Consequences

Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the gate:
“To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers
And the temples of his gods,
“And for the tender mother
Who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses
His baby at her breast,

Horatius at the Bridge” by Thomas Babington, Lord Macaulay.

While the words are stirring and many fantasize about going out “in a blaze of glory”, life rarely works out like that.  Ignominious death tends to be the order of the day.   In the poem, the bridge had to be torn down and someone had to buy time for that work to be done.  Enter Horatius into the annals of history.  Everyone gets that and occasionally someone has to hold off the enemy while the bridge is torn down in order to save the town.  But what happens when it becomes obvious that it’s time to burn it all to the ground?   While destroying a bridge in order to keep the invading army out of the town is one thing, what happens when the problem is the town itself?  As was once allegedly said in Vietnam:

It was necessary to destroy the town in order to save the town.

There Are Always Consequences

Hubris is an amazing thing.  We begin with some powerful men who decided their industrial nation needed a suitable workforce that would maintain it’s place in the grand order of things.  The goal was a vast multitude of drones who would toil away in their factories doing mind-numbing repetitive work without complaint.    Strikes were a major fear of the owners, the idea that their workers would rise up and demand more.  Even more of a fear was the great boogie-man of overproduction.  It’s not difficult to slow down or even shut down a factory in order to adjust to demand, but how does one shut down millions of people who are producing independently in their own homes?

The idea was if men were intellectually dumbed down and properly “socialized” they would be easier to control and happier as individuals.  They would be socialized and standardized as compliant consumers, not independent producers.  They could easily be distracted by entertainment and encouraged to conform to the thought leaders.  They would follow the party line and even if they couldn’t, they’d find another party and hold to their socialization and conditioning.

John Taylor Gatto, an award-winning teacher in the New York City public schools for almost 30 years, detailed the history of the plan to dumb down the population in his magnum opus, The Underground History Of American Education.   The book was available for free on Gatto’s website for years and a PDF copy can be found online in lots of places.  In fact, given how freely The Underground History is available, you’re an idiot if you don’t get a copy and read it.  Seriously, no review can do justice to that book.  Anyone who has grown up in the Western World needs to read it in order to understand what was done to them by the school system.

The grand plan was gradually implemented and the population was dumbed down over a period of some fifty years.   In a later collection of essays titled “Weapons Of Mass Instruction” Gatto further hammered home the point that the modern school system was designed  not just to manipulate and change behavior, but to harm the intellectual development of children.  Especially boys.   The primary goal of the system is to produce standardized consumers, not individual producers.

The designers of this system were uniformly men and they created it for the purpose of controlling the population.  They admitted as much and they wrote about their goals (repeatedly, at length) in no uncertain terms.  It was a long, slow fight to take control, but eventually it was done.  But there are always unintended consequences.  By the early 1970s the system was finally in place…  just in time to instruct all those young women going through college getting degrees in education.  Because women were entering the workforce in droves.  Naturally, one of the first work-spaces flooded by women was the public school system.

 

Women At Work

Several hundred years ago a secretary in a business enterprise was invariably male.  The question might be posed, why did this traditionally male job become female?  The reason is the nature of the information a secretary is exposed to.   All too frequently a male secretary, after learning all he could about the business that employed him, went into business on his own to compete with his former employer.  That was a problem that had to be solved.  Women are far more submissive to authority and far less ambitious.   They are willing to work for less pay as well.  And, there are other benefits of having female secretaries, as attested to by the presence of a couch in any executive offices.

Schoolteachers, however, are not secretaries.  They tend to function as unsupervised or mostly unsupervised managers of their own classroom, responsible for teaching their students.  While a secretary is (as a rule) directly supervised and managed, schoolteachers are rather independent in comparison.   And while there are innumerable examples in the media of one-room schoolhouses being run by a woman, the truth is it was mostly a job held by a man.   Yes, there were many women who were schoolteachers, but they tended to get married and leave teaching to have children.  Men tended not to be teachers for long either because their ambitions led them elsewhere, but schoolteachers were traditionally men.

One of the principle aims of the new system was to consolidate the schools and segregate the children first by age, then by class.  Standardization was the key and docile workers were needed for the great industrial economy.  This began with industrialized schools.   At the critical elementary levels, women were preferred over men for the same reason women were preferred as secretaries.  Because women are willing to take less pay and principally because many women wanted to only work part-time, the pay scale for teachers stagnated to the point of decline.  Male teachers began to seek employment opportunities elsewhere.   While the management was uniformly men (Principal and Vice-Principal), the institutional schools became more feminine.

 

The Tipping Point

Did those men have any idea that this would happen?   Through control of the schools, feminist ideology gained control of the next generations and in addition to dumbing down the children, especially the boys, schools became “beta factories” that destroyed masculine dominance and confidence in boys, shaping and “socializing” them into more feminine and docile creatures.

The vast majority of the population has no idea how the school system operates and what its real objectives are.  I’ve recommended Gatto’s “Underground History” book for years and I always know when someone actually reads it.  Anger is the predictable response.  They get angry when they learn what was done to them.  Interestingly, the other response is complete rejection.   A family member (who was at that time a high-school math teacher) read half of it and stopped.  He told me Gatto was “obviously crazy” and the book was “complete nonsense” and he refused to read any more of it.  That was over 20 years ago and he’s gradually changing his mind on this, but it was interesting.  The facts are irrefutable, but the idea his chosen profession was actually injuring children was too much for him to bear so he rejected the facts in favor of his feelings.

While many point to the “feminized” classrooms and their influence on the development of boys, they don’t understand the nature of what they are seeing.   The compulsory school system was focused on the destruction of individuality and intellect; the destruction of masculinity was simply a byproduct of that.

 

They Got What They Asked For

The primary consequence of putting women in charge of anything is masculine men will flee from a female dominated space.  Being creatures of the herd, women are particularly susceptible to group-think in which a few dominant individuals steer them in any given direction.  This has been consistently true in terms of politics as well as with respect to feminism.

Men and women are not the same, they are not equal and they never will be because that is how God created mankind.  That is objective truth.  Yet, the central thesis of feminism is to deny that.  Any argument of equalism is an attack on men and it always has been.

It no longer matters.  The population was dumbed down and not capable of rationally dissecting the arguments of feminism, or of rhetorically destroying it in the marketplace of ideas.  Because women are more than 50% of the electorate, easily swayed by emotions and powerfully influenced by the fear of being shamed, feminist ideals became both law and public policy.  This demanded the school system do a better job of “socializing” the boys with the express goal of destroying masculinity that threatened to dominate the “equal” girls.

A war on men developed that has reached the point that masculinity is now officially known as “toxic” and must be stamped out.  And yet, while women are attracted to strong, masculine, dominant men, the system they don’t understand is working hard to destroy the boys and prevent any masculine dominance from developing in young men.  The end result is women looking around and then asking “Where are all the men?”

Men have been dropping out in droves, sometimes in interesting ways.  A recent survey found that over 20% of the young men between the ages of 20 and 29 were not employed and had not held a job in over a year.  The survey specifically excluded students.  When asked why they were not employed, a common response was “what’s the point?”  Over 70% of men between the ages of 20 and 34 are currently unmarried.   Perhaps if asked why, their response might also be “what’s the point?”

 

Inmates Running The Asylum

An MIT professor, Langdon Winner, makes a disturbing point in his book Autonomous Technology, which echoes Neil Postman’s conclusions in his book Technopoly:  We’re screwed because a problem has been created for which there is no solution.    In the following citation from Autonomous Technology, Winner states:

Society is composed of persons who cannot design, build, repair, or even operate most of the devices upon which their lives depend … people are confronted with extraordinary events and functions that are literally unintelligible to them.  They are unable to give an adequate explanation of manmade phenomena in their immediate experience. They are unable to form a coherent, rational picture of the whole …  all persons do, and indeed must, accept a great number of things on faith … their way of understanding is basically religious, rather than scientific … The plight of members of the technological society can be compared to that of a newborn child … [but] Citizens of the modern age in this respect are less fortunate than children. They never escape fundamental bewilderment in the face of the complex world their senses report …

A question arises…  what happens when things break?  A better question is what happens when things break and the trained, qualified men are not there to fix things?  Can the average man get the job done?  No.

Having dumbed down and feminized the men, how does one recover from systemic failure?  With a system firmly cemented in place that will continue to inflict damage on each successive crop of children, how does the population escape from this?

The simple but sad answer is that it doesn’t.

Catherine Austin Fitts wrote a fascinating essay called “Narco Dollars For Beginners” that introduces one to the narco-dollar economy.  Once one understands the narco-dollar economic model we have today the incredible level of corruption becomes understandable.  How do we cure this problem?  To end the laundering of narcotics profits through the economy would take down everything.

Consider the question of what really caused the 2008 financial crash…  then consider that the real answer is the Mexican drug cartels pulled their money out of the system following the Wachovia Bank money laundering scandal.  $378 Billion was laundered through Wachovia between 2004 and 2007, according to the DEA.  When they dropped the hammer on their investigation they seized $110 million of “dirty money.”  The cartels said “OK, if you want to be like that, you won’t get our money” and they stopped laundering their money through US banks.  That dried up the liquidity in the system and caused the financial crash of 2008.   Did you hear about this?  No.

How many people were prosecuted for money laundering in an institutional operation that laundered $378 Billion dollars between 2004 and 2007?  Not a single person.  Wachovia bank was given a ridiculously small fine and after that was quickly acquired by Wells Fargo in the midst of the financial crisis of 2008.  Remember Jeffery Skilling and Enron?  What Enron did was completely insignificant compared to what Wachovia Bank did.  Assuming a 5% profit on laundering the drug money, Wachovia made a profit of $4.725 Billion dollars a year for a total of $18.9 Billion dollars for that four year period.  What was their fine? A paltry $160 Million dollars.

Did the media explain this?  Not really.  Not in the United States.  This NBC story implies Wachovia Bank only laundered a few hundred million.  However, when one looks at the foreign press, a much clearer picture of what happened emerges.  And not a single individual was prosecuted.  That’s a hell of a war on drugs, isn’t it?

Consider the question of what happened on 9/11.  I’ve written about it before and when considered in light of the evidence, certain conclusions are inevitable.  So, why did only one person consider the evidence, out of all those with the knowledge and training to ask the right questions?  Read Gatto’s books and understand the true purpose of the educational system.  Why did everyone ignore the critical evidence, the lack of rubble and debris, that was before their eyes the entire time?  The population has been dumbed down.

We have experts like Sir Ken Robinson, who talk about education and reveals that it’s been proven: the school system kills creativity.  It kills curiosity.  He’s not shooting from the hip, he has studies that prove it.  Yet, like every other person who calls for education reform, he seems to have no idea how the schools got the way they are.

 

Two Solutions

The school system we currently have is effectively unchangeable under our current political system.  Gatto has demonstrated this conclusively and his only solution is to flee from it and homeschool children.  Unfortunately, homeschooling children almost requires an intact family with both mother and father working together in the same home.  Yes, there are examples of so-called “single mothers” homeschooling their children and the famous example of Arthur Robinson homeschooling his children, but these are exceptions that practically prove the rule.

The ongoing destruction of families by the divorce industry demands an approved and blessed public school system that will warehouse the children who are invariable given to the mother in the aftermath of the divorce.  Homeschooling is out of the question.  The fractured economy that has seen real wages stagnant for over 30 years now practically requires both mother and father to work in order for the family to purchase all the things they don’t need and can’t afford.

There are no political solutions, as we understand political solutions… because what everyone forgets (or never learned) is that war is simply an extension of politics by another means.  There are a great many theories about how the US empire will end, but very few of them take into account the incredible frustration and anger that is building up among men.  Especially men who have been abused by the system.

At this point there are only two ways to change the system.  One requires an incredible, brutal, limited war on women for the purpose of terror.  It would require a battalion-strength force of highly motivated killers who were trained to operate as independent teams of 5-7 men each.  The goal would be simple: terrorize women into voluntarily removing themselves from the rolls of registered voters.  Could it be done?  Absolutely.  If it was done it would completely change the character of the United States.

It’s also true that the likelihood of such a group being recruited and trained by someone with the funding to do it is extremely low.  600 men, all killers?  Even if that could be accomplished, the odds of such an operation being mounted without being infiltrated and shut down by the US security apparatus (which is quite formidable) are extremely low.  Which means the odds of this happening are approaching zero.  Should we believe in rainbow-farting unicorns as well?

The second way is if a platoon-sized group of men decided the system can’t be fixed and the best thing to do is burn it.  Burn it all to the ground and start over.  Which, of course, sounds preposterous.  How could a group of 30 men do that?  As it turns out, the infrastructure is rather fragile and it would not be difficult.

It is a fact that a platoon-sized group of motivated men could take down the power grid in the US and when that happens, it’s TEOTWAWKI.  Consider the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines that are suspended way up high with steel towers.  A little thermite applied in the right spots will drop those towers and cut the power.   Done correctly in a coordinated manner, the result is a rolling blackout.  Hydroelectric and nuclear power plants can be isolated from the rest of the grid.

With no power the supply chain breaks down quickly because fuel isn’t pumped and trucks stop rolling.  Which means the food on the shelves is all that’s available, and most stores are closed due to lack of power.  With no power the pumps don’t fill water towers.  How long does it take for the municipal water system to lose pressure?

With no food and no water the most well-armed civilian population on earth will go nuts.  What always happens in conjunction with looting?  Fires.  Which will draw down the municipal water supplies right when the pumps are not replacing it.  And all those guns?  They’ll be getting used.  Police will come under fire wherever they go.  Will power company crews work in a war zone?  Highly unlikely.  Will truck drivers take their loads into a cauldron of looting and killing- even if something manages to get the fuel flowing?  No.  Who will unload the trucks?

With no power and the population going nuts, where do the police get fuel?  Who feeds the police and their families?  With so many incidents happening all at once the standard swarming tactics will not work.  With police coming under fire just for showing their faces, how long will it be before they go home to protect their families?

Thirty men?  That can be done.  The system has generated more than enough men who have lost everything and are willing to cheerfully burn it all to the ground.  Given the fragility of the infrastructure and supply chain along with the ease of making thermite, that’s a death sentence for the US.

Which one will happen?  My vote is on #2 of the above scenarios.  There will be no spoiling action, there will be no plan to save the US, it will be an action by a few to burn it to the ground.

Is that pessimistic?  No, it’s reality.  There are always consequences.

 

Posted in Messages to a young man, Wars and rumors of wars | 23 Comments

Strategy For Men of the West: Polygyny

The Mission Of Man

The Lord God said to man, be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, take dominion over it.

That wasn’t a polite suggestion, it was a command.  We have an interesting explanation of that, when following His teaching to the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3-9, the disciples said to Jesus “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”  Jesus replied and said

“Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

Eunuchs are men who are not physically capable of engaging in the act of marriage and to them the commandment “be fruitful and multiply” does not apply because they do not have the capacity to obey that command.   The statement of the disciples that it was better not to marry is contradicted by the command to be fruitful and multiply.  Jesus told them the only acceptable reason for a man avoid marriage and fatherhood was to become a “eunuch” (celibate) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  And He was very careful to not make that a command, saying it was a statement only for those to whom it had been given.

In the early church there were some who believed that Christ was speaking literally in that passage and they castrated themselves.  Origen (later declared to be a heretic) comes to mind as the primary example, but he was not the only one.  There is now some argument as to whether Origen castrated himself, but there is no evidence to believe the testimony of men such as Eusebius was incorrect.

The Castration Of Origen

Jesus, responding to the statement by the Disciples that it was better not to marry, was reminding them of the obligation of the first command.  Unless a man is choosing to be like Paul and not take a wife for the sake of having more time and energy to preach the Gospel, a man is still required to obey the command of be fruitful and multiply.

 

Marriage

Some will think I’m beating a dead horse with this, but it’s important.  What is marriage?  How does it start?  What are the rules?  How do we know this?  Learn this and know it so you won’t be fooled.

Jesus cited Genesis 2:24 as the authority and definition of marriage.   In Matthew 19:3-9, the Pharisees came to Jesus and asked Him what the grounds for divorce were.  Their exact words were “can a man divorce his wife for any reason at all?”  but the thrust of the question was the grounds for divorce.

Divorce was a procedure instituted by Moses and the relevant text is Deuteronomy 24:1

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house [emphasis added]

The question the Pharisees were really asking was what “indecency” meant.  According to Moses, if a man found some “indecency” in his wife, before he thew her out of his house he had to give her a certificate of divorce and put it in her hand.  The certificate of divorce was her second witness that she was not married and thus not committing adultery.  Moses was responding to a situation in which men were discarding their wives, formalizing a situation that was already occurring.  Instead of commanding that the men stop kicking their wives out of the home, he commanded that they do it in such  way as to allow her to go on with life.

Note, however, that before one can divorce a woman one must first be married to her and Jesus quoted the authority on marriage for the Pharisees.  First He quoted from Genesis 5:2 saying:

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

Then Jesus continued, quoting Genesis 2:24 saying:

For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh

And having quoted the authority on marriage, Jesus gave His teaching on the original standard of marriage regarding divorce:

“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

In other words, the original standard contained no grounds for divorce.  That triggered the Pharisees and they demanded to know why Moses commanded them to give the woman a certificate of divorce and send her away.  Jesus responded and made His point, again:

“Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.” [emphasis added]

Notice that He said Moses “permitted” them to divorce their wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way.  The standard of marriage has existed from the beginning and it did not allow divorce.  Having made His point and completely reframed the issue, He finally answered the question of the Pharisees, which was what the meaning of the word “indecency” was (the grounds for divorce), in accordance to the permission Moses gave.  Jesus continued and said:

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

This is one of the most contentious passages in the New Testament and is one of the most misquoted, but it isn’t the subject of this post.  I covered it in depth here and less exhaustively in the last post.  Divorce was a rather contentious issue during the time of Jesus and there were two schools of thought.  The Rabbi Shammai and the Rabbi Hillel were leaders of the two opposing factions who had radically opposing views on the acceptable grounds for divorce.  According to Shammai a man could only divorce his wife for serious infractions.  Hillel, on the other hand, taught that a man could divorce his wife for any trivial reason such as burning his meals.

It was to address this contentious issue that Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 as the authority to define how a marriage is initiated before giving His teaching on divorce:  “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”  Notice that the Pharisees made no objection to Jesus citing Genesis 2:24 as the authority on marriage, nor did they argue with His teaching.  Not only did Jesus cite it as the authority for divorce but the Pharisees recognized it as such.

One of the critical insights Jesus provided was in verse 8, when He said

“Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.” [emphasis added]

All it takes is a brief glance at Genesis 2:24 to see that divorce was not mentioned.  Understand that Genesis 2:24 is God’s grant of authority to the man to marry, but that grant of authority to marry contained no authority to end the marriage once it had begun.  Likewise, there was no limit placed on the number of times a man may marry.  It is these two points, both unstated, that inform us of what the commitment standard of marriage was designed to be.  We know that because Jesus pointed it out for us.

  • The commitment of the man is permanent but non-exclusive.
  • The commitment of the woman is permanent and exclusive.

As to what Genesis 2:24 means, that has been covered repeatedly, most recently in Biblical Marriage.  That is how marriage is begun from God’s perspective.  There is, however, another perspective.  It was observed a very long time ago that controlling a person’s expression of sexuality is to control the person.  The church decided to use control of marriage to gain control of the nobility because marriage sat at the center of their multi-generational dynasties.   Control of marriage gives control of families.  Or, to put it another way:

When you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

 

Modern Marriage

Modern marriage is a legal partnership defined as a monogamous relationship, governed by a mostly unwritten marriage contract and controlled by statutory law which can be dissolved for any reason or even no reason at all.  The process of dissolving this marriage contract is called divorce and it converts the marriage contract to a divorce contract.   Under current statutory law, legal practice and various other rules, women are significantly advantaged in any divorce proceeding.  One of the best sources of real-world information about divorce and child custody is real-world divorce.  This resource contains a state-by-state breakdown of the way divorce, alimony and child support actually works in that state.  A must-read for every man.

NOTE:  Don’t let the differences between states fool you.  Louisiana, Arkansas and Arizona, for example, have a statutory “covenant marriage” on their books.  According to the law, under such a marriage the divorcing party typically has to attend marriage counseling and then must prove the other spouse cheated, is a felon, a drug user, or something like that.  Or, they have to live separately for a specified period of time.

Does it remove the no-fault divorce issue?  No.  All she has to do is move to another state, wait for the statutory period of time (often three to six months) to prove residency and file for a no-fault divorce under that state’s laws.  Back home, under the terms of the Covenant Marriage, hubby can do nothing.  Depending on the circumstances, choosing the correct state to file for divorce can make a tremendous difference in how much she receives from him.  And if he’s high-income, the rewards of jurisdiction shopping will be significant.

The basic facts of modern marriage are that currently there is about a 42% divorce rate.  Women still file about 70% of the divorces, but in the other 30% where the man files, a significant percentage of those divorces were caused by the wife manipulating her husband into filing for divorce.  As of 2014, government records indicate that 93% of the individuals collecting child support and alimony are women.  Which means that if the couple is in a state that does not award 50-50 custody as standard, 93% of the time the husband will not get primary custody of the children and he will be forced to pay child support.  With no fault divorce this process can be initiated at any time for any reason or no reason at all and there is no defense against it once the process is begun.

Note that I said “The process of dissolving this marriage contract is called divorce and it converts the marriage contract to a divorce contract.”  Getting a divorce does NOT end the marriage contract, it converts it into a divorce contract and allows the courts to force performance (almost always by the man) in accordance with its decisions for many, many years to come.

If there are children, the woman has the option of converting her “marriage provisioning model” into a “child-support provisioning model” at any time and there is nothing her husband can do to stop her.  He will be separated from his children and ordered by the court to pay a certain amount each month.  If he fails to do, the prosecutors office (consider the fact it is the prosecutors office handling this) can terminate his professional licenses, rescind his passport, drivers license, hunting, fishing and boating licenses and have him incarcerated for failure to pay what was ordered.

The woman sits back and the state takes care of this, utilizing their resources and the police power of the state to enforce the mandatory payments.  If the man becomes more successful in the future, the woman can petition the court to order an increase in the amount the man pays, but it is very rare that a court will reduce the amount a man has to pay.  In fact, courts sometimes “impute” a higher income than the man actually has, claiming he should be able to earn that amount, then calculate the required payments based on that “imputed” amount.

Again, read Real World Divorce in order to understand what Modern Marriage is all about.  In the following links, I’m pointing to Christian blogger Dalrock.  He does a masterful job of pointing to the problems and laying them out clearly.   He provides no solutions, but when it comes to explaining what the real world problems are, he is the best.

Child Support And The Threat Point.

The overriding assumption of both conservatives and feminists is that husbands must be held in check, and that wives need tools to threaten their husbands to keep them at bay.  Giving wives authority over their husbands is seen as not just good for the wife herself, but for the family and society as a whole.

The Child Support Catastrophe

When the facade of “Its for the children!” is stripped away, child support is all about removing fathers from the lives of their children.  If anyone has any doubt as to the true purpose of child support, they need only look at how it is enforced in practice.

IntraSexual Competition And The Strong Independent Woman

[With respect to]… women’s intrasexual competition, what matters most is proving investment by a worthy man.  In this sense the claim that “women are the gatekeepers of sex but men are the gatekeepers of commitment” is incomplete.  More accurately men are the gatekeepers of investment, a category which includes commitment.

 

Domestic Abuse as a Power Play:  Welcome to Duluth

In addition to the divorce issues, there is a “parallel track” of domestic abuse/violence litigation and prosecution that presumes the woman to be the victim, the man the perpetrator and generally requires the man to prove himself innocent.  This can be initiated at any time by dialing 911 and in most jurisdictions the police are required to arrest the man.  Under the Duluth model of domestic abuse, a man can be convicted of domestic abuse for requiring a family budget which limits the amount each of them can spend.  One thing I must say about Dalrock, as cringe-worthy as I find his commenters, the man absolutely nails it when it comes to documenting things like the Duluth Model:

Then we have the situation where things get REAL for men.

What Do You Do When A Girl Hits You?

From that, we have a tale of two responses.

First, we have (again) Dalrock:

what should he have done differently given a violent and unstable wife?  The only answer is to walk on eggshells and keep her from becoming unhappy, and focus on taking precautions to make it harder for her to use the domestic violence system against him. (emphasis added)

Then we have Vox Day at Alpha Game:

The solution is simple. It is very simple and it’s very effective. If a woman physically attacks you in a manner that indicates her serious intent to harm you, then you beat the living shit out of her. Beat her so badly, so painfully, that she fears for her life. (emphasis added)

Only an idiot would have any difficulty determining which is the superior solution.  If it’s possible to save said marriage, which of these solutions will do so?  Which of these solutions will cause the wife to respect her husband?

 

Why Would A Man Choose A Deal Like That?

As it turns out, this situation has produced the expected result:  70% of men between the ages of 20 and 34 are NOT MARRIED.  Dr. Helen Smith wrote a book that observes and explains this phenomena called “Men On Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood And The American Dream, And Why It Matters“.

American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates.

It’s all so very simple, one would think.  In fact, this is the impetus behind the MGTOW Cargo Cult.  However, the desire to make men pay must find a way to make men pay.

Traditionally one could not get divorced unless one was married, an idea that goes all the way back to Moses.  Given the extremely unequal treatment men receive in family court and the propensity of women to frivorce their husbands, a trend developed in which men began living with women but refusing to get married.  (This is one of the reasons for the widespread use of domestic abuse/violence as a technique of control.)  Faced with this situation in which men were not voluntarily submitting to marriage, courts began “deeming” a couple to be married if they lived together as husband and wife (shared a bed).  Once the couple has been deemed to be married, the court proceeds with the divorce.

We see a further progression in this, in that the State of Alabama is in the process of removing any requirement for State sanction of marriages.   On a popular level this is about the opposition to “gay marriage” but the reality is this will make all sexual relationships subject to being “deemed” to be a marriage, which can be followed by a court-supervised plundering.   Expect to see other states follow suit.  The truth is that since 1878, the Supreme Court has held (Meister v Moore) that Marriage is a “fundamental right” and laws requiring marriage licenses are “merely directory.”  The term “directory” means that such a law is nothing more than a polite suggestion.

 

The Modern Marriage Solution

There is no point in listing all the problems with modern marriage because at the point of being dragged into court they don’t matter.    Once in court, a divorce proceeding is very similar to being charged with some crime in Federal Court: 97% of the time you will lose.  In a divorce proceeding you will lose 97% of the time for the “crime” of being in possession of a penis.

I leave it to others to dissect the various issues that cause women to file for divorce.  Better is to lay out the solutions and why the solutions solve the problems.

First, maximize your potential and become fit to rule.  That isn’t a requirement, it’s just very good advice.  Following it will allow the man to solve problems before they become problems because as a rule, women do not desire to end a relationship with a man they are highly attracted to.

Second, ensure any woman you are courting is eligible to marry.  It isn’t that difficult and the process itself is a compliance test for the woman that will give a good indication of whether she is actually attracted to you.  If she’s a virgin the odds of divorce are around 5%, but if she’s not a virgin at least you know you’re not committing adultery.

If men did those two things the rate of divorce would plummet.

That’s where the standard marriage advice ends and it isn’t even “standard” advice.  The problem with modern marriage is the structural problem of monogamy, which means an automatic monopoly for women.  The marital standard of commitment designed by God called for a permanent but nonexclusive commitment on the part of the man and that critical design component is absent today.

 

Marital Structure Is The Critical Factor

Feminists understand that as a relationship structure, polygyny destroys feminism because by definition the structure highlights the fact that men and women are NOT equal. When one woman told her friends she was entering into a poly relationship, her friends went nuts. One of them thoughtfully summed up why “polygamy” was SO BAD:

Women automatically KNOW that the structure of a poly relationship allows the man to ‘next’ the women within the bounds of their relationship (it gives the man power and control).   Women naturally compete but the only way they can compete for his attention is to give him what he wants: sweetness, attractiveness, submission and sexual availability (it “damages gender equality”).  Nagging, withholding sex, fighting and passive aggressive bitchiness doesn’t get them anywhere because he can spend time with someone else (it “rips away” the things a SIW holds dear).

The husband has to be more aloof to manage relationships and the structure places him in a far more dominant position, which is attractive.  It’s also provides immediate negative feedback when he slips and goes beta on them. Which helps keep him more attractively dominant and masculine. The collective attraction of the group validates their individual attraction to him (selection bias).  The women can get their emotional needs met with each other, a group of friends who share a common interest in the success of the relationship.  The opposition to such a relationship from outsiders creates an “us vs them” scenario, which draws them closer together.

And, no, the vast majority of men can’t do that.   So what? Become the man who can if you want it.  If you want a successful marriage and children, poly is the only thing left that doesn’t get automatically destroyed in family court.   It has to be done carefully to avoid potential problems, but it’s not difficult.   If a man can spin plates it’s just a matter of spinning said plates into a poly relationship. If they are attracted enough, they’ll do it. Once they realize they get more by sharing, not less, they don’t want to leave.

Women are always at the mercy of “the herd” of women who form their social circle of influence.  Women need other women at an emotional level but the problem is the influential women in a wife’s life today are highly unlikely to be family members.  They will be women who don’t have any interest in the wife having a successful marriage and in many cases they are opposed to it.  With a polygynous marriage, women can have a self-contained “herd” within the marriage.   Fellow-wives who are friends and share an interest in having a successful family.

 

Ask yourself: Why Does Everyone HATE Polygyny?

In a world in which we have the so-called “gay marriage” and all manner of BDSM D/s and DD/lg type relationships along with the tradcon mono-marriages, live-in arrangements, FWB relationships, casual sex and various mixtures of all that, why is it that polygyny is hated by everyone?

  • Modern churches will accept openly homosexual unions without blinking an eye.
  • Women with women?  Yawn.  Churches welcome them and love them.
  • Men with multiple women?  What’s to see here?
  • People living together without being “married”?  So what?

Nobody cares, but let a few Christian women marry one Christian man and settle down to get busy making babies…  and everyone goes nuts.   Churches that will welcome homosexuals and not let it bother them will get so uncomfortable with a poly marriage that they ask the poly folks to leave.

Satan desires to destroy families and he does this by causing all manner of marital conflict.  His master-stoke was getting the church to throw out the Biblical standards of marriage and claim that monogamy was the only acceptable form of marriage.  Not only that, but the church laid the “moral foundation” for feminism by claiming that men and women were held to equal standards of sexual morality.  They did that 1500 years ago.  100 years ago women “won” suffrage and finally got the chance to completely screw everything up, which they promptly did.

Wizard’s First Rule states that “People will believe a lie because they either want it to be true or they fear it to be true.  People are Stupid.”

The end result is there are a lot of rather sincerely wrong and misled Christians out there who believe the lie that God has a problem with polygyny.  Nothing could be further from the truth, because it’s actually Satan who has a problem with polygyny.  The reason is polygyny is the critical part of marriage that keeps the “monogamous” marriages working correctly.

People are stupid and they believe the lie even though there is nothing in the Bible to support it because they want it to be true.  This is because of fear and envy on the part of the women and envy and jealousy on the part of the men. The real reason feminism hates polygyny is not only does polygyny destroy the belief that men and women are equal, but polygyny is far more beneficial to women than monogamy.

Given the declining number of attractive men, polygyny is more beneficial to women than monogamy because by grouping together they have the ability to get commitment from a quality man who would not be interested in any of them individually. With more wage-earners they have greater financial security. More help around the house means household chores get knocked out quickly, leaving more time for family. When children come the women are not alone and overwhelmed. So what if the man gets more sex with sexual variety? The women are the ones who win as long as he rules his family well.

With proper leadership, virtually every problem in modern marriage is mitigated by polygyny, for both men and women.

 

The Legal System

In the western world, polygyny is contrary to public policy, a throwback to the time when the church declared polygyny to be a sin.  This means that a polygynous marriage cannot be recognized as a marriage or treated as a marriage in the eyes of the law, because the law has declared marriage to be a monogamous relationship.   This only becomes a factor when someone (typically a woman) desires that the union be treated as a marriage in order to obtain some advantage or benefit.

NOTE:  I believe a marriage should continue as it begins unless there is a specific problem that makes it necessary to change.  If a man wants more than one wife he should round them up and marry them together at the same time.  This, as opposed to the idea of marrying a woman in a traditional marriage in which she thinks she is his “one and only” (has a monopoly), then later deciding to add another wife simply because he wants variety.  The issue is expectations, not morality. 

As long as the marriage is successful and everyone is satisfied, they are invisible in the eyes of the law because it is public policy that what happens between consenting adults behind closed doors is private.   However, a problem occurs when one of the wives decides she is dissatisfied and perhaps wants out of the marriage.  She looks at all the advantages women have in monogamous marriages and wants the same advantages applied to her, so she looks for a way for the courts to legally dissolve her marriage under the same rules that are applied to legal marriages.  In all likelihood she may not understand the issues involved.

It is not until this point that the court system (which includes the courts, attorneys, social services, counselors and others) gets the chance to crack this nut and as a rule it begins when one of the women goes to see an attorney.

As noted above, courts are in the habit of “deeming” a couple to be married because they live together and share a bed (living as husband and wife).  In some jurisdictions the courts have engaged in a “divide and conquer” strategy with polygynous marriages, “deeming” them to be a marriage characterized by “separate concurrent monogamous relationships”.  This occurs, as a rule, because the family does not all live under the same roof.  This usually results from a couple being married for some time and for whatever reason, the husband adds another wife.

The beauty of the “separate concurrent monogamous relationships” doctrine is that it pits the women against each other.  The first to file gets recognizes as the married partner, who (by definition) is the victim of her evil husband and deserves cash and prizes.  The other woman is the “girlfriend” who gets nothing.  Again, courts do not get the opportunity to review such arrangements unless and until the issue is placed before them, but this sort of ruling reverberates in the society and sows discord among women.

 

Understand The Environment, Do It Right

There is tremendous opposition to polygyny and if anyone wants to do this it must be done carefully in order to ensure that the entire structure isn’t destroyed later.

  • Round up the women first, then marry them as a group.  Let there be no possibility of misunderstanding, establish that everyone is knowingly entering into a polygynous relationship from the beginning and with their signatures they acknowledge that fact.
  • Sign a written marital contract to govern the relationship.  This contract will provide a written statement of the rights, responsibilities, duties and obligations of each party to the marriage.  It will answer basic questions concerning the who, what, where, when and how of the relationship.  The contract must be complete and well-written, so assistance in drafting the document or at least a review of the completed document by a good contract attorney is essential.  I will be writing at least one post covering contract issues.
  • Cohabitation is required, meaning living in and sharing the same household.   The centerpiece of this cohabitation requires the husband and all wives sharing the same bed.  The rule is: “Nobody Gets Married To Sleep Alone.” This is the critical litmus test that definitively proves a polygynous marriage.  Do the wives share the same bed with their husband?
  • When there are children, all wives are “mom” to all children with generally equal authority as “mom” with respect to all children.  That goes a long way toward homogenizing the family and I’d even recommend wives induce lactation so all the women can nurse the babies.  Which means that all the wives will bond with all the babies.
  • Consider wrapping it in kink.  In theory, by virtue of the wives sharing the same bed with their husband the arrangement is already wrapped in kink, but implications can be made that shift the focus away from a patriarchal domination of the marriage by the husband to the wives pursuit of orgasms through kinky group sex.  “Nobody gets married to sleep alone” establishes all anyone else needs to know.  After that “Nobody’s Business But Ours” is a good policy, but there are occasions when wrapping the relationship in kink is an excellent defense against 3rd party interference.

If the above points are accomplished, it is impossible to apply the “separate, concurrent monogamous relationships” doctrine to the marriage.  By any standard by which the man and any given woman are deemed to be married, the man is also married to the other wives and the wives are married to each other.   This means that by definition, the union is a polygynous marriage in which the man is equally married to all wives at the same time.  According to public policy a polygynous marriage cannot be recognized as a marriage, which precludes a divorce action.  In effect, polygyny presents the court with a poison pill it cannot swallow.

 

Blowback

Not being able to view the arrangement as a marriage, the marriage contract becomes an enforceable cohabitation agreement.  It has often been said that it’s now easier to get out of a marriage than a cell phone contract and it’s true.  Family law is the Alice In Wonderland area of law in which agreements such as pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements can be discarded at will if the judge decides to do so.   However, the lunacy of family law can’t be applied to a polygynous marriage because it isn’t a marriage in the eyes of the law and cannot be deemed to be a marriage because that is contrary to public policy.

This situation tends to anger the courts, especially the judges, because correctly structured and arranged a polygynous marriage either eliminates or severely limits their power to do as they wish, which quite often is to punish the man.  Judges are offended and angered when they cannot do as they wish.

The marriage contract’s severance clause must specifically state the contract converts to an enforceable cohabitation agreement in the event a court of competent jurisdiction declares the union not to be a marriage, which means that (gasp!) everyone will still be required to perform according to the agreement.  The agreement must be fair, but this does not prevent using an agreed-upon vesting schedule to determine what assets would accrue to individuals at what point in the marriage if someone decides to leave; or, if in the event of the death of the husband, the wives decided to end the marriage.

If one woman wants to leave and she has no children, she can leave and the conditions are determined by the contract, there is nothing for the court to determine.  If she has children, the courts will have the authority to determine who gets custody.  The standard of child custody determination is known as “best interests of the child”.

Question:  Is it in the best interests of the child to preserve the status quo, living in the family home with their father and at least one wife who has been caring for the child all his/her life, or should they be forced to leave and live with only their mother?  If the other wives have children, is it in the best interests of the child to be separated not just from their father and the other “mom”, but also separated from his/her siblings and required to leave the family home in order to live alone with their mother?

Obviously, if all the wives have children by the husband, the issue of separating siblings becomes a rather difficult point because courts are loath to separate siblings and it is the established doctrine of the family courts to not separate siblings absent extraordinary circumstances.  If a wife wants to leave and there are siblings involved, then it’s very unlikely she will get custody of her children.  It follows that she will be required to pay child support to the father of her children, a significant negative incentive to leaving.

Does anyone wonder why such an arrangement is viewed by the courts as evil, wicked and oppressive to women?  It uses established doctrines that were designed to punish men to protect the children from harm by eliminating any reward for divorce.

Under this arrangement the incentives are aligned to reward staying in the marriage and penalize leaving the marriage.  Which is as it should be.   In any case of alleged domestic violence or abuse, the dynamic is not one of “he said – she said” because there are multiple women involved.

At the end of the day, in general the only way a marriage gets the attention of a court is if one party to the marriage brings it before the court.  However, it is also true that a 3rd party can make domestic violence/abuse allegations and create problems.   All of the above is part of a strategy that creates incentives, both positive and negative, for the parties to the marriage to work out any problems on their own.  Barring egregious behavior, as long as all parties support the contract and relationship, the contract itself can be a solid defense against any 3rd party claims of domestic violence/abuse.

Keep in mind, as a polygynous relationship, you wrote your own rules (your contract) specifically because what you’re doing is so unusual.  The contract has a fair and equitable procedure by which any of the women can leave the marriage.  It provides checks and balances.  In other words, it provides recourse and the individuals waive their rights in specific areas in order to obtain what they desire.

The Duluth model of abuse can be specifically waived as a matter of equitable contract and as long as all parties support the contract, no-one else has standing to challenge the contract itself.  This situation changes if one of the parties to the contract screams abuse, but even at that point the contract is a significant mitigating factor and an affirmative defense if it specifically waives the so-called “abuse” in plain language.  This is where having more than one woman in the household is invaluable in terms of testimony.

For those who object to this characterization, read this.  Pay particular attention to what Justice Scalia said in the Smith case, because we aren’t just talking about contracts, we’re talking about fundamental rights.

In closing, note that all of this assumes the man is not interested in ending the marriage and destroying the family.  Consider all the reasons why a man might want to divorce his wife, and observe that virtually all of them revolve around monogamy and are solved by polygyny.

Posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way | 25 Comments

When Being A Ruler Isn’t Enough

One of the game-haters recently asked a question that deserves a response.

Hey Toad go and see if those same women who mocked and laughed at me will submit to their husbands if they lost their jobs, status, wealth, power, good looks etc…go on I dare ya

His question concerns the attractive women who aren’t aware he exists (or have him automatically assigned to their friendzone).  The tragic part is we have a man who is mocked and laughed at by the objects of his desire, but he rejects the one thing that could and probably would turn his life around.  So, he asks, what happens when the husbands of these attractive women  lose their jobs, status, wealth, power, good looks, etc.?

What he doesn’t say is important and the question demonstrates his false belief that the attractive women he’s interested in are only attracted to peripheral stuff and not the man.  This is similar to asking women what they’re attracted to in men and being told that they like nice guys who are honest, kind, never cheat and always play fair.  The women tell him he should “just be himself” and everything will be fine.  But there’s something missing here.

Confident, masculine dominance was not on his list because he refuses to acknowledge that women are attracted to confident, dominant masculinity.  Probably because those are words no-one would use to describe him.  Neither does he want to acknowledge that a man can lose it all and still have the dominant, masculine confidence that women admire and are attracted to.  And what does the study of game teach?  It teaches masculine dominance.

When a man gets wiped out, if his woman was attracted to him she’ll probably stick around.  If it was his status, wealth, power, good looks, etc., that she was really attracted to, then she probably won’t.  And it’s to that point that I’ve been speaking when I counsel that a man needs to make sure the woman is attracted to him and not his wallet.  Sure, the Dubai Porta-Potties exist, but whores have always existed.

However, sometimes relationships don’t work out even when everything is working.

 

David Was Fit To Rule, But Even He Had Problems

King David was a man’s man and he was the King.  When we talk about “alpha” it doesn’t get any more alpha than David.  He had wealth, fame, power, status, looks and the honor of men.  He was annointed by God to be the King over Israel and Judah.  King Saul gave David his daughter Michal as his wife after David single-handedly killed 100 Philistines and brought Saul their foreskins to prove he’d done it.  When David’s position got bad and he had to flee from Saul, Michal sided with her husband and helped him escape.  David made his escape into the country and men gathered to him because he was a leader of men, but his wife Michal stayed behind.

The Bible doesn’t explain why Saul did it, but while David was in the wilderness Saul gave his daughter Michal (David’s wife) to a man named Paltiel to be his wife.  After Saul died David became King over Israel but Saul’s son Ishbothesh became king over Israel.  David demanded that Michal be returned to him as a requirement before he would even listen to any messages from Ishbothesh. David was King over Judah when he was reunited with his wife Michal.

After the civil war was over and David had consolidated the Kingdom, he brought the ark of the covenant back and was singing and dancing before the Lord as it came into Jerusalem.  When Michal saw David dancing before the Lord in a linen tunic, she despised him.  Later, she mocked him.  David’s response was to put he away.  He provided for her but Scripture records that she had no children.   She despised him.  Another way of saying that is she held him in contempt.

I’ve had anklebiters claim that Michal was justified in despising her husband because David “violated” his marriage to her by taking multiple other wives and concubines while he was out fighting against her father.  No, that was not only his right, but she had zero expectation of being his one and only because polygyny was common and her own father proved that.  He certainly didn’t limit himself to one woman.  The point is we will never know why Michal despised him in her heart, but she did.  She held him in contempt.  What did David do?  “Next!”  He put her away and never gave her any children.  He provided for her, but she was cut off from that point on.

 

What If Your Wife Decides To Leave?

Like David, you go on with your life.  That’s what David did, and that’s what you’ll have to do too.  In a nutshell, the best and wisest thing a man can do is Let Her Go.   No begging, no pleading, no bargaining.  Let her go.   We don’t see David trying to “repair the relationship” but at the same time we don’t see any record of Michal sincerely apologizing to David for her disrespect and dishonor.  We don’t see any record of her repentance and David went on with his life.

The question is, how does that work?  What does God have to say about this?  What about the legal system and the man’s responsibilities?   This will go to divorce court, so how does that work?  Churchians get bent out of shape about what God has to say about divorce but 99% of them don’t understand at all.   There is a status issue involved with divorce because Slaves have Masters and their Masters can require things that the Law does not require.

1.  For those who are not Christians a wife is bound to her husband for as long as he lives, but if she commits adultery he may divorce her.  The subject of divorce opens a can of worms because most have no idea what Scripture actually means.  The central point of the instruction of Jesus in Matthew 5:31-32 (repeated in Matthew 19:9) is that God will not accept an illegitimate divorce. Consider what Jesus said in verse 32, which cannot mean what it appears to mean:

whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery

MOSES permitted a man to divorce his wife (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) and the divorced woman was thereby unbound from her husband and free to remarry another man (but could not ever return to her original husband).  Was the legitimately divorced woman committing adultery when she remarried?  No.  Was the man who married her committing adultery?  No.  Why?  Divorce was the official procedure by which the woman was unbound from her husband and thus able to legitimately marry another man without committing adultery. The certificate of divorce testified to the fact she was divorced and able to remarry.

JESUS taught that marital unfaithfulness (sexual immorality) was the only acceptable reason for divorce that God would honor and any woman who was divorced by her husband for any other reason was not legitimately divorced, she was still married.  According to God’s Law, no woman has the authority to divorce her husband for any reason, so any so-called “divorce” by the woman is illegitimate.

GOD said that adultery requires a married woman (Leviticus 18:20; 20:10).  According to Jesus, if the man divorces his wife for any reason other than (“except for”) adultery, the divorce is illegitimate, the woman is still his wife and if she has sex with another man she commits adultery.  If a man marries such a woman who has been illegitimately divorced, he commits adultery.  Because God will not accept an illegitimate divorce.

THEREFORE, if Jesus taught that marrying ANY and EVERY divorced woman caused a man to commit adultery, then Jesus was guilty of adding to or subtracting from the Law, which is a sin (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32).  Since obviously Jesus didn’t sin, He can only have been referring to illegitimately divorced women in verse 32 above.  Those who claim Jesus taught that a marriage to ANY and EVERY divorced woman is adultery are claiming Jesus sinned, was not a perfect sacrifice and could not have been the Messiah.  Which means they are idiots.

 

2.  For a Christian married to a Christian, Christ gave His instruction at 1st Corinthians 7:10-11.  Wives are not to leave their husband (they have no authority to divorce), but if they do they are to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to their husband.  There are no grounds for a Christian wife to divorce her Christian husband no matter what he does and 1st Peter 3:1-2 is clear on this issue:

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.

Christian husbands are forbidden to divorce their Christian wives for any reason with no exceptions.   She might betray him, leave him and turn into a raging whore, walk into the courts of this world and “divorce” him, steal his children and alienate them from him, emotionally rape him, destroy him financially and use the police power of the State to force him to pay her for decades, possibly for life.

Those husbands who are under the Law have the right to divorce their wife if she commits adultery.  The Risen Lord Jesus Christ issued a ruling for His slaves that require their marriage standard to be the original standard of Genesis 2:24, which means no divorce.  As He said in Matthew 19, “what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”  The Christian man is married to his Christian wife for life, no exceptions, til death do they part.

Does this mean a wife can sentence her husband to celibacy by leaving him or refusing (in violation of the command at 1st Corinthians 7:3-5) to have sex with him?  No, a man is authorized to have more than one wife and that has not changed.  So what if she bails out?  That’s on her head.  She uses the legal system against you.  That too is on her head.  Do the best you can.  You wifed it up, deal with it.

 

3.  For a Christian married to an unbeliever, the rules are the same as if they were married to a believer, but if the unbeliever leaves them they are free.  This instruction was given by Paul at 1st Corinthians 7:12-15 and it represents a ground-breaking new development in one area: a Christian woman can be freed from her marriage without being divorced for her adultery or by becoming a widow.  Previously (under the Law) a woman could only be unbound (divorced) if she committed adultery.  This instruction allows a Christian husband or wife to be unbound from their spouse if they are abandoned, which means (in the wife’s case) she was not at fault by committing adultery.

This raises a GIANT question.

The Christian wife is commanded not to separate from her husband (that prohibition includes emotional as well as physical separation), but if she does separate (for whatever reason) she is to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to her husband (not her “ex-husband”).    The Christian husband is commanded not to aphiémi his wife (send his wife away, divorce her).  For two married Christians, there is no divorce and there are no exceptions.  But, what if one of the so-called “Christian” spouses abandons the other?

Is the one who leaves (in violation of Scripture) really a Christian?

This is only critical in the case of an abandoned woman because a man can have more than one wife.  In the case of our modern “unintended” marriages in which the foolish virgin (who was lied to and told sex doesn’t make her married) gives her virginity to a man not understanding that with that act she marries him.  If her father cannot forbid that marriage (he’s dead, unavailable or unwilling) and the man is a Christian, obviously that man cannot divorce her for her adultery (and it’s almost guaranteed she’s had sex with other men, which means she committed adultery).

Christian husbands are commanded to live with their wives in an understanding way (1st Peter 3:7), which requires that the Christian husband live with his wife.  The husband is commanded in Ephesians 5:25-27 to love his wife as Christ loved His church.  These are very serious commands that cut to the heart of Christian living.

1st John 2:3-6 says

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.  The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him

When this Christian woman who was married to that man when she gave him her virginity approaches him and he refuses to do his duty as her husband, where does that leave her?  The question is whether that man is even a Christian.  If he were a non-Christian he can give her a certificate of divorce for her adultery and she is no longer bound.  However, can a Christian husband refuse to release her from her marriage to him and at the same time refuse to obey the commandments to live with her, love her and provide for her?  No.  He’s proving that he’s a liar when he claims to be a Christian and he’s abandoned her, which means she’s free.

And what about the Christian woman who is deceived by the feminist churchian rulers of her church and taught lies?  She leaves her husband thinking she has grounds to do so and uses the court system to abuse him, causing great damage.  If, in the day she learns she is wrong and returns to him in humble repentance, what if he refuses to reconcile himself to her?  He is commanded to love her as Christ loved His church.   Does Christ ever turn His back on a repentant sinner who comes to Him and asks for forgiveness?  No.

The bottom line is that if you’re married you’re called to stay together, but the only person you have control over is you.  If your spouse decides to destroy the marriage, they not only can but probably will.  There is no magic bullet, no legal argument, no nothing.  If they decide to thumb their nose at God, they will.  Go on with your life.

 

Let Them Go

In the case of a wife who left, no good will come of trying to “win her back” because every effort will only make matters worse.  The one exception is this:  She must know that if she decides to return she may do so, but only in repentance.

In the case of a husband who left, a wife should sincerely ask him why he left and what she can do to change herself so that she’s pleasing to him.  This might get a totally unacceptable and offensive response (to her) such as “lose weight and stop being a bitch” but in general, by the time a man has had it and he leaves, he’s done.  I say the wife should do this because the vast majority would refuse.  Of those who did, the vast majority would not change.

There are many who claim to be Christians but are uninterested in what God desires of them.

There are things a man can do to change the dynamic of his relationships, but it is not easy because:

The one who cares the least about the relationship will always have the most power over the relationship and within it.

This is wisdom that few can hear, but the truth of this can be observed in all walks of life.  You must begin with the end in mind because some things can only be done or established in the beginning.

 

Begin With The End In Mind

It is often fatal to attempt to change the dynamic of a relationship after it is begun, so you should proceed as you began or end it.  This requires knowledge and wisdom in order to know what is desired.  You have heard it said that one should always consider the cost before you begin:

“For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?  Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’”

Answering the question of whether you have enough to pay the cost does not answer the question of whether it is a cost you are willing to pay or whether what you receive in return for that payment will be worth it.  This is of critical importance when the subject is marriage.   Did you study?  Did you diligently seek wisdom?  Have you not read that:

while I was still searching but not finding: I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.

Again, it is written

Husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, for she is only a woman.

And yet the fools of this generation look for “the one” and expect her to be upright and virtuous while alone, for the fools do not understand what teacher also said:

Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

 

 

Posted in Churchianity, Marriage, Messages to a young man | 10 Comments

Frame, Fitness Tests and Feminism

IT’S  ALL  ABOUT  FRAME

In any relationship there is a balance of power and in general one person will be dominant and the other will submit to their dominance.  In any given interaction between people the same dynamic tends to hold true.  Dominance will be established over time by the individual (or group) who has the dominant frame.  So, what is frame?

Frame is a specific interpretation of perceived reality and an individual’s frame is often determined by emotions rather than anything else.  Think carefully about the words “perceived reality” and consider that an individual’s “perceived reality” does not require facts or even what we call reality.

What does this mean in the real world?  Simply that how one looks at an issue determines how one feels about that issue.  In the photo below we get two different frames (perspectives) of how to view the same physical act.  Obviously it’s all in how you frame it.

Frame is also a matter of focus because the “frame” determines what is seen and what is not seen, which determines what is important and what is not important.  How one frames anything will lead to a particular value judgment due to the emotional impact of the focus.

Fitness Testing and Frame

Women test for dominance and loyalty.  By definition, a dominance test is a test to determine who has the strongest frame, because either the man enters the woman’s frame or she enters into his.  Within that, the test is also a test for confidence because lack of confidence indicates a weak frame and a weak frame means a lack of confidence.

A frame is a particular view of perceived reality and that perception of reality doesn’t need to be established on facts, reason, experience or logic.  For women, feelings are usually more important than anything else.  Fitness testing takes many different forms and sometimes it isn’t an individual, it’s a group.

Once there was a professor who told dirty jokes in his class.  The women decided he was a sexist pig and wanted to protest.  They discussed it and decided the next time he started telling a dirty joke they’d all get up an leave the class.

Somehow the professor heard about their plan and at the next class he said “In Sweden a prostitute makes $2000 per night.”  All the women stood up and started to leave the class.  The professor shook his head and shouted “Hey!  Ladies, there’s no need to hurry, the next scheduled flight to Sweden isn’t until day after tomorrow.”

Here is another example:

One evening an old farmer decided to walk down to his pond and look it over, as he hadn’t been there for a while.  He grabbed a five gallon bucket so he could pick some fruit and bring it back.  As he neared the pond, he heard voices shouting and laughing with glee.  As he came closer he saw it was a bunch of young women skinny-dipping in his pond.  He made the girls aware of his presence and they all went to the deep end.  One of the women shouted “We’re not coming out until you leave!”

The old man frowned and said “I didn’t come down here to watch you girls swim naked or make you get out of the pond naked.”  He held up the bucket.  “I’m here to feed the alligator.”

While these are jokes, they illustrate the power of framing and the influence frame has on how an issue is perceived.  In the first example, the professor didn’t argue about whether his statement was inappropriate.  In fact, the protest the women planned was designed to not allow any argument in the matter.  “He said something inappropriate and we walked out!”  They were to be the judges of his behavior.  Afterward, the fact they’d walked out would prove that whatever he said was inappropriate.  The professor reframed their behavior completely:  “I mentioned that prostitutes in Sweden made $2000 per night.  They all got up and started leaving.  I know they aren’t bigoted against sex workers so I can only conclude they immediately decided to go to Sweden.”

In the second example, the old farmer didn’t argue with them, he simply reframed the women’s view of the pond as being a place of safety to a place of danger.  Which is more important, modesty or not getting eaten by an alligator?  Notice that in these examples, perception is everything and the “facts” are subject to interpretation.

Another example of reframing is the argument of feminists about equal pay for equal work.  Heartily agree that equal pay is a good thing and it’s horrible that white prostitutes make about three times as much as black prostitutes for the same work.  They all do the same job and they’re all women, so there should be a law that sets the fees for prostitutes and guarantees that either the white prostitutes have to charge less or the black prostitutes have to charge more.

In this case, the feminist frame is one of equality and the false claim that men and women are equal and should be treated as interchangeable.  The lie is exposed by shifting the view (frame) to the unequal pay between female white prostitutes and female black prostitutes.  The funny part is the feminists will double down and claim it’s a matter of racism, not equality.  Anything to avoid admitting their argument actually hurts women who desire to work and do a good job.

The subject might be equal pay, but the issue is the right to choose based on personal preferences and tastes, which is clearly demonstrated in the case of prostitutes.

 

Framing An Argument

The way an argument is framed will usually determine who gets to win the argument.  Clarence Darrow was famous for saying that he would defend any case and win, regardless of the facts, if he got to decide the issue before the court.   In other words, if he was allowed to frame the case, he’d win.

The argument about evolution is a good example.  If evolution is argued from the frame of evidence (does the evidence support the general theory of evolution), in an evolution vs creation debate the creationists tend to win.  That, by the way, isn’t opinion.  The evolutionists will generally no longer debate the creationists.  They would never admit the reason is because their lack of evidence for evolution is embarrassing when compared to the evidence for creationism, but it cannot be denied that creationists tend to win the debates, just like atheists get destroyed by the Christians.

Our recent commenter Jenny has been very helpful in this regard, so let’s look at her comment.

Toad- once again I don’t agree with your conclusions but I find your thought process very interesting and engaging. People can disagree without it being a “test.” But i believe men like you two react this way because of deep seeded insecurities which cause you to interpret everything as a challenge to your “manhood.” How’s that for a shit test?

Oh, and despite your “true word,” no one gives a shit if you eat a lobster, get a tattoo, or get laid before marriage, which is why I suspect you have at least done 2 of the 3, if not all 3. By not following all your “word” and just cheery picking, you reveal yourself as the weak, feeble and insecure people that you so clearly all. The strong (muscle) do not rule. The strong in mind rule them.

Most leaders and lawmakers throughout time were not the physically strongest. They were smart enough (mentally strong) to rule over those who were physically stronger and get them to do their bidding. Throughout time the physically strong have been submissive to the mentally strong. Which is why u hate educated women. By default it means collectively you weak minded people are submitting to them!

While it’s true that Jenny makes a factually deficient argument based almost solely on feminist rhetoric, the truth is she’s making a moral argument in which she’s confused.  She thinks she’s pointing to a moral ontology when in fact she’s got a moral semantics problem.

Jenny presents a mish-mash of incoherent statements that she obviously feels strongly about and apparently she thinks this passes for an argument.  First, she makes a declarative statement:

People can disagree without it being a “test.” But i believe men like you two react this way because of deep seeded insecurities which cause you to interpret everything as a challenge to your “manhood.”

Jenny’s argument was Snapper’s test with respect to how he chose to handle it.  It was his test because he had to choose to either accept her frame and argue within her frame or reframe her argument and instead of arguing the semantics, argue the ontology.  Or, he could have ignored her, not giving her any attention.  His response to his test became his argument.

In this comment she’s reacting to my comments to Snapper, in which I described the earlier exchange she had with him as a shit test.  My point to Snapper was that by arguing the details within her frame, he was conceding his frame to hers and she won.  She claims she was making an argument and in truth she was.  However, her argument was a test for Snapper that I labeled as a shit test for dominance, because it was.  Jenny claims identifying it as such is a sign of “insecurity” because I’m fearful of losing my “manhood” to the mental strength that makes her a strong independent woman.

With any conflict we begin with a status quo that represents our system of beliefs, because we do not exist within a vacuum.  When someone makes an argument that attacks that system of beliefs, such an attack is an argument on the part of the one making it and a test for the individual receiving it.  How the attack is dealt with tends to establish who wins.

I chose not to respond to Jenny’s original comment because I don’t expect anyone to agree with me and I don’t even expect them to understand.  She’s free to disagree and I’m free to ignore her.  However, Jenny wanted me to engage so she again brought forth her argument.  In doing so, she demonstrated she has no idea who she is talking to.  She stated:

no one gives a shit if you eat a lobster, get a tattoo, or get laid before marriage, which is why I suspect you have at least done 2 of the 3, if not all 3.  By not following all your “word” and just cherry picking, you reveal yourself as the weak, feeble and insecure people that you so clearly all.

At a philosophical level, I’m an ontological reductionist.  That is, someone who deals with reality and tries to reduce everything to its basic essence in order to make it easy to understand.  The simple reason is that virtually everyone has been lied to all their lives about practically everything and in order to get them to understand what the truth is, it has to be presented clearly and concisely.

 

The Frame Built by Crazy Aunt Andrea

Jenny’s argument is incoherent and that problem is compounded by the fact she’s apparently woefully ignorant of what the Bible actually says.  In addition, Jenny does not know me in real life and has no clue how I live my life.  Yet, she makes certain assumptions, claims she’s correct in her assumptions and on that basis claims I’m weak, feeble and insecure.  Which is actually hilarious for everyone who knows me because my worst enemies would laugh at such an assertion.

As the regular readers here already know, I am a complete asshole and I truly don’t care what other people think.  God, however, is a different matter because I do care what God thinks of my behavior.  As I said, Jenny is obviously rather ignorant of what the Bible says, so let’s see how her assumptions play out.  I have most certainly eaten lobster and will again, as well as crabs, shrimp, crawfish, clams, oysters and other seafood that are forbidden by the Law.  However, Jenny has obviously never read Colossians 2:16 and since I’ve never written a post about this, I’ll quote it now.

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day

According to the Apostle Paul, the dietary laws (as well as keeping the Sabbath, the feasts and holy days) are specific issues that can be disregarded for Christians.

Then there’s the issue of “sex before marriage” and the regular readers are probably rolling on the floor with laughter at this one.  Jenny, seriously, you probably think I’m a churchian, but you have no idea.  Just as an example of the many posts I’ve done on this subject, take a look at these:

Can You Explain Biblical Sexual Morality? (Simple explanation)

Fornication, Premarital Sex and the Easter Bunny (long, detailed explanation)

Marriage, Whores and Churchians (scroll down for the section on premarital sex)

It doesn’t stop there because practically everyone has been lied to all their lives about what the Bible actually says, so what about other issues like lesbians, prostitutes and having more than one wife?

Prostitutes And Lesbians  Rugmunching isn’t a sin.  Neither is prostitution.

Polygyny (more than one wife) Polygyny and the idiot arguments against it.

Polygyny & Female Competition  Socially Imposed Monogamy hurts women.

Those are specific posts that provide a lot of detail.  For a general outline on what the Bible actually says about sexual morality, see the page titled “Sexual Morality” in the blog header.  According to the Bible I’ve never been married, so obviously all the sex I’ve ever had has been “before marriage” and about 99.99% of it was adultery.  That’s according to what the Bible actually says.  According to churchians I only did the premarital thing back when I was a heathen and the only time I committed adultery was with that one woman who didn’t tell me she was married until the 3rd or 4th time.  And I dumped her for it.

Now that I understand what the Bible actually says about who I’m authorized to have sex with, I developed a process to deal with it.  It’s resulted in some interesting conversations and even more interesting experiences, but the bottom line is if she’s attracted she’ll do it.  If she’s not, she won’t and there’s no point for a man to continue talking to another man’s wife.  That is what we call a compliance test.

As far as tattoos are concerned, there are specific prohibitions at Leviticus 19:27-28 against getting tattoos as well as “rounding off the side-growth” of the head or harming the edges of the beard.  I don’t have any violations of this.  It’s actually funny, back in the day I had the entire crew of unwashed heathens with me partying at the home of the country’s most famous tattoo artist.  He inked the entire crew except for me.  I never had any use for body graffiti.

So no, I’m not cherry-picking Scripture, which is probably why most Christians and practically all churchians hate what I write about.  Witness the recent argument with Cybersith1- he objects that I’m calling the men out for their behavior.   However, while the individual’s obedience to God will impact them at some point, their obedience or lack of obedience does not impact the truth of God’s existence or God’s requirements of mankind.  I write for Christians who want to be obedient to the God they serve and it’s my desire to be a thorn in the flesh of those who claim to be Christians but don’t want to obey the God they claim to serve.  I suppose every needs a hobby.

Churchians sing songs about their boyfriend Jesus and how they’re just worms who don’t deserve the grace they’ve been given.  Really?  Christ died for a pile of worms?  That’s horseshit.  Neither do I subscribe to the gospel of health, wealth and prosperity mixed up with the modern day dharma that is the churchian concept of love.  Look at what Jesus actually said about being one of His followers:

34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

That’s not for the weak, feeble and insecure, which is why preachers don’t quote that passage, just like they don’t talk about the Phineas Priests.

Jenny might not like the fact that God made woman from man, for man, to be used by man in order to accomplish his mission, but that is the testimony of Scripture.  Even worse, it does not matter whether the man is obedient to God or not, the woman is still commanded to submit to him.  1st Peter 3:1-2 says

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the Word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.

Jenny’s frame for this argument is that people who think for themselves are mentally strong (like her!) but men who believe the Bible (like me) are “weak, feeble and insecure.”  It appears that her outlook is the same as that of the novelist Harry Harrison, who sees Christianity as a religion for slaves rather than the faith of slaves.  Which is another case of semantics because everyone is a slave and the only freedom anyone has is the freedom of choosing one’s master.

All of which is incomprehensible to mindless churchians and those outside the church.

 

Only Two Sources For Law

Take all the philosophy and theology and everything else, boil it all down and we’re left with only two sources of authority.  If God exists and He is the Creator of everything (He says He is) then He has the right to make the rules.  And He did, which is what is known as “God’s Law”.  But, if there is no God, then everyone is equal and the only way anyone’s ideas of right and wrong are applicable to others is if they can enforce them.  This is the idea of “might makes right” and is known as “the Law of the Jungle”.

With that in mind, let’s continue with Jenny’s argument.

The strong (muscle) do not rule. The strong in mind rule them.

This is patently ridiculous because anyone with any perception at all knows that strength of mind or body is irrelevant when it comes to ruling.  The powerful rule.  They derive their power from a combination of economic, political and military force at their command.  The biggest lie in America is the “American Dream” that you can grow up to be anything.  No.   Regardless of their character, the sons of the wealthy will sit on the boards of directors, reap the profits and exercise control.  Those who were not born to privilege will (as a rule) serve the ones who were.  The individual like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezzos and Mark Zuckerberg are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Most leaders and lawmakers throughout time were not the physically strongest. They were smart enough (mentally strong) to rule over those who were physically stronger and get them to do their bidding. Throughout time the physically strong have been submissive to the mentally strong. Which is why u hate educated women. By default it means collectively you weak minded people are submitting to them!

Jenny is attempting to claim that not only am I physically weak, feeble and insecure, I’m weak of mind and therefore I hate educated women.  Given what she cited as her “argument”, it’s no surprise that her conclusion is what is known as a “non sequitur“.

Throughout history, the most common form of government has been a monarchy.  As a rule, a monarchy was put in place when an exceptional man who was physically strong, intelligent and ambitious gathered a group of other strong men around him and took over an area by force.  Conquest is the word we’re looking for and they gained the right to rule by force of arms.  If that leader was wise and fit to rule, then the area he conquered prospered and he lived his life and passed on the franchise to his kids.

A system of nobility was thus established whereby the leader was the king, his stalwarts were nobles and his thugs and headbreakers became knights.  The nobles possessed hereditary titles and their control of the productive assets and the people of their fife gave these individuals not only physical (military) power but also economic power as well.  The combination of military and economic force gave these individuals political power.  As time passed, economic power alone was able to generate political power and political power granted military power.

Case in point?  Donald J. Trump.  He leveraged his economic power into political power which gave him military power.  How did he get his economic power?  He inherited wealth and did a good job producing more.

And what was it that Trump said about women?

But what about all those strong, independent women?  Where are the female rulers?  Can we find any historical queens who became queen on their own merits, rather than inheriting the throne from their husband or father?  There are some historical records of queens in various countries, some of them great ones.  However, I know of none of them that didn’t get the throne handed to them by a relative and they only got it by virtue of being in the line of succession.  Not by being mentally strong.

Being mentally strong is not enough for a man and especially not for a woman (although a woman can get a lot of mileage out of good looks and a mercenary attitude combined with high intelligence).  Without a system that provides a mechanism for the mentally strong to exercise their economic, political and military power, their mental strength is useless.  Without at least economic power (or inherited political and military power), mental strength doesn’t go any further than physical strength (although they work well together).

This, for example, is a mentally strong and independent woman who discovered that for all her mental strength, she wasn’t capable of refusing to submit to one overweight cop with an IQ of less than 100.  And inside the jail?  Mental strength is good but physical strength is far better.  When it comes to the law of the jungle, might makes right and the idea that mentally strong women actually rule is a fantasy.

The fact is, only within a system of enforced morality in which right and wrong is firmly established by law (such as the one we have, which is founded on Christianity) do women get treated as anything other than cattle.  Systems like that are put in place through the application of force, which requires strength.  The brute strength of men, not women.

 

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Despite being incoherent, Jenny’s argument is actually a good one for churchians, but not for the reasons she thinks.  It’s true that most churchian men are rather weak individuals who submit to their women.  The reason is the feminist churchian system stomps the masculinity out of them as boys and young men and teaches them to be weak and repulsive to women.  They are taught the toxic doctrines of “Servant Leadership” and “Mutual Submission” and encouraged to worship their women.

The modern churchian cannot handle real submission of wives in a monogamous marriage, much less submission in a polygynous marriage and the idea of a woman submitting to her husband’s physical discipline scares them to death.  Interestingly, the women don’t have much of a problem with it once they figure out what is in it for them, but even mentioning any of that drives the men right over the edge.   The only thing that causes worse meltdowns is the point that having sex with a virgin is to marry her.  Which means that if he didn’t get her virginity when he married her, the wedding was a fraud and he’s living in adultery with another man’s wife.  Oops!

 

Jenny:

This isn’t a churchian blog and I’m not a churchian.  I’m a man who carefully studied the Bible and slowly pieced together what it says about sexual morality.  I’m not an evangelist and I’m not here to tell you about Jesus, because you’ve either got him in your heart or you don’t.  What I do here is explain what the Bible actually says about sexual morality.

Consider this:

  1. God is the Creator of mankind and He knows men and women better than anyone.
  2. As Creator, God has the right to order His creation as He sees fit.
  3. God gave His Law to man, in which He rewards obedience and punishes disobedience.
  4. God’s instruction on marriage is complete and satisfies the needs of men, women and children in the family.
  5. Each part of God’s marriage plan is necessary for the plan to work as intended.
  6. Modification to God’s plan by removing or adding parts has caused unmet needs.
  7. The vast majority of the marital problems today result from not following God’s plan.
  8. God’s original design is the only real solution to the marriage problems today.
  9. Only by understanding God’s original design can it be successfully implemented.

The logic of that syllogism is tight and if point #1 is accepted none of the other points can reasonably be questioned.  As for the issue of whether there is a God, the atheists don’t have much confidence in themselves, for good reason:  When they debate Christians they lose.   As far as other religions such as islam, they get destroyed even worse than the atheists when they take on Christians.  Islam is so incoherent, so easy to refute and so obviously inferior to Christianity that the default position of Muslims has been to kill anyone who left islam to become a Christian.  However, whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant to me, as well as whether you are or are not a Christian.  I teach what the Bible says about sexual morality.  What you do with it is up to you.

Everything in the logical syllogism above is fine for most Christians until we get to the nitty-gritty of what God’s plan for marriage actually is.  The simple truth is that God’s plan for marriage has been covered up and lied about for over 1500 years.  I’ve written quite a bit about that and quoted definitive histories regarding the subject.  The fact that the church threw out God’s plan for marriage and replaced it with a combination of pagan practice, stoic philosophy and Roman law is indisputable.   The way that was done was by re-defining the meaning of words and telling lots of lies so the “new” plan fit.  And they “interpreted” a lot of passages in a very self-serving fashion.   Yet no-one ever questioned that Genesis 2:24 was the law of marriage that defines what marriage is, they simply claimed it meant something different and after more than a thousand years of killing anyone who disagreed with them (heretics), everyone believes it now.

If you were to read my debate with whysoserious? you’ll notice that when he couldn’t refute my argument concerning what the words of Genesis 2:24 really meant, he went through a steady progression of argument that devolved into saying that we really couldn’t know anything about marriage at all because Scripture doesn’t tell us what it is.  Which is preposterous.

The information on this blog is a source of extreme embarrassment to churchians everywhere because they cannot refute it and it exposes their traditional teachings as a lie.  Patriarchy?  Movements like “quiverful” are a joke and they aren’t patriarchal because they don’t know what patriarchal is.  They espouse a parody of patriarchy that places the wives in a very difficult position and when the women don’t measure up, they are blamed.  But not the men.

You mentioned manhood being threatened.  The truth is that the vast majority of feminist churchians are not comfortable with masculinity, are frightened of male dominance and in general are thoroughly feminized.   The women find such men repulsive but are placed in a position whereby they are told to submit to a man they don’t respect because they’re required to.  And, naturally, they rebel against that.

Perhaps you’re opposed to Christianity.  If you wanted to embarrass Christians for their ignorance and unintended hypocrisy, it’s pretty easy because even the professional Christians don’t know what the Bible actually says about sexual morality.  Go to the Sexual Morality page linked in the blog header, print that out and memorize it.  Know what those verses say and how they fit together (you’ll find this extremely useful) and with that, you’ll have all the ammunition you need to embarrass virtually any churchian you meet, using nothing but the information straight from the Bible.   Keep in mind that they’re extremely sensitive to this because at least 80% of them are living in adultery.  That can be fixed but first they have to acknowledge the truth.  You are probably living in adultery too, but if you don’t believe in God, why would His rules on what constitutes adultery be an issue?

As an aside, do you know why “God damn you to hell” is a blasphemy?  The reason is that God doesn’t damn anyone, they do it to themselves.  Everyone has violated God’s Law and the penalty for that is death.  God sent His only son on a suicide mission and then sat on His throne and watched His innocent son get crucified and die a horrible death in order that people like you and me could live, because with that act His Son paid the price for everyone.  The unforgivable sin is to refuse to accept the free gift while you have the chance, to reject the sacrifice that Christ made.  According to God, one day everyone will be judged and at that point it’s too late.

So, if you choose to reject God’s Word because you’re mentally strong, what’s a bit of adultery?   Your body, your choice, right?   Unintended pregnancy?  Abort the little bastard!   If God doesn’t exist and you’re mentally strong you can make up your own rules.   And if anyone says you’re going to hell then you can agree (why argue about their fantasies?) and tell them you’re determined to enjoy the trip.  Right?  You go girl.  YOLO!

Anyway, you’ll find that abusing misinformed churchians gets boring quickly and is actually pretty cruel and leaves you feeling depressed, because virtually all of these folks have been lied to all their lives.  Genuinely, sincerely lied to by people they viewed as good and godly men who hold positions of authority, because these lies go back over 1500 years.

OTOH, maybe you’re a Christian of one flavor or another, but enough of a feminist that the Biblical truth I’m pointing at just rubs you the wrong way.  If that’s the case you need to investigate this carefully and choose which side of the fence you want to be on.  Straddling the fence doesn’t give you the benefits of being on either side and eventually you wind up with a sore crotch.  Who needs that?  There are far more pleasurable ways to get a sore crotch that God doesn’t have a problem with.

At the end of the day, though, the Bible is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.  You don’t get a Savior without getting a Master who requires obedience.  He made you and gave you a job to do, which is His right.  As it is written, “Does the pot speak back to the potter?”  Part and parcel of that is the fact that woman was created from man, for man, to be used by man as a helper to complete his mission.   Later, in judgment, God said of women, “he shall rule over you.”

The only possible question is whether God changes.  According to His testimony, the answer is no.

Again, I don’t expect you to agree with me, I don’t even expect you to understand.

 

 

 

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Crazy Women | 8 Comments

Women’s Opinions On Submission and Discipline

A Request For Women’s Opinions On Submission And Discipline

As regular readers here know, I’ve had several posts on hypergamy from a Biblical point of view.  I have taken the unpopular position that hypergamy isn’t an evolutionary development in women, but is rather part of God’s judgment on women contained in Genesis 3:16.   I’ve posted multiple times on this, The Reason Feminists Don’t Talk About Eve and more recently, Hypergamy and Genesis 3:16 A Man Must Be Fit To Rule.

Essentially, I make the argument that women respond to men and a woman will only have desire (true sexual desire) for a man who she determines is fit to rule over her.  I loosely define “fit to rule” as being a confident, masculine and dominant man who embodies good character traits such as honesty, loyalty, courage, faithfulness and wisdom.  I say loosely because different women are attracted to different things, but in general all women are attracted to masculine, confidently dominant men.

Based on my understanding of what Genesis 3:16 says, I believe it’s incumbent upon a man to develop himself and become fit to rule because God said that a woman’s desire will be for a man who is fit to rule over her.  As a result I’ve written a half-dozen posts or more on that subject encouraging men to maximize their potential.

Then comes the tricky question of a woman’s submission.  I’ve frequently made the point that submission isn’t obedience.  Obedience is following the rules, submission is accepting accountability for one’s actions and the consequences for violating the rules.  And, as I’ve pointed out before, the only examples of how Christ loves His church involve spanking.  Revelation 3:19 is the clearest and most succinct.

“Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline.  Be zealous therefore and repent!”

Specific to physical discipline, in You Need To Be Spanked I made the point that

Women are attracted to dominance and men are attracted to submission.  Attraction is the coin of the realm and as a rule, a woman chooses to submit to a man based on her attraction to him.  The willing submission to physical discipline is the ultimate expression of both dominance and submission.   All other things being equal, if he has what it takes, she will choose to submit herself to that.  If he does not, she will not willingly do so.

I also made the point in 50 Shades of Biblical Marriage that the rules on marriage (taken from the Bible) actually read like a BDSM-style D/s relationship contract.  In other words, a Biblical marriage pretty much requires a dominant man because the woman is commanded to be a submissive over and over again.

 

Not Everyone Agrees

Commenter Cybersith1 claims women are demon-infested and won’t willingly submit to a man’s authority.

women have an inbuilt Jezebelic demonic rebellious attitude towards male authority and will NEVER willingly submit.

In addition, his position is that men don’t have any responsibility in whether a woman desires to submit to her man.

“I believe that women should be in submission regardless of whether a man is worthy enough or not…  Man doesn’t have to be “fit to rule” over women, he IS fit to rule over women PERIOD”

(I read that to some wives I know and their response was peals of laughter.)

Even though his argument is incoherent (is he advocating beating them into submission?), it’s a common theme amongst a certain flavor of churchians.  They can’t understand why women find them unattractive, they claim women should be attracted to them because they’re “godly men” and then they get upset when it doesn’t happen.  And the ones who managed to get married get really upset when their wife won’t submit to them, which usually means “have sex with him”.  As a rule she doesn’t want to because she finds his “servant leadership” and “mutual submission” repulsive.  Castrated males are simply repulsive.

In my response to his argument I related an example of my experience with women and submission (if they’re attracted to me they don’t have any problem with submission), but I thought it would be good for the women to chime in on this.  Especially those of you who blog about this sort of thing.

So, if any of you women readers would care to offer your thoughts on submission and discipline, why you might or might not want to submit to your man and what that might involve, go to the argument room with Cybersith1 and do so in the comments there.  He seems to be the sort of man who listens to women.

Comments About Submission and Discipline Here

 

Posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way | 29 Comments

Strategy For Men of the West: Your Castle

I want a secure home where my family can live in peace and relative safety.

I’ve repeatedly stated that a man must be fit to rule.  Once he is, he needs to develop his own kingdom.  In a metaphorical sense, his kingdom can consist of many different things, but in the physical sense it begins with his castle.  If you’ll notice, the castle pictured above was built to meet the stated goal above.  Back then a castle was a base of operations for the local headman and was designed to offer a place of safety from wandering attackers or peasant uprisings.  Because it offered a place of safety and employment, typically a village grew up nearby because the castle was a production center.  Today, the threats are a bit different.

These days, what is pictured above and below are far better options.   An earth-sheltered home that will stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer, which means that the cost of living there will be very low.  Notice the greenhouse and solar collector for hot water above.  When the power goes out in the middle of winter this would be a nice place to have.  We don’t see a chimney, but for northern locations this could easily be accomplished and a small wood-burning stove will keep an earth-sheltered home toasty warm in the winter.

You can call it a hole in the ground, but inside it’s got a lofty ceiling and lots of natural light coming in.  With a good design one will never feel like they’re in a cave.

Several years ago I wrote about building underground homes using shipping containers and concrete.  It’s not difficult and from the standpoint of a “do-it-yourself” deal, it works well. One of the really nice thing about using shipping containers is that much of the finishing work can be performed before they are ever put together and buried.  Meaning, contractors can be used for skilled work such as electrical, plumbing or finish carpentry.  You can have professionals install the kitchen.  Best of all, the vast majority of work can be done off-site and when it’s ready, have the containers trucked in and buried.

There are other ways of building earth-sheltered homes, one of which (also low-cost) is the monolithic dome home.  There are more traditional ways of building underground homes as well.  There is one iron-clad rule that must be observed:  insulate the outside of the structure before the dirt goes on using closed-cell urethane foam.  Otherwise, there is a strong probability that warm, moist air during the summer will condense on the interior walls and ceiling and it will “rain” inside.  Not a good situation.

In a previous post I discussed homesteading and growing ginseng.  This is the sort of housing that compliments those activities, but it doesn’t matter where such a house is built.  The savings and security obtained with an earth-sheltered home don’t depend on geography.  The only sticking point is that when built in suburban areas, they tend to create substantial issues with zoning and regulation because they aren’t normal.

 

What’s So Great About An Underground Home?

First and foremost, they are secure homes.  Earthquakes, tornadoes, violent storms, no problem.  They’re even pretty reasonable shelter from radioactive fallout after a nuclear attack. With a bit of planning and preparation, they’re extremely resistant to an assault and can be very defensible.  The nice thing about all that dirt is it’s bulletproof.  Since building such a home requires moving quite a bit of dirt, there is no reason why an escape tunnel can’t be put in place when the home is built.  Homes such as this need a (hidden) back door.

Second, earth-sheltered homes are excellent shelter.  Cool in the summer and warm in the winter, they are liveable homes with no electricity as long as you have a supply of water.  If the home is properly designed and sited, it will offer a higher quality of life than a “normal” home.  The savings in energy costs can be enough to pay the mortgage.

Third, these homes are low-profile.  With a bit of time and creative landscaping they are all but invisible unless you’re standing in front of them.  If done correctly, they won’t be identifiable as a structure from satellite images either.

Fourth, zoning regulations and property values practically require such homes be built in rural locations and with at least 8-10 acres of land, so there is plenty of room for a large garden and livestock.  A good permaculture design will ensure that not only is the home a good shelter, but the operation can provide the vast majority of the food for the family.  Which means I’m talking about what is known as “homesteading”.

If your housing won’t allow you to produce a significant amount of the food your family consumes, at least 3/4 of it, then ultimately your housing isn’t sustainable in bad times.  With no food and no water, it’s just a box to die in.   In any number of scenarios, the power grid goes down, the supply chain breaks and the shooting and starving begins.  A lot of cell towers have battery backup, which means people will be able to coordinate their mayhem in the beginning.  There are not nearly enough police or national guard to deal with the problem once it starts and after that everything breaks.

Everyone has been conditioned with the idea that government can do anything.   News Flash:  it can’t.  When things get out of hand, the violence will be happening everywhere and it won’t be containable with the “swarming” tactics used under normal conditions.  With no power to pump fuel, how to the police get gas?  How do they get paid?  How do they feed themselves or their families?  Who protects their families when they’re at work?  In other words, how long will they be on the job when the violence goes out of control?

You don’t need to worry about the doom and gloom, all you really need to know is an earth sheltered (underground) home is very liveable, warm in winter, cool in summer and never needs to be painted.  The cost of utilities is extremely low, they’re tornado-proof and are completely safe.  If the power goes out it doesn’t matter if there’s a sub-zero winter storm outside, a small wood-burning stove will heat the home quite well.  If it’s the summer-time in the middle of a heat wave, the home is still going to stay below 70 degrees inside.  Either way, light a few candles or an oil lamp after dark and you’re set.

 

Why Don’t More People Do This?

There are a lot of reasons, but they boil down to ignorance and enslavement to public opinion.  This isn’t what “normal” people do.  Plenty of people will claim that the resale value won’t be good because it’s not “normal” and banks won’t want to loan the money to build one.  That’s ridiculous.  People will buy these things if they understand what they’re actually buying.

Underlying all that is the fact that most people don’t plan and don’t have any idea what the real threats are.  There is an entire media industry that’s in business to keep the population pacified and under control.  Keep everyone calm and maintain business as usual.  When you consider that a homesteader lifestyle is a lot of work and it’s oriented around a different set of values than the vast majority of people have, obviously only a few would be willing to do something like that.

Even when people think about preparedness, they have the mentality that it’s something they can think about occasionally and ignore the rest of the time.  It’s “emergency” preparedness, not a lifestyle.  Emergencies only last for a little while and then everything goes back to normal!   Consider the assumptions of the following graphic:

Notice all the assumptions?  Once the 30 day supply of food is gone, where will your food come from?  Same with the water.  Cell phones?  This assumes the cell networks will continue to function.  Having gas in the vehicle is great, but what about bicycles?  Driving around in an emergency does nothing but draw attention to the fact that you’re there.   A multi-tool?  C’mon.  You’ll need a fully-stocked workshop with lots of hand tools that don’t require electricity.

The knowledge and skills necessary to be a successful homesteader can be daunting, but it isn’t rocket science and often it’s a matter of having the correct tools to do the job.  Gardening is not difficult and depending on how it’s done can be efficient with a minimum of work.  However, when all the produce starts coming in the pace picks up because the vegetables need to be picked, washed, processed and canned.  That requires large vats to boil the water, a good supply of canning jars and lids, as well as all the rest of the equipment necessary to do the job efficiently.  And let’s not forget about the labor requirements.

 

The Litmus Test For Appropriate Housing

Over the past few decades I have watched as time and time again the focus of preparedness has centered on weapons, ammunition and stored food instead of appropriate housing and food production capacity.  There is a great deal of disagreement over this, but in keeping with the idea that one should be prepared for the worst and hope for the best, the litmus test for appropriate housing is simple:

How well does the home function without electricity for an extended period of time?

  • In the middle of winter in sub-freezing temperatures?
  • In the middle of summer with very high temperatures?
  • With public services such as gas and water cut off?

It’s all well and good to rent a place that fails if you’re working toward getting something that will pass this test, just make sure you don’t buy something that fails this test.

Speaking of purchasing property… if you borrowed money to buy it, the property really isn’t yours until it’s paid for.  After that it still isn’t really yours because if you don’t pay your rent to the State, they will take it away from you.  Which means that property taxes are an issue and in some places, property taxes are quite high.

Property taxes are an expense, but they are based on the appraised value.  What if the local government didn’t know your house was there?  If the homesite can’t be seen from the road (you really don’t want it to be visible from the road), then it can be done.  The solution is to give the local government and utilities something to see that answers the questions.  The solution is to have a “hunting camp” with an electrical hookup.  It could be simple:

The beauty of a 20-foot container building like this is it can be brought in on the back of a roll-bed truck and dropped off without the need for a crane.  It’s a time-consuming project, but the container can be set up on piers and leveled using hydraulic jacks.  Because it’s a portable building, you get your electricity (construction hookup) without any inspections.

A more robust setup can be put in place that’s designed to be a permanent fixture.  This is actually an excellent idea because it provides a reason for why the entry driveway is present.

With this design, a vehicle can be parked under the roof or the open space can be used for a common area.  It wouldn’t take much to equip something like this as a hunting camp or a home to live in while building the real home.  Keep in mind that the one thing you don’t see is the insulation on the outside.  A few inches of sprayed-on closed-cell urethane foam is all it takes to keep them warm or cool.

For less than $8,000 and a bit of sweat equity, something like the “hunting camp” pictured above could be built and it would be a cozy home.   The containers can be purchased individually on a cash basis, as well as all other building materials.  Surplus and used building materials can be used.

 

Location, Location, Location

The single most important factor in having a good homestead that will shelter you in times to come and allow you to not just survive, but thrive, is location.

You need to be close enough to a city to work and far enough from the city to have some privacy.

Water

More and more locations have local ordinances that require residents to be connected to the municipal water supply.  In some cases having a water well is forbidden, ostensibly because it might result in a dual water supply that might result in contamination of the municipal water supply.  These are places to avoid because rule #1 is to be in control of your water supply.

A good water well is the best option, although a good year-round spring or other source of water is also a good option.  Many people have cisterns and utilize rainwater if the climate allows.  If you have the discipline, great, but a good water well is best if the power is available to run the pump.   If the well isn’t too deep a hand-pump can be installed to lift the water.  There are always options.

Obtaining a water well is the first task to be accomplished with the property.  Claim the purpose of the well is livestock watering if there has to be a reason given.  The well needs to be close to the home and suitably protected (and hidden) such that it’s not vulnerable in case of problems.  Ideally the well would be adjacent to the house and a portion of the home extended to cover the well and allow access from inside the home.   And, yes, that might mean doing some interesting rigging if you ever have to pull the pump out to replace it.  That’s the price of security.

 

Production

Ginseng farming has already been covered in a previous post and one of the points that post made was the importance of selecting the location and the property to allow doing what you want to do.  There are very few properties available that have a year-round stream with a good flow and 100 feet of drop in elevation as they go through the property, but that’s exactly what you want to find to set up a hydro-electric station and have your own power plant.

Some people will be in a location that facilitates running a commercial farm and they’ll be able to make a very good living just selling food.  The fact they don’t have any place to put ginseng doesn’t bother them.  Others will have a day job that pays the bills and allows them sufficient time to work the homestead.  There are various skills that allow working online from just about anywhere and such work provides the income to get the homestead up and running.  As the homestead comes into production the cost of living drops as food and salable products are produced.

The point is that living out in the country does not mean one has to be poor.  Having sufficient land to allow the production of food gives you a degree of independence not found elsewhere.  So what if a bunch of SJW’s think you’re a racist misogynist.  The chickens will keep laying eggs, the milking cow will still produce milk, the steers will keep grazing and growing, the hogs will keep rooting around in the compost pile, the bees will still make honey and your garden will still grow.  They don’t care.

Everything you produce and consume is something you did not have to spend taxable income on.  Your stored food is an asset.  Your livestock and equipment are assets that will produce more.

 

You Castle Isn’t Just A Home, It’s A Production Center

A center of production requires space, tools and energy.  Burying a couple of 1000 gallon propane tanks means you can keep years worth of propane on hand for cooking and hot water.  A couple of large fuel tanks will provide your own (limited) supply of gasoline and diesel fuel and there are additives that allow fuel to be stored for years.  A well-stocked maintenance barn with a good lift means you can do a lot of repairs and maintain your vehicles and equipment. These are normal things to find on a farm but they cost money.

Setting up a complete off-the-grid electrical system is expensive.  Huge solar panel arrays, battery banks, inverters, filters and a gas-powered generator (with more buried propane tanks) will mean you have electricity if the power goes out and be able to go on with your life.  Like everything else, such a system costs a lot of money and requires knowledge and experience to maintain it.  Call it a learning experience.  A hydro-electric setup is the holy grail of off-the-grid living because if you have a year-round stream that will run a hydro plant, you are your own power company.

A decent metal shop with welders, a lathe, milling machine, some saws and an ironworker will allow you to fabricate just about anything if you have a good supply of steel bar, tube and sheet stock.  A decent woodworking shop with a good tablesaw, jointer, planer and a few specialty tools on the back end and a bandsaw mill and small kiln dryer on the front end will allow you to harvest your own trees and turn them into anything from lumber to furniture.  And, yes, these kinds of tools use a lot of electricity.  Which means the best time to run them is on bright, sunny days in the summer when your electric production is at it’s peak.

When spare time is available, use the tools to make the place pretty.

A good backhoe and dump truck, combined with a skid-steer and a few attachments will allow you to do a lot of work around the farm.  There are excellent hydraulic concrete mixer attachments available for skid-steers that allow you to mix small batches of concrete quickly.  Something like this 1/3 yard concrete mixer.

A roadheader attachment for the backhoe will allow you to do amazing things.  They go through stumps like a hot knife through butter but they really shine when it comes to creating swales and terracing across slopes.  A small bulldozer will allow you to maintain your own roads and do some creative earth-moving.  Adding an old crane with a 20 ton capacity will allow you to finish, manipulate, install and bury buildings made from shipping containers, anywhere you want, with privacy.

Housing can be built at a low cost so putting in some housing for occasional farm labor and visitors is called for.  But other buildings are needed as well.  Barns for storing hay, storing machinery, shops for doing maintenance and work, there are a lot of reasons to build other farm buildings.

I bet the hogs would like an earth-sheltered farrowing-barn that stays warm in winter and cool in summer, don’t you?  With plenty of storage space for feed?  What about the cows?  Wouldn’t they like a comfortable barn that’s easy to clean, sanitary for milking and comfortable?  Less stress on the animals means more production from the animals and the buildings are cheap.  Especially if you have the time and equipment to build them.

All of these things require knowledge, skill and experience.  They are tools that allow you to do things and as far as homeschooling your children they all require skills that are useful to learn.  But, we’re in the 21st Century, right?  So add 3D printing capability and computer-controlled machining to all that.  There’s no reason not to get into robotics and drones.  Who says homeschooling can’t be fun?

While the homestead can produce the kind of income to support this, one might still wonder, why buy all this stuff?  First, it’s extremely handy to have around when you want to get something done.  Second, we’re talking about the tooling and equipment for multiple different businesses your children can learn and the equipment can earn money.  These are businesses that have deductions for expenses and they can lose money for tax purposes, which means allocating money across the various businesses can result in no taxes.  If one considers that “self-employed” income of $60,000 per year will require $9,300 in FICA taxes along with another $10,700 in federal taxes, you’re looking at the government taking 1/3 of your income in taxes.

The secret to avoiding that is to have lots and lots of allowable deductions that cover the money you would have spent anyway.  There is no need to receive money, pay taxes on it and then spend it on something that would have been a tax-deductible expense if the company had spent the money.  It’s all a matter of organization.

One of the major reasons to not say anything about growing ginseng is there are lots of ginseng buyers out there and they pay cash and don’t file a 1099 form with the IRS.  Taking prime ginseng root to various buyers would mean having completely off-the-books income in cash money.  On a homestead where expenses are very low, selling 30 pounds of ginseng for cash is the equivalent of selling 44 pounds “officially” and sending the government $14k in taxes.  This is the truth of being “self employed” in America:

I don’t advocate tax evasion, but tax avoidance is perfectly legal.  A lot of the very useful equipment listed above is what is know as business equipment.  Organize it as a business and claim the allowable deductions such as depreciation, maintenance, repairs and operating costs.  If you were going to pull out $60k in ginseng every year, why not use the money you would have been sending to the government to obtain and maintain the things you want to have?  Seems to be perfectly logical and it’s legal.

 

Make A Master Plan Before You Make Mistakes

An old farmer once observed to me that “Every permanent fence I ever built got torn down and every temporary fence I built is still there.  Life is strange.”

What he was describing was a lack of a plan, but it’s more complicated than that.  It takes time to fully understand a piece of land and the vast majority don’t have any idea of what is possible.  No, that’s not me trying to sell consulting services.

What can and should be done is draw up a site plan.  The terrain and layout will dictate a lot of how things will need to be placed, but care should be given.  This is why I recommend that a young man live on his farm for a few years before building his permanent house.  As he gets to know the land and works to develop it, he will gain an understanding of what could be and what can’t be.  This is an example by Bill Mollison:

This is a drawing of a permaculture setup that has the various production areas arranged in zones based on how often you need to visit each zone.  The more often it needs to be visited, the closer to the home it should be.

The plan should take into account where your access roads and trails are, where your buildings will be to support your other activity and where different production units will be based.  You might have one pasture that’s for grazing cows and chickens, another pasture that’s strictly for hay.  One area for the house and garden areas, with a chicken house for egg layers and a greenhouse close by.  Or perhaps you combine them.  The plan should take into account drainage of water and show your water and septic lines.

Fences and where your fences go is another important consideration.  Areas for immediate development and future development should be marked off.  If water is an issue then you’ll want a water tower placed where it’s at the highest point to get the maximum head pressure from gravity.

Because ginseng takes so long to grow, if a major effort is put in initially to get seed in the ground then there will be a period of four to five years for plans to be developed.  More ginseng can be planted and work can be done, but by the time the ginseng would be at the point to yield any money there is plenty of time to determine how it can best be used.  Focus on infrastructure and get perimeter fencing and water production and distribution lines in place.  Get pastures cleared and the soil prepared.  These things don’t necessarily cost a lot of money but they do take time.

One of the main ways to occupy your time in the early years is with education.  There are dozens of books to read and if you plan on doing a lot of the work to build your structures, you’ll possibly need to get some instruction and develop some skill in order to do so.  Part of the plan is to figure out what needs to be done in what order to make the process efficient.

The ancient castles were originally sited based on the terrain and access to water.  They started off as wooden palisades and over the generations they grew and changed.  This is much the same process but it will happen a lot faster.  Keep in mind that this will be your kingdom so make sure it’s orderly.  That requires a plan.

Posted in Healthy Living, Messages to a young man, Strategy For Men of the West | 17 Comments

Strategy For Men of the West: The Best Field To Have

This post continues the line of Strategy and Tactics For Men of the West.   It’s one thing to talk a good political argument, but at the end of the day practical guidance is needed.  The key to being able to speak from a position of strength is to be anti-fragile.  An effective prostitute might be looked down on by society and will be called names and persecuted, but she will make money because her product never goes out of style.

Homesteading (having a small diversified farm) is one of the very best career choices anyone can make no matter which way one looks at it.  It’s anti-fragile, it reinforces strength, minimizes weakness and allows someone who knows what they’re doing to make a lot of money far faster than any comparable field of work.  The unsung key to this is having a good cash crop.

The trend toward legalizing marijuana will prompt articles and chatter about growing marijuana legally and it’s true that for a little while it will be possible to make a good amount of money doing so.  However, growing marijuana doesn’t compare to growing ginseng.  When I say ginseng, I don’t refer to the field cultivated ginseng or the woods-grown ginseng, I refer specifically to wild simulated ginseng.  Wild simulated ginseng is wild ginseng for all intents and purposes when it comes time to sell it.

 

Ginseng and China

Let’s say you’re living in Kentucky (near Frankfort), married with 3 boys, four, six and seven years old.  You’re working as a janitor making $34k (take home) but there’s a nice health care plan.  You want your wife to quit working, homeschool the boys and have a few more babies.  She loves that idea but can’t see how to afford it because even with both parents working you can barely make ends meet.  And what about the children?  How could you ever afford to send them to college?

If one looked around carefully it would be possible to find something along the lines of a 40 acre parcel of land 20-30 miles outside of town for less than $1500 an acre.  Typically these properties only have about 15 acres that are even close to flat and the rest is hillside covered with ‘young timber’.  That means it will be 30 years before the timber is worth anything, so for now it’s considered hunting land.  And, to cap it off, the property will be out in the middle of nowhere and you’ll have to drive 10 miles just to get to a gas station.

Some might say that it’s not possible to get property that cheap but that isn’t true.  But just to be sure, as of today (April 2017) a search for land in central Kentucky found several parcels from 40-75 acres that were priced at less than $1000 per acre.

The purpose of finding a farm like this is three-fold.  First, you need enough land to have a farm where you can produce most of your food.  Second, having such a farm means you can arrange your life the way you want without having to worry about what the neighbors think.  Third, such a parcel of land offers the correct habitat to grow ginseng.

Wild ginseng is almost extinct and when planted as “wild simulated” ginseng there is no difference between the wild and the wild simulated because all the planter did was help out nature by planting the seed.  The price of wild ginseng has risen dramatically in recent years and has regularly been selling for over $1000 per pound of dried weight.  The market for ginseng is China and it’s always been China.  There is no reason to expect the price of ginseng to drop or the demand to dry up.

Ginseng is a business with an increasing demand and a declining supply.

Each acre, planted correctly, will yield around 250 pounds (dried weight) of 10 year old roots.  By law, in order to comply with the international treaties governing endangered species, ginseng cannot be harvested before it’s 5 years old.  However, after 5 years the roots can be dug out of the ground and sold.  The older the roots the bigger they are and the more valuable they are.  If necessary roots could be dug to provide money every fall after the plants are 5 years old, but it’s far better to leave them in the ground to grow for as long as possible.

So, the idea is to find a place that will support all these requirements because once it’s planted it’s almost completely maintenance free.  If you’re interested in how to grow ginseng and what is required, read this short paper on the subject.  It was written in 2005, so some of the numbers are no longer accurate.  Back then wild ginseng was selling for $400 per pound and today the price is over $1000 per pound.  Anyone who had planted ten acres of ginseng twelve years ago according to those instructions now has millions of dollars worth of ginseng and the longer it stays in the ground the more valuable it gets.

While the price of seed has risen, fortunately it hasn’t seen the same increase that the wild ginseng has had.   In 2004 seed was selling for $35 per pound and the 20 pounds needed to plant an acre cost $700.  Today you’ll spend around $55 to $60 per pound if you buy it in bulk orders of #100 pounds or more.   You may need to go to Wisconsin to get it, because seed that’s sold retail online is upwards of $100 per pound.  Which means planting an acre of wild simulated ginseng will cost $1100 to $1200 per acre in seed at 20 pounds per acre.   Putting in ten acres will cost $11,000 to $12,000 just for the seed.

On the bright side, where else can you invest $150,000 and get a home to live in, plenty of room to produce food, have very low utility costs and live a rural and secure life…  and 8-10 years later start harvesting a crop that’s worth over $100,000 a year for life?  Yes, it takes a bit of work but that’s more of a blessing than you might think.  In order to steal it a thief will spend a lot of time and make a huge mess.  If you’re on top of things you’ll know and be able to take appropriate action.

 

Hiring Labor For Harvesting And Planting

The most labor intensive part is harvesting and it takes between 500 and 600 man hours of hard, focused work to harvest an acre of ginseng with 24,000 plants.  Do you really need $250,000 a year?  Perhaps you can be satisfied with only $125,000 per year.  That’s around 250 to 300 man hours of harvest time.  Since you have a debt-free home with extremely low utility costs and produce most of your food, can you barely scrape by with only $62,500 a year?  That’s just 125 to 150 man hours of harvest labor.  If you have a wife and two teenage children to help dig it up, you can knock it out in a standard work-week.  But, if the crop is that valuable, why not hire labor to dig it for you?

You can build housing and provide all the amenities for a small labor force and hire a crew from out of state to come in and harvest your ginseng.  You bus them in, have them harvest the ginseng, plant a few acres of seed and then bus them out again.  If you pay them $15 (in cash, it’s casual labor) for every pound of root they dig (after cleaning) and have a percentage that you dock them for broken roots and necks as well as a bonus for intact man-roots, your cost of labor on each pound of dry ginseng sold is less than 5%.  Every three pounds of fresh root will dry to about 1 pound of dry weight.

All you have to do is supervise.  If you hired twenty-two laborers you’d get somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 man hours of labor in the field each day and have a cook and a helper to feed them.  If they’re digging a pound of root per hour, that’s $150 a day for a 10 hour day so you’ll need $3000 in cash every day to pay them.   They’ll dig up around 1 acre every three days, so having them there for a week to dig out two acres will cost you around $20k in cash.  You own a farm and produce a lot of food so providing 400 meals shouldn’t be a problem.   The cook and his (or her) helper can do laundry during the day to keep them in clean clothing.

When it’s over you bus them back where they came from.  Each man made around a thousand dollars for a week’s work and you’ve got around a half-million dollars worth of ginseng in your drying sheds.  If you need a big payout for a single season, this is the way to do it.

Keep in mind that requires the facilities to house and feed the labor but it only gets used for labor (at most) once a year.  The rest of the time you’ve got facilities that can be used for family reunions and things like that.   When things get ugly, it’s a place to put people who are worth saving because you’ll need the manpower to stay safe.  Having some trusted people who make your farm their bug-out location can be a very good thing.  Or maybe you could make a kids camp with cottages and a central meeting house for meals and entertainment with a commercial kitchen that doubles as a canning kitchen for processing food.  I’m reliably told that kids camps are huge money-losers for tax purposes.

The one thing you DO NOT want to do is declare this to be some sort of ginseng farming operation for taxes.  You don’t want the government to know it’s there at all.

The bottom line is the older the plants get the more valuable they become, so if the money isn’t needed and sufficient funds are on hand to cover the coming year’s spending (with some set aside for emergencies), it’s better to leave the ginseng in the ground to keep growing and getting older.  China isn’t going anywhere.

 

An Example Of What To Look For

In this example I’ll try to demonstrate what kind of things to look for from the land itself.  Ginseng does best on a north-facing slope under a 70% shade cover in moist but not wet soil.  The nutrient requirements are beyond the scope of this but it isn’t difficult to find rural land that has these attributes.

One of the properties on sale now is a 74.15 acre parcel with an asking price of $65,000.  That’s the asking price for the land, $875 per acre.  Personally I wouldn’t haggle because for a homestead that can grow ginseng it’s a real bargain.  I don’t know how long that listing will be up so the link is to an archived page.  The price is excellent, but let’s look at why it’s a good deal.  Because even at $850 an acre, plenty of land might be completely unsuitable.  This property is actually a very good option from what an be seen online and one of the really good points is the realtor put a topography map with the property boundaries on the listing.  Take a look.

What you can see from this is debatable, but I see potential because there are two sections of north-facing hillside that would be excellent for growing ginseng (circled in red) and a good spot to put in a large lake (in blue).

The biggest problem in that part of the country is water, because the ground is hydraulically tight and getting a water well is almost impossible.  Putting in a good-sized lake would ensure that the farm had an adequate supply of water and after that it’s a matter of pumping it to where you want it.  This is a satellite view:

The ridge-top land can (and should) be cleared to create productive pasture land.  That would probably come out to around 40 acres and a good bulldozer operator should be able to knock out clearing out the trees and some of the stumps in a week or so, running at $400 to $600 per day.  To give you an idea of the lay of the land, this is more of a terrain photo from satellite imagery:

This property is better than most when it comes to good land for homesteading and growing ginseng because there’s at least ten acres of excellent terrain and perhaps another ten acres of terrain that would work but isn’t as good.

Due to the drastically reduced cost of living associated with producing your own food and not having much in the way of utility costs, you will have a choice.  One is to use all the excess income over expenses to purchase tools and supplies for the farm in order to get the farm up and running as fast as possible.  The other is to use excess income to pay off the mortgage as quickly as possible.

A third way is to first establish a savings of 1 year’s worth of expenses and after that, spend all available funds on developing the farm, but in the first year the farm will be planted with as much ginseng as possible.  Preparing the ground for planting ginseng is labor intensive, as is planting it.  Getting ten acres planted is not easy.

Plant 10 acres of wild simulated ginseng as soon as possible and after 5 years start harvesting seeds.  If planted correctly the ginseng will produce about 10 pounds per acre each year.  Keep planting your own land in any area that will support ginseng.   For the first five years, there isn’t a lot to do other than prepare areas for planting ginseng when you start producing seed.  There are two ways to do this.

Purchase the land and do whatever it takes to get the ginseng planted.  Perhaps all you can afford to plant is two or three acres, but plant as much as you possibly can and keep doing it every year.  Let’s say that at the end of four planting seasons you have something like this.  The heroic effort the first year was four acres, followed by two, then three, then five.

In year five, in the fall, you’ll harvest your first crop of seed and get it in the ground to stratify it.  Starting in the fall of year six harvest the berries and get them stratified.  This is the point of the big decision.

There are four acres of ginseng that is legal to harvest and you can plan on getting anywhere from 125 to 140 pounds (dried weight) to the acre if it’s dug up now.  So if one uses the general figure of $1000 per pound, the whole thing is worth anywhere between $500k and $560k.  So, the question is whether you really need the money and how much money you need.

You will have the funds necessary to pay off any debt, set aside money to build your family home, purchase equipment and improve the property and make other improvements.  It’s also plenty of money to get stupidly purchase things that will raise your profile amongst the locals.

It is at this point you can quit your regular job because the homestead is now paying you far better than you could possibly earn otherwise.  A wise course of action is to have a budget that allocates a salary for the coming year, pays off debt, allows the purchase of equipment and improvements, provides a healthy emergency fund and provides for a short vacation.  Dig up enough ginseng to meet the requirements of that amount and leave the rest in the ground.

No longer being in debt your expenses will decrease and you won’t need as much money, but you will have the time to work full-time on your homestead.  Now will be the time to implement your farm plan that you’ve been working on for the past five years.  You’ll build support buildings, run water lines, add livestock, plant trees, vines and bushes for production and in general turn it into an orderly farm.  You’ll also be able to afford to start putting in hedges on the perimeter of your farm.

During this time your job will be to learn by doing.  No amount of reading books, watching videos and talking to people will substitute for actually doing the work.  You will make mistakes and things won’t always work out as planned.  This is the time to start producing food products from your farm to sell to local buyers.  Learn how to raise cattle, hogs, chickens, goats and rabbits.  Install an aquaculture setup and learn how to work it and produce food with it.  Learn all about growing organic produce and keeping the varmints out of it.  If you’re working this full-time, there is no way you can possibly eat all the food you produce and selling to the public is a good way to make some money and make some friends.  Focus on selling to homeschooling families.  In a few years their daughters will be your son’s best prospects for marriage.  If you’re young enough, some of them might be your best prospects for marriage.

Each year, harvest the berries and stratify the seed.  Dig up the previous year’s seed and plant it, then harvest the minimum amount of ginseng necessary to fund your operation and pay your salary.  There should be no need to take out more than a quarter-acre each year.  Five years later, you will finally have ten year old ginseng to dig and market.  From that point on, you should not be selling any root that is less than ten years old.

Whatever is left of your first four acres will be ten years old, with the age of the rest of it shown on the chart.  Now is the time to build your house and think about getting married.   The truth is, you could have done this at any point after year six, but this depends on your age when you begin.  You could be in your 40’s when you start this and it doesn’t matter because it takes more time when you’re older because you don’t have as much energy as a man in his twenties.

You should be able to see why you should plant as much ginseng as possible in the beginning, especially if you’re older.  It’s hard work and the work will only get harder as you get older.  The longer it grows the bigger the roots get and the more valuable they get.

By the time the 20 year mark hits, there should still be at least 5 of the original 10 acres left.  Twenty-year old ginseng roots are extremely valuable and rare.   Ginseng is like money in the bank that’s locked up in a 1-year CD’s that the government can’t steal and doesn’t even know about.  When you are selling hundreds of pounds of premium roots every year, you can get buyers to travel to your farm and purchase it there.  There are a number of ways to be paid that will minimize your tax burden and dealing with the buyers from China, it gets easy.

You really want to be at the point of selling individual roots rather than selling by the pound.  The very best prices come from old “man root” roots like the ones in the photo below.  They resemble a man and are extremely valuable in Chinese herbal medicine.

Man roots, extremely valuable

Setting Up The Children

This plan offers more opportunity to generate wealth with less risk than sending a kid to college and then out to find a job.  In case you missed it, this is how to set things up so you can be free later in life with plenty of money to pursue other goals.

Consider that the properly homeschooled children are completing a bachelors degree around age 15.  By taking a long view and keeping an eye on appropriate properties, a man can buy farms for his sons when they’re 14-15 and they can get started with their own farm while they’re young. Plant the ginseng first and have him get started building a cottage and support structures.  Move him to the farm at 18-19 to get it into production as a homestead. Live the first few years in a super-insulated cottage (which can be an office or guest house later) and when he’s 24-27 years old he can pull out enough to build a home, be self employed and have a net worth of several million dollars. At that point he’s ready to get married, hopefully.

Women looking at the farm, the debt-free lifestyle and the freedom it offers will be extremely interested if they have their heads screwed on straight.  That brings up the problem of finding an appropriate wife or wives for the sons.  The boys should be completely red-pilled and have rock-solid game by the time they’re in their early twenties.  Having been taking martial arts instruction since they were 12-13 years old along with weight training, they should look good and have the confidence that comes from being able to take care of themselves.

Before the women, first he has to build his castle.  There are many ways to do that, a few of which are much better than the others.  You’ll be able to give him advice because you’ll have done the same thing years before.  That’s the subject of the next post, but let’s look at some common objections to becoming completely self-sufficient, anti-fragile and wealthy in less than ten years.  For this we’ll return to the property example used above.

 

But, It’s So Rural!  There’s Nothing To Do!

The fact that it’s so rural is a blessing, you idiot.  Is it necessary to point out that the property in question is in an area that’s practically lilly-white?  It isn’t that there isn’t anything to do, it’s that American’s have become addicted to entertainment.  On a homestead there’s plenty of work to do, but plenty of ways to have fun and get some enjoyment out of life.

The remote location isn’t nearly as remote as one might think.  The closest place with some modern consumer-driven madness is Danville, which is a 45 minute drive away.  It has a variety of businesses, all the big-box stores and some reasonable restaurants along with all the fast-feed places.  There are several colleges and several active theater groups.  This map gives you an idea how far out in the country it really isn’t.

Another hour up the road will get you to Lexington and if you keep going north you get you to Cincinnati in just under three hours.  If you head west and south, Nashville is also about three hours away.

Another point about this property is there’s enough room to have a runway that’s between 1400 and 1500 feet long, which is more than enough for light planes because with the trees cleared on the west end of the point, the ground drops away steeply and the plane will have an altitude of over 200 feet without climbing.  All the plane has to do is keep climbing and turn west.   With that much runway, getting a Piper Cherokee Six-300 or a Cessna C-185 in and out would be easy.

Ultralights and gyrocopters are also something that could be a lot of fun and quite handy at some point.  When it comes time to sell your roots, do you want to be driving around with many tens of thousands of dollars in hard-earned product?  Do you want the locals to know what you’re doing?  The answer is no.  Fly the stuff up to Wisconsin and sell it there.

This area is practically lilly-white, which means that when things get really ugly, it’s a good place for gentle folk who don’t want to witness the coming genocide.  Partly because of the demographics and partly because it’s in the middle of nowhere and the only people who might cause problems are neighbors.  When something like the US take-down scenario happens, there won’t be any roving gangs to come through if for no other reason than there isn’t anything there to steal and there won’t be any fuel available for a good many miles in every direction.  This place is off the main path by a long shot.  Neighbors might be a problem, but better the devil you know.

Yes, there will be neighbors who are hurting but once the municipal water system stops working, rural locations without an independent water supply will be untenable.  Unlike many other areas of the country in which rural locations have water wells, this area of Kentucky doesn’t.   Without supplies of fuel there won’t be any travel by motor vehicle, which means travel on foot or on horseback.  That means ten miles is suddenly a long way away and a thirty-mile trip will be a long day’s trip.

 

What Do You Want Out Of Life?

What’s the point of getting married and starting a family if you’re going to be divorce-raped 7-10 years down the road?  Maybe you can learn how to avoid that.

What’s the point of climbing the ladder if it’s leaning against the wrong wall?  Maybe you can make sure it’s the right wall before climbing the ladder.

What’s the point of climbing the ladder to get over the right wall if there is a doorway through the wall?  What would you give for the key to the lock?

What’s the point of making $100k a year if you are living hand-to-mouth and in debt up to your eyeballs?

What’s the point of that great STEM job if you have to endure living in a feminist, politically correct hell in which you can have your career destroyed by an innocent remark or laugh?

What’s the point of spending years studying STEM, getting a job in a hostile environment and working for decades just to have a reasonably comfortable life when you can do it in ten years or less by homesteading and be far wealthier while living a great lifestyle?

Oh….  I forgot.  Someone told you that it isn’t FUN.

Fun is a marketing concept designed to sell products you don’t need and can’t really afford that will make your life worse in the long run.  Yep, you’ll get a great deal of satisfaction spending 60 hours a week in your cube farm.  But you’re living in the city and it’s “FUN”!

 

In Conclusion…

I know of no other long-term investment that offers such excellent returns in such a short period of time and facilitates a rural, healthy and independent lifestyle than growing ginseng.

There are plenty of people who will claim that men should get degrees in STEM and get good jobs, but compared to this plan, it’s crazy.   With the help of parents who understand this operation, a son can start working his own farm when he’s fifteen.  He should have his own home on his own farm by the age of 20.  At the age of 25 he will have the funds available to do some serious work on the farm such as building a family home and be prepared to get married and start a family a few years after that.

No matter how old you are, there is a homesteading solution for you that will increase your quality of life and decrease your cost of living, often dramatically.  Homesteading provides more opportunities for children to learn responsibility and grow into responsible adults than any other lifestyle available and it’s available to almost everyone.

If the homestead is located in a suitable geographic location on suitable terrain, growing ginseng is appropriate and there is no better way for an ordinary family to make money than growing ginseng.  This is the most anti-fragile lifestyle and career one can have which will provide lucrative returns on the investment that far outstrip anything else.

Posted in Ginseng, Healthy Living, Messages to a young man, Strategy For Men of the West | 12 Comments