Patriarchy, meaning “father rule”, is the natural and ideal state of God the Father’s created world.
Yet Feminists and similar fools are prone to pridefully thinking that they can improve on the ways of God. Feminists smear all men, their fathers, brothers, and sons, as being unfit to preside over anything, from governments right down to families. Female Feminists and their male pushover accomplices instead try to get men to hearken unto the voices of women, to be led by them, clearly ignorant of the fact that hearkening to a woman, instead of his Father, was the crux of Adam’s original sin.
Genesis 3:17 Also to Adam he said, Because thou hast obeyed the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, (whereof I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it) cursed is the earth for thy sake: in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
Yet silly women still presume themselves fit to rule, and silly men still seek to obey women. However, God teaches us that it is fitting that men should rule.
Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as it is fitting in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
But Feminist fools destructively fight against God’s perfect plan and keep trying to sully men’s divine credentials for leadership over women and children. The silly airheads seem to think that by tarnishing men’s reputations they will be uplifted.
Sirach 3:10 Do not glorify yourself by your father’s dishonor, for your father’s dishonor is no glory to you. 11 The honor of one’s father is one’s own glory, and a mother dishonored is a disgrace to her children.
A popular phrase says: “A rising tide lifts all boats”. So accordingly, a lowering tide lowers all boats. When satanic Feminism sets out to sully and demote men from their patriarchal role as rulers, they not only drag men down into the muck, but they also degrade everybody else along with the men, who nonetheless, remain anointed by God to rule over all women. Feminist women curse at men, who bear God’s image and glory, but by doing so they also debase their own sex and prove their inferior role to be divinely fitting by their clearly inferior behavior accompanied with their vain conceit.
Psalm 2:3 They say, ‘We will not accept their authority over us! We will get free from their power!’ 4 The Lord who sits on his throne in heaven laughs at them. He says that their plans are useless.
——————————————————————————————————————
“The manosphere is dead”, the trolls say . “People hate you and ridicule you and say all manner of things against you”, they say . “You’re losing! You’ll never be able to turn the tide”, they say. Their catastrophism makes me laugh. Some of our naysayers had formerly been trying to ignore us.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
I believe those two quotes basically describe the same pattern for ideological change:
1) firstly, they ignore you, and try to keep your message from gaining the notice of other truth-seekers.
2) secondly, they mock you and denigrate the truth as being unpopular, laughable, or wrongheaded.
3) thirdly, they engage in fighting against you and the truth, which you promote, as best they are able.
4) fourthly, they accept the new knowledge, claiming they had always sensed it was true.
Often these steps overlap and our detractors my hop back and forth from one steppingstone to another, but despite the erratic nature of their opposition, their path to conversion is a progression. The middle region (steps 2 &3) is quite fluid and slippery but at both ends it is easier to see the incremental progression. Once they quit ignoring our impact, and respond to it, it is hard for the trolls to return and stay hiding behind their shroud of ignorance. And once they finally accept some part of the truth it is hard for them to relish mocking or opposing that part which they then realize to be true.
One should not forget that like sheep, most people are herd followers and not mavericks or leaders. At first those who head into the new ideological territory will only be the boldest and those motivated by a severely compelling reason to leave their previous beliefs behind. The mass of herd followers will want to stick right where the ideological majority are, it is comforting for them to be in the largest group. But they will see that some have gone over to the other side. They will notice every additional one that drifts over towards those who first left their group. Soon there may be a trickle of migration across the ideological divide. And perhaps at some point the thronging ones will sense that their flock is gradually moving over to the new area, and then, not wanting to get left behind, like a school of fish, those who once refused to see the truth may almost in unison all bum rush together over to be where the more courageous thought-leaders currently have stationed themselves.
I can’t predict the future, but that is how ideological transitions can take place. 1% then 2% then 4% then 10% then suddenly 80% and after that the remaining holdouts begrudgingly straggle over to rejoin the herd.
In my estimation the manosphere has gone from being ignored, to being ridiculed, and now there are even some folks taking aim at us and fighting us. Don’t be surprised when we become public enemy number one. The US government is running out of White Supremacist groups to demonize, to the extent where the government is now forming their own White Supremacist groups and staging their own White Supremacy rallies. The public will eventually catch onto that, and the powers that be will need a new boogeyman. Currently our media is demonizing male chauvinist Andrew Tate in ways that they never smeared child-rape pimp Jeffrey Epstein. Our legacy media will gladly carry water for pedophiles, but they’re not going to take kindly to folks working to restore God’s holy patriarchy.
Today the ideological battle is between the imagined sexual equality of Feminism and the natural male superiority which morally justifies the all-male rule of God’s holy order of patriarchy. Without a societal belief in male superiority, you’re left trying to push male headship as a divine fiat requested by an unjustifiably sexist God. Whereas if men are acknowledged to be the better half, then it only makes sense that a loving and righteous God would fittingly choose the better half to be placed in control of leading the weaker vessels, in the best interest of everyone involved.
A few male chauvinists are doing more to rebuild the foundation of God’s holy order of patriarchy, than all the woman-obeying pastors, on whose watch our society daily plumbs new depths of moral depravity. Keep boldly proclaiming the truth. We’re making progress, as every day more men in our society are starting to see that women aren’t goddesses, as they were taught, and that those weaker vessels should not be empowered to lead us.
6 of the 8 IVY League schools are led by women. How’s that working out these days.
I’ve never been all that invested in the manosphere/red pill culture beyond asking “Does it work? Is it practical?” of its tenets. The answer was yes in some very important cases for my life, which is why I hang around in the peanut gallery.
That said, I’ve been getting Tea Party vibes off of it recently. Lots co-opting, lots of grifting, and lots of folks who don’t know anything about it spouting off about how it’s something it isn’t (or at least, wasn’t).
To the extent that it’s organized, it’s infiltrated. But the truths it pointed to are still true, regardless.
Patriarchy was never, ever perfect. Fathers were looking for the best deal for their daughters that would benefit not only the daughter but the Father too. But fathers were much more equipped by their own masculinity to recognize good husband material for their daughters and there were structures in place to protect their daughter, IF she would let him, from male wolves looking for female sheep. Certainly women were better protected in general when fathers still had input on whom their daughter would marry.
Yes, I might have to explain that I’m not like the worshippers of Marxism, who believe that if we can just try Marxism here, and according to their design, that sin and corruption will cease, and a marvelous utopia will descend from heaven to earth. Firstly, heaven isn’t Marxist. LOL Marxism’s main flaw is their complete and willful ignorance of people’s sinful natures.
I only maintain that patriarchy is God’s design and God’s desire for us. Patriarchy is natural, and patriarchy is God’s ideal governmental system for families. People are sinful and people will still abuse each other. But it is better to allow fathers the freedom and the authority to rule over their dependents than to delegate a father’s rightful rule to unaccountable minions of the government or to permit satanic lawlessness or satanic Feminism or satanic matriarchy.
Patriarchy has been tried. Variations of patriarchy have been the norm for most all recorded history, because it is both natural, and because it functions better than anything else that has ever been tried. I reckon matriarchal immorality was probably far more prevalent among the illiterates living animalistic lives who left no written record of their conflict-ridden matriarchal squalor. See J.D. Unwin’s book “Sex and Culture”.
Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and six known civilizations through 5,000 years of history. He claimed there was a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe. Basically, patriarchal societies where men enforced strict sexual control over their women, were ascendant. But after women gained influence and demanded their sexual liberty, things then reverted to barbarism.
Unwin stated “In the past, too, the greatest energy has been displayed only by those societies which have reduced their sexual opportunity to a minimum by the adoption of absolute monogamy. In every case the women and children were reduced to the level of legal nonentities, sometimes also to the level of chattels, always to the level of mere appendages of the male estate. Eventually they were freed from their disadvantages, but at the same time the sexual opportunity of the society was extended. Sexual desires could then be satisfied in a direct or perverted manner… So the energy of the society decreased, and then disappeared.”
The natural inclination of female leadership has remained the same since Eve first led man into rebellion against God, and to our deaths. Women’s natural instinct can be encapsulated in the popular phrase, “fuck around and find out.” Society can only approach righteousness when men are fully empowered to give women the painful consequences necessary to curb their innate sinful and rebellious natures.
I believe that when J. D. Unwin tells of women gaining “sexual opportunity” and then says, “So the energy of the society decreased, and then disappeared.”, Unwin was referring to men “going Galt”, or checking out, or “lying flat” – 躺平, or MGTOW.
Thedeti has repeatedly expounded on the reasons why that naturally happens, when men are deprived of the opportunity to acquire unspoiled wives and heirs, for which opportunity, and for whose benefit, they might have been motivated to work more diligently.
A man does not need to become wealthy or prominent to please God.
Micah 6:8(NET) He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord really wants from you: He wants you to carry out justice, to love faithfulness, and to live obediently before your God.
————————————————————————————————–
Partiality, unfaithfulness, disobedience, and barefacedness are attributes of natural defilers.
I maintain that men are generally more impartial, loyal, conscientious, and have a less flattering more appropriate introspective metacognitive view of themselves, than women. For example: vain women will imagine themselves as being superior to men, when, if they had more sense, they would recognize men’s innate superiority and themselves as the weaker vessels. Due to her natural hypergamous nature, a woman’s contentment in marriage is dependent on her recognizing her husband as being superior to her. Teaching women to consider themselves to be their husband’s equals, effectively is inciting discontentment within them with whomever they are married to.
Women all want a man they can look up to, and you don’t look up to an equal. (TFM said that)
Predictions are a temptation for me to distract me from a biblical mind. The Bible probably doesn’t forbid them because that would be legalism, but I think there’s enough warnings about it being unwise in terms of end-days and of whether someone is saved that I try to stay away from investing myself in podcasts I listen to when the topic is predictions. “Come Lord Jesus” is my cry for the future.
I also think predictions are something different than an engineer running through and planning for scenarios. In fact, we use a different word to distinguish the similar concepts, “planning.”
It’s such a strong point you make when you point out how being an equal will be likely a source of discontent for women.
That reminds me, an aside, I had an avowed communist friend in college and he used that exact formulation you stated when I brought up all of its failures.
I don’t see how being the second sex is an insult to human dignity when women have the same opportunity as men to repent and worship the true God in His awesome glory.
Gentiles are grafted in as a wild branch to the tree of life compared with the Jews who were first chosen and given the Cloud and Pillar of Light, the Ark and the Law, but I don’t feel discontent that I’m not a Jewish-born Christian.
Like Derek says though, unless we accept his axioms, we can’t make sense of the unity/equal partnership model. Problem is that he has to use words like axioms and have such a terribly rigidly precise logical framework with which to communicate. I’m sure he explains his “axioms” somewhere in his thousands of precise words, but I don’t recall seeing them in plain language at SF.
I am ending this reply with him because he reminds me of a type of Marxist. Not that he espouses Marxism, but in his insistence of his impartiality and reasoning is the end-all, be-all. It leads him astray like commie being sure of the political superiority of communism.
That was a fine sermon.
‘In my estimation the manosphere has gone from being ignored, to being ridiculed, and now there are even some folks taking aim at us and fighting us. Don’t be surprised when we become public enemy number one.’
Already are. Anybody requiring proof, look back at DHS’ Disinformation Governance Board, which was led by Nina Jankowitz. Review what Nasty Nina had to say concerning America’s domestic enemies. It’s you, basically. Ain’t nobody else scaring them.
Without naming us, they were very plain and pointed about inferring the ‘manosphere’ was Domestic Enemy #1, and why shouldn’t it be? That is where the truth is being spoken, that is where the strong men reside. Do you see it anywhere else?
Sure, DHS ‘disbanded’ the DGB, but the board was about sending a message. It was also a beta-test to discern how big of a fit Americans would pitch upon hearing of Nina and the DGB. Turned out to be considerable, but the heart of dissent was the ‘manosphere’.
I have to repeat Seneca’s post because I like it so much.
“6 out of 8 Ivy league presidents are women.”
So, if that’s not a bad thing, then why aren’t we celebrating it? Why isn’t that more widely known? Why weren’t they the person of the year?
More importantly, why can’t pastors talk about it, in order to pastor the sheep? Certainly if it’s biblically okay we should be instructed and celebrate their achievements, right? Especially those churches in college towns.
Sharkly,
Slightly off-topic. Have you made somewhere a post about John Chrysostom views about “mutual submission” views and how they compare to other fathers? If not, do you plan on making such one?
No, I have not made any post about John Chrysostom and his views. I don’t believe any of the church fathers were ever infallible. The apostle Paul even had to correct the apostle Peter. Case in point: Catholicism’s supposedly infallible Pope (purported to be Peter’s successor) was proverbially bowed down kissing his Sodomite buddies’ butts today, for all the world to see, as he formally approved letting Catholic priests bless same-sex couples.
Anyhow, of the later patristic era church father’s whose materials I have read, John Chrysostom’s writings seems to be the most Feminist for that time period. Nobody that I’m aware of was that Feminist prior to him. However, his written views don’t seem to be consistent from one document to the next, as if his views were either evolving and changing, or else his views were differently tailored to the different intended audiences of his writings. In some writings he seems to try to appear to be tough on women, while in other writings he seems to be blowing sunshine up their skirts.
I mainly read the early church fathers looking for ideas and quotes that I can use and be enlightened by. I have no intention of posting just about them, my intent is to share the truth, and I mainly cite the early church father’s writings to show that the present Feminist beliefs of our churches, are in no way the original beliefs that were held by the apostolic and early patristic churches. But, they also had their own societal influences that they were unfaithfully catering to even back then.
Some folks on the internet like to quote John Chrysostom’s most Feminist comments, while disregarding the bulk of his writing wherein he is not as Feminist as they are.
But I see John Chrysostom as one of the ones who really helped to first usher in many of today’s Feminized church beliefs. So, he is actually one of my least favorite 4th-5th century church misleaders.
Merry Christmas,
Here is a gift for Sharkly, and it’s on topic for this blog even though it’s a Christmas sermon.
https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/thru-the-bible-sunday-sermon/player/?type=branded#now-playing
Hat tip to Σ Frame for posting a link to the following video: (the first quarter is the best part)
NGO’s are being granted our tax dollars to demonize the manosphere, the red pill, and incels, and to redirect men searching for truth back onto the mainstream Feminist plantation.
The part of the sermon I linked to that discusses Genesis 3 and I Corinthians 11 and image and glory is from the 20 minutes mark to the 40 minutes mark.
If you listen to it, please share your thoughts.
‘I reckon matriarchal immorality was probably far more prevalent among the illiterates living animalistic lives who left no written record of their conflict-ridden matriarchal squalor.’
Exactly, no written evidence and little ‘hard’ evidence, aside from ubiquitous mother-goddess carved icons. Which seems plenty suggestive to me.
And that’s why the archaeologists deny the existence of pre-patriarchal cultures and groups. Archies demand fossil evidence, their be-all and end-all. But bones don’t show you culture.
Extensive artifact evidence (e.g., Catal Huyuk) and studying J.J. Bachofen, James Frazer, and others makes clear that such a matriarchal period did exist, and the modern West is a regression to that state . . . not the creation of something novel or new. Not a liberation but a re-enchainment. They wants they mommy.
When Scripture describes the Hebrew Tribes constantly striving and grasping back towards a pagan, pan-sexual, female-centered culture, it describes that very urge in humanity to return to the totalitarian, matri-focal womb-condition of yore. The powers and principalities know these things, and use that knowledge against you.