the Right has almost no representation in the USA. This is how a “New York Liberal” like Trump can end up being the most right-wing President since Calvin Coolidge.
@BillyS:
You’re trying to hold onto a phrase that’s purpose was always evil.
If you say “God’s Love is Free”, you’d be somewhat correct, though it’s not rigorously correct. If you said God is about “Free Love”, you should be promptly kicked out of whatever organization you’re with. Context & Intent matter.
“Personal Relationship with Christ” is technically correct. You also have a personal relationship with the IRS. The construction is a rhetorical play to feminine sin-nature of being like God. (See: Genesis 3) It hides within the egalitarian heresy of the age, but, as I’ve said twice now, it’s a technically correct statement. Technical accuracy matters very little with most people, even if it should.
I run into this problem a lot when dealing with other Christians. You simply don’t accept that the rot stretches back 100s of years and our entire discourse (and most of the theology) is a complete mess. Almost all of the standard phraseology is intended as a stumbling block to your faith.
Ignorance.
Nothing.
Try telling that to your average conservative pundit and watch their heads explode.
feeriker: Both the late, great Joe Sobran and Gary North have pointed out that American Conservstism is almost unique among political ideologies in that no one from within the movement has every codified in written form exactly WHAT Conservatives bdlueve in, what are the pillars of Conservative ideology.
Someone did. Joe Sobran.
In the 1985, he wrote a very long essay for National Review, called “Pensees.” Buckley euphorically praised it, likening it to a Conservative Manifesto. You can find it online here: http://www.wildwestcycle.com/f_pensees.htm
Of course, Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk have also been regarded as key conservative philosophers.
All of the above conservatives advocated restraint, and modesty of ambition, in both domestic and international affairs — quite the opposite of the neocon’s nation-building and “liberate the world” policies.
Looking Glass @ 12:05 am:
““Personal Relationship with Christ” is technically correct. You also have a personal relationship with the IRS. The construction is a rhetorical play to feminine sin-nature of being like God.”
Good argument! I agree, the phrase was always terrible theology.
Looking Glass & Gunner Q,
You’re trying to hold onto a phrase that’s purpose was always evil.
Proof by assertion?
I don’t talk regularly with the IRS. I do talk to God all the time and hear from Him in return. (Even if Scott may think I am demented.)
You can assert something I have had and done that is consistent with the Scriptures for years as evil, but that just makes you wrong. The idea is that it is not just a formal religious structure, as most man made religions have, but a direct connection with the God of the universe, wherein we can call Him “daddy” (Abba). That was what Jesus said while on this earth and is far more reliable than those who would reject it because foolish people today misuse things.
Second line above should have been a quote, though hopefully that is clear in context.
“… technically correct.”
Allow me to translate that into plainspeak — “Yeah, you’re right, but I refuse to admit it.“
@Gunner Q:
Thanks. In the process of coming to a much firmer understanding of the damage that’s happened, one place no one wants to even think about is the way our definitions have been twisted to the point where it’s extremely difficult to give careful advice to other Christians. Precise words have been turned into vague notions with complex cultural baggage, rendering useful advice a potentially massive stumbling block for other Christians.
It’s a rough problem that’s going to take a very long time to address.
@BillyS:
I appreciate when people confirm my argument, but you’re also making the exact mistake I was pointing out.
“It’s correct in the technical sense, as those of Christ are part of the Body. It’s false in the context it is normally used, as an egalitarian appeal to feminine emotions.”
The phrase is of recent invention, designed to appeal to emotions in an egalitarian manner. Nothing I’ve said has denied the presence of the Spirit nor walking with the Lord, but being Witness matters. Parroting phrases designed as stumbling blocks to your faith helps no one, which is precisely why I pointed it out. It’s a poisoned phrase that hides nearly the entirety of a life lived in faith, thus it needs to be excised.
@Ilíon:
I have no issues admitting when someone is correct about something, but being correct in the technical sense is a great way to slip in rhetorical context that’s quite evil. Or did you not know that God believes in “Free Love”? (That’s clearly false, but I hope the point is abjectly clear.)
Words have both technical meaning and cultural context. This is why intent always matters when dealing with faith. “We’re all going to die” is technically correct, but the intonation, phrasing and timing of that statement utterly changes the impact & meaning. By context alone, it can mean impending doom, a funny joke or a deadpan truism. (Most truisms are technically correct, but can be functionally meaningless.)
Christians have been taught to be rather careless with our words, which is a dire issue since we should be very careful. When dealing with theology, one needs technical correctness while navigating cultural contexts with a deft hand. This is part of the reason really technical theological arguments are done mostly with Greek, as it allows for the removal of much of the cultural context of the language in which the argument is being made.
This is actually a 2000 year old issue when it comes to biblical translation, and certain, severe, issues always crop up with it. I listened to a Missionary one time discuss the “Lord and his double-sided machete”, since the culture lacked any context for a “sword”. For the English world, we’ve lost an entire Fruit of the Spirit with the translation from Greek into English being “meekness”.
Pingback: Weekly Roundup #94 - Charles Sledge
Pingback: Fruits of chivalry | Dalrock
Pingback: Chick-fil-A and conservative militant cluelessness. | Dalrock