Did Sharkly jump out the “Overton window”?
Jack, at Σ Frame linked to my How to bring back Patriarchy post.
In his description Jack hinted about the Overton window. While I’m not certain what Jack was implying, I do have a response.
First I had to look up what the Overton window was. While I was unfamiliar with the term, It was a familiar concept that I believe is quite true. It refers to the range of ideas permitted in public discourse. Often people, especially on the far left, will use the Door-in-the-face technique to modify the window of ideas which are acceptable, by publicly promoting leftist ideas that are currently far out of bounds to destigmatize less extreme leftist ideas that then seem to be an acceptable compromise by comparison.
So am I saying men are in the image of God while women are not, as a strategic ploy to move the center point of discussion to the right by yanking the extreme edge over further to the right?
No. I actually believe every word I wrote, and I even held back a bit.
Now if all I accomplish is to move the Overton window to the right through the Door-in-the-face technique, that in itself will increase righteousness and be helpful to society, and will have been a good deed. But I intend to do far more. I’d actually love to see my plan followed and patriarchy restored.
Now if I were to bet on my success, I’d bet against Sharkly. I’d bet that society continues to ignore God’s word, even when I proclaim it, and instead will try to censor me, mock me, and persecute me. But the results are not mine to control. So, I’ll just try to be a faithful servant of God, and serve him as best I can, in my own unique way that He has been preparing and equipping me to do.
separately, a commenter seems to wonder:
Am I just venting misogyny?
“… so bitter and resentful, almost hateful, of women.”
No, I don’t believe so.
If I really hated women I’d tell them to study for years in college preparing so they can waste their most fertile years and expel their freshest eggs while working in a factory or office, and then have to settle for whatever leftover men are still available, or else cats. I’d tell them to be sexually liberated and get pumped and dumped by a string of immoral men who will later laugh about all the stupid whores they porked. If I really hated women I’d flatter them that they’re equal or better than men, they’re “daughters of the King” made in the image of God, have a goddess inside them, and that they just need to “find themselves”.
No, I love women. A lot! I’ve even spent time carefully admiring pictures of women whom I don’t personally know, on the internet. ???? And my love and appreciation for women is why I’m not hesitant to tell them what is truly best for them. And it is best for women to truly know their place. Woman was created last of all, for the man, God gave her to the man, to have. The man was created in the image of God and as such comes before God, who’s image he bears, uncovered. But the woman is just the glory of man, and must cover her head when coming into the presence of God, because she is not allowed this exaltation that is reserved for men who are all in God’s image and glory.
I also feel that women get too much flattery and aggrandizement in our Feminist society, and especially in our churches, having become veritable temples of cunt-worship. So, out of love I generally try not to overinflate their already inflated sense of self. I try not to apologize in advance before I say something putting women back in their place, nor do I want to sandwich it with a piece of praise. Just, Whack! Know your place woman! That way the message doesn’t get lost. I’m willing to be a rock of offense for God.
Let me have it below! Your comments may help me or others.
Inre those pushing back against your message:
I’ve found myself pondering something of late. Is perhaps one reason for the ferocious resistance against what Scripture has to say to women on this subject due to the fact that they believe that not only God, but all of the prophets and apostles who were God’s scribes, were, as men, flawed and weak and thus need “fixing?”
No, I’m not being facetious here. The psychological hard wiring of the woman leads her to see the male in general as a creature needing to be reformed in order to conform to the feminine imperative – unless, that is, he’s Chad Thundercock, in which case she can’t submit to him fast, hard, and completely enough.
This drive to “fix” “weak/broken” men is largely a subconscious force that requires either conscious (and conscientious) effort on women’s part to rein in and overcome (rare), or exertion of extra anger, coercion, or manipulation on their part to compel the male to bend to their will, especially if he’s not the alpha in whose hands the woman is putty to be molded to his will.
In this case, the implication is that for most women, no matter what they SAY to the contrary (if only once a week on Sunday morning), God, His Son, the prophets, and the apostles aren’t “Chad enough” for them, and therefore are vile misogynists who cannot DARE demand that they submit themselves completely to the will of their earthly husbands and fathers, to say nothing of God The Father and the Lord Jesus. That just can’t happen, because it doesn’t give m’lady the feelgoodz or the tingles. Ergo, they’re just gonna hafta show God, His Son, the prophets, and the apostles who is REALLY in charge and how the world is REALLY run!
Sharkly,
Bitter and resentful? That seemed more provocative than something coming from love or honesty. Maybe you are, I only get a feel for bitterness in first person encounters, too much lost on the web. And what’s the difference between bitterness and godly lamentation? Lot was vexed about what he saw in Sodom, and Jeremiah recalled his bitterness and his gall. Bitterness and resentful is a worldly phrase, or that is how I see it used most often, especially by churchians who are being pierced for their blue pill teachings.
feeriker,
Isaiah 53:6a All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;
I think women are led away from God’s ways by their emotion, hindbrain, passions, or whatever you want to call it. Trying to come up with an exact scientific theory of their rebellion, kind of assumes that they are rational beings and behave according to discernable patterns. I don’t think it is that methodically predictable. However the Bible gives us direction.
Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
most women are not going to find God’s way and follow it, because it is both restrictive and difficult. Their natural inclination will be to follow the big crowd down the easy boulevard to hell. I’m sure part of what makes it difficult is that The Christian life goes completely against our fallen nature. Self denial, mercy, meekness, humility, patience, all are unpleasant and unappealing compared to just getting what you want immediately.
Chad is what women want immediately, but even Chad is walking upon a precipice. A moment of weakness, a crack in the armor, a failure to measure up in some regard, and Chad has lost some of her respect that is hard to regain, even for Chad with all his “game” and charisma and natural advantage. Chad is no longer her fantasy, Chad just got real, and he is now human, and she has seen his flaw. The church has done us all a huge disfavor by teaching women entitlement to perfection, as “daughters of the King”(princesses), when they should have been teaching them contentment with whatever is their lot in life that God has given them.
I have heard Feminists bitch that the Bible was all written by men. LOL The Bible is from God! And he used men to write it, because He didn’t want to be corrected.
Swanny River,
At some basic level it matters most what you do, and least why you do it. At the end of it all, if everybody in the world always did the right thing, but for the wrong reasons, we’d be living in paradise. And if they always did the wrong thing with the best of intentions, we’d be living through hell on earth.
When a person leaves off questioning what you are doing, and starts questioning your motives, you can usually safely ignore them, knowing you’re probably doing right by them, if they’re reduced to just questioning your motives. Charles Spurgeon spoke of “adversaries who will misrepresent our best deeds, and impugn our motives where they cannot censure our actions“.
We have also muddied the definition of love; from, doing what is best for others, to, flattery(a sin) and arousing their sex organs.
Yes, I was angry and disappointed that my mother was never accepting of me. Yes, I am angry and disappointed that my wife also has chosen to devalue me. But people shouldn’t assume that my beliefs about women were formed by just two people. Or that I have found things in the Bible because I’m angry. My anger didn’t put 1 Corinthians 11:7 into the Bible. That was in there back when I was blue-pill and ignoring it. Back when I was blue-pilled I believed unquestioningly that women were in the image of God, even though the Bible never ever says that. I was angry then too, but I was angry at myself, for apparently being born wrong, so toxically male that nobody could see my worth or any glory in me, and no matter how hard I tried to please men and women, only the men treated me with respect, while the women had a mixed array of responses, but they all seemed to be reticent to give much respect to a man. Because if they did respect a man, he might fall madly in love with them, and apparently they believe that God created women to kick men to the curb, because it is good for the man to be alone. Yeah, perhaps through the evil of women, the blinders came off. I began to see that the whole world was gaslighting me! I was a man created in the image of the Highest! You may look at me and see the reflection of God. My worth is not set by mere fellow creatures, but I am a vessel of mercy created that He might make known the riches of His glory. When I realized who I was because of Christ my Creator, it instantly became clear that women had become almost entirely a usurping bunch of cunts. Stank Hos falsely claiming God’s image for themselves like yet another great fit of unresolved penis envy! And all but a remnant of Christendom had gone after them in this satanic Feminist false teaching. And were in fact cursing men, which are made after the similitude of God.(James 3:9) Anyhow, My name is Sharkly, and I’m a recovering churchian. Hopefully I’ll continue to remember to laugh off women’s shit tests and tout my inalienable superiority of creation until I meet my masculine Maker. I can’t wait to see the resemblance! To see the fountainhead from which flows the glory of God to mankind.(not womankind) I’d write more about God’s blessing upon men, but since I’m going to be God’s image and glory again tomorrow, I’d better get my beauty rest.
The Church isn’t supposed to even have an Overton window. It’s written down for us, either as Scripture or Traditions. Accepting gay behavior, for example, can only happen with a strong dose of cognitive dissonance.
Which can make for a lot of fun. The next time Pastor Joe asks for your newcomer’s opinion, tell him the women aren’t wearing head coverings. When he complains that that’s not the current style blah blah blah you smile and nod and say, “but it IS in the Bible, yes? As a command? Sola Scriptura?”
He’ll weasel out if he’s got any experience at debate but ya gotta live for those uncomfortable moments. This one church I visited with family at Christmastime, they were collecting presents for the children of a womens’ shelter that the church supported. No male shelters, of course, and I did a double-take that toy guns and GI Joe-style action figures were not wanted. So, at the service’s end I took the altar call for prayer and asked to pray for all the men the church wasn’t supporting that Christmas. Oh, that poor sod of a church elder!
Gunner Q,
The Church isn’t supposed to even have an Overton window.
For that to be true, their moral basis would have to be rigidly fixed, probably even written down somewhere. ????
The next time Pastor Joe asks for your newcomer’s opinion, tell him the women aren’t wearing head coverings. When he complains that that’s not the current style blah blah blah …
I love, Love, LOVE it when they go down the whole “that was a relic of an ancient culture” road. That’s when you point out that almost EVERYTHING in the Bible is “a relic of an ancient, dead culture,” so it therefore can’t possibly be relevant to today’s world, meaning that it’s time to just throw out the whole Bible, right?
“…meaning that it’s time to just throw out the whole Bible, right?”
Well… that’s what they did. I remember churches having shelves of spare Bibles handy in case you didn’t bring your own. Now they just project the relevant verses onto a screen and I can’t fact-check them if I didn’t bring my own.
Pictures of women on the internet. Do you mean porn?
Welcome Ann,
LOL Yes, the sort of images that appeal to men. I’m not a fan of chick-porn such as “romance” novels or RomCom movies.
Sadly, while my wife was in the same house with me if I wanted to see a naked woman, I either had to pick the lock on the bathroom door or turn to the internet, and I felt the latter option was far less insulting to me, than going in and getting my fleshly needs refused and enduring a screaming bitch fit.
Because of her intimacy anorexia she would constantly intentionally create distance. I felt the pornography was a far better alternative to actual adultery.
1 Corinthians 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
So by denying her husband what she had vowed, my wife intentionally committed sexual immorality against the commands of God and placed me into temptation. I went to many pastors to try to get this fixed but most of them were entirely worthless and usually only encouraged my wife to be even more unfaithful to her vows. There has never been a moment when I would prefer porn to having my wife, for “the natural use of the woman”. But, thanks to sins caused by satanic Feminism, her evil intimacy anorexia, and idolatrous churchians who worship women as goddesses and refuse to hold them to any expectations, I am put in a spot where I get scorned no matter what I do. LOL At this point I’m no longer ashamed to say that porn was there for me when my wife and the churches were serving Satan by cuckolding me, their Christian brother.
I’m planning to do an upcoming post on “the natural use of the woman”. It ain’t likely what you were taught in Sunday School! (Romans 1:25-27)
I am sorry things went poorly between you and your wife. That is always a sad state. I definitely believe the conjugal union between husband and wife is both beautiful and sacred.
With that said, I am curious about your thoughts on sexual intimacy in general. Is fidelity in marriage important? Is fornication permissible?
Do the ends justify the means? Is pornography morally neutral or is it grievously immoral? Have you heard of Matt Fradd? If you have the time to read a book (I know that is a lot to suggest), but this might be of interest to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lgTp2w9JZI
Ann Hess,
With that said, I am curious about your thoughts on sexual intimacy in general.
Generally I’m all for sexual intimacy within marriage, and opposed to it outside of marriage. I believe it forms a bond or union, and it was intended to be a bonding activity in addition to meeting other needs, desires, and functions. I am in no way Roman Catholic.(they martyred some of my Mennonite forefathers for their faith)(I’m not Mennonite by affiliation, and only half Mennonite by blood) I think that sex is sanctified by marriage itself, and therefore the Old Testament command of God to procreate, is not a necessary part of sanctifying marital sex. The ancient stoics felt that all sex was defiling for a man, because it involved a fleshly uniting with a woman, and Etc., and some stoic-influenced early church fathers latched onto that concept, thinking that even sex within marriage was evil, except that it must be permissible if God had actually even commanded it for reasons of procreation, so they begrudged that then and only then, might it be anything but evil. But it was wrong for them to accept the stoic assumption that all sex was bad to begin with. He(God) hath made all things well. He designed the man and woman for sex, and for it to be pleasurable, and for it to be sanctified by marriage and excluded outside of marriage. These further forbiddances are mostly uninspired overreach.(likely all too easily conjured by a celibate clergy) I’m not sure if that answered anything, but your question was general.
Is fidelity in marriage important?
Yes, Without fidelity marriage is just a broken covenant. Long before I ever dated and got married I prayed and begged that the Lord should take my life rather than I should ever become an adulterer. I fear Him.
Is fornication permissible?
Short answer: No. It is a grave sin and has lasting consequences. Some might consider it a way of entering into marriage, if both parties agree to be married and they consummate the agreement, Presto! they are married, but then it would not be considered fornication, just a self-officiated wedding. God joins them together through sex, the church cannot join people in holy matrimony, only God can, although the church may be empowered by the state to pass out legal marriage licenses. Church weddings only started in the middle ages as the church extended political control over which royal unions they would forbid or bless. After the royalty got church weddings, then the rich wanted them. Now every girl wants the pageantry to celebrate her achievement of securing a husband.
Do the ends justify the means?
I’m not sure what you are asking on some of these questions, but generally speaking, not usually in a moral sense.
Is pornography morally neutral or is it grievously immoral?
Right now I’d have to say I’m unsure and wouldn’t want to be too dogmatic. My conscience, reason, and sense of justice, tell me that it can’t be too great of a sin. It apparently didn’t merit a more specific treatment in the Bible than the passages that people will construe against it. Over at Biblical Gender Roles, and a few other places, folks have made the case that it is possibly morally neutral, if it does not cross certain lines, and I have read their reasonings and see their points, but I certainly doubt it is a positive for many people, and it is a negative for many, so I’m still kind of wary of encouraging anybody to use pornography by claiming it isn’t harmful in some known or unknown way. I do however clearly see it as a preferable alternative to adultery or fornication. Jesus said the adultery was “already in your heart” when you lust. He wasn’t saying that lust is equal to adultery, which was a capital offense. And some folks like B.G.R. assert that “Biblical lust” is not simply an appreciation of a person’s attractiveness, but the active planning of taking that which is not yours. Jesus disciples did not actually pluck out their eyes after the sermon on the mount, so I believe those extensions of the law that Jesus gave were mainly to prove to Pharisees and their followers that no mortal could be holy enough to fulfill the law, but that we would all need to repent and have our sins atoned for. Which was done by His perfect sacrifice on our behalf. If somebody wants to assert that pornography is wrong, I won’t argue with them, but if they want to blow up their marriage and their children’s home up over it, or use it to justify an affair, like in “Fireproof”, that is just stupid and wrong. It is like getting divorced and ejecting your children’s other parent because your mate said they’d give up smoking, and then they admitted they had a smoke while playing cards with their friends. Even if somebody does classify viewing nudie pictures or “naked” statues as “lust”, that isn’t the same as sexual immorality. And you can lust in your mind without pornography. Because the lust is already there in all of us, as part of our fleshly nature. I think three of the great sins of our time are actual fornication and adultery outside of a marriage and sexual withholding inside of marriage. In my opinion a hypocritical former fornicator that commits the sexual immorality of withholding from their mate their avowed marital duty and then takes their mate through divorce court because they eventually resorted to pornography, should be subject to church discipline, not cheered on by a church of spiritual-retards.
Have you heard of Matt Fradd?
Nope. But Google tells me he is a catholic, so that might be why I haven’t.(I watched your link)
“But I intend to do far more. I’d actually love to see my plan followed and patriarchy restored.”
Well then so be it. Seeings how you’re in the image of God. :O)
I’ll tell you the same thing I told Dalrock a dozen years ago, when he started his blog. The only way you can lose this fight is by not fighting. God doesn’t need a plurality to effect what He wishes in this world. Actually he prefers to work with individuals, and with tiny minorities (by which albino dwarves is not meant). Just in case you thought I meant albino dwarves.
The Kingdom of the Father (it doesn’t get any more patriarchal than that) already is guaranteed by Malachi 4. All we’re doing now is making the offering, leaving the decision, to this planet. They can accept the Easy Reset (fathers and children re-united, i.e., patriarchy. Or they can have the Hard Reset (Christ sees our offering rejected, the planet gets the back of His mouth, then we get what we want anyway).
The Kingdom is coming to Earth, and it is very close. It ain’t a vote. All we’re doing now is dividing Father’s folk from not, and giving everybody an option. But the result is not in question.
Thanks ray,
I appreciate your encouragement. I read Malachi again, and it is good. I think I’ll use some of it in an upcoming post.
One man with courage makes a majority. ~Andrew Jackson
King Jeshua taught the world about both fatherhood and Father. The relationship between dad and son is at the heart of all his teachings and interests. Remember that Scripture only defines the antichrist-spirit once — as those who ‘deny the father and the son’. This means denial of Father and Son as core of Godhood, and also denial of, and interference with, the relationship between dad and son in the earthly nations.
Thus, to take just one example, the courts and judicial system of the United States are antichrist in both spirit and action.
The LORD was very careful to end the Old Testament with an offering — and a warning — to the nations extant just prior to His Parousia. He took all the information and wisdom in the OT, and summarized it in Malachi 4. He makes it crystal clear that He will base His treatment of Earth and the nations principally on this matter of the dad-led nuclear family. If it is essentially intact when He arrives, then His hand will be light upon that nation.
If — as is presently the case — the Western nations are ruled by feminism, the mother is the primary and controlling entity in the family, and fatherhood is degraded and made a prey, then He is gonna smash this orb like the rotten pumpkin it is. Because of the father-son thing.
Therefore ALL Christians have two major charges in these hours prior to His return:
1) to encourage and facilitate fatherhood generally, and father-primary family in particular; part of this involves making war on the anti-christ spirit, which chiefly is weaponized through feminism;
2) to make war on satan and his angels with intent of restricting their power/influence, until they are brought-down to terrestrial level, where they can be rounded-up and bound, even if temporarily; Revelation 12:11 lists, post-facto, the weapons that accomplish/accomplished satan’s overthrow
Apparently about seventy percent of Americans identify as Christian. How many of them — including famous pastors and ‘leaders’ — are about the business of either 1) or 2)?
When I am here, I want to know the same thing the King wants to know: who is about my Father’s business?
The remnant is small, very small. Christians are immersed in the world, or are awaiting harpazo, expecting to be rescued. But why would King Jeshua bring them up to Himself, if they’re not already about Father’s business? So He will have to train/correct them again in heaven? Uh uh.
Great insight ray,
I’d gladly host a post of yours here if you’d like to write one for us. At the moment I’m a bit too bogged down with the necessities of life to create many of the posts I want to share, but I’d like to keep the fellowship going on here, until I am more freed up. It would be helpful if you or somebody else would submit a post, via the comments page, for me to just paste up for the benefit of all.