Housewives Are Important

 The True Calling Of Women:

Housewifery is service unto God.

Therefore let women study this lesson day and night that first of all they may play the housewives...

 Therefore let women have this mark to shoot at, and say, “well, although the world have no regard of me, yet must I find myself occupied here, for so God commandeth me.” And thus much touching the first, how women have to take occasion to be diligent—and moreover also they have to consider, that when they do their duty and execute their office, God accepteth well of it, although men despise it. And if men say, “What is this? A woman playeth the housewife, she spinneth on her distaff, and this is all that women can do.” As indeed there are a number of fools that when they speak of women’s distaffs, of seeing to their children, will make a scorn of it and despise it. But what then? What saith the heavenly Judge? That he is well pleased with it, and accepteth of it, and putteth it in his reckoning. So then let women learn to rejoice when they do their duty, and though the world despise it, let this comfort sweeten all respect they might have that way, and say, “God seeth me here, and his Angels, who are sufficient witnesses of my doings, although the world do not allow of them.”

Female Authority

 “Yet consider now, whether women are not quite past sense and reason, when they want to rule over men. In a word, it is madness. For, were men made for women? It is true that today men are as channels through which God causes His grace to stream down upon women. For, from whence does labor come? From where do all the most excellent things and highly esteemed things come? To be sure, it all comes from the men’s side. So God is well pleased for men to serve the good of women, as experience shows. Yet St. Paul has an eye here to the beginning of the creation, where it was said that it was not good for the man to be alone, and that he needed someone at hand who would always be ready to help. Since God was thinking of the man, it certainly follows that the woman is only an accessory. And why? Because she was only created for the sake of man, and she must therefore direct her whole life toward him. She must confess, “I am not supposed to be without direction here, not knowing my purpose and station. Rather, I am obliged by God, if I am married, to serve my husband, and render him honor and reverence. And, if I am not married, I am bound to walk in all soberness and modesty, cognizant that men have the higher rank, and that they must rule, and that the woman who disregards this forgets the law of nature and perverts what should be observed as God commands.” This then the place to which St. Paul brings back women.”

— John Calvin, Men, Women, and Order in the Church: Three Sermons by John Calvin (Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1992)

What We Did Last Weekend

 

Marital S8x, Again

 It's spring around here:)

So I thought you'd like this article:

And here, any competent Bible student can see that the feministic stance on the sexual and emotional obligations of spouses is exactly the reverse of the case, if anything. The Bible, and the Christian tradition as a consequence, clearly holds that sex (and the fruit that ordinarily comes from it) is the primary, distinctive feature of marriage. Marriage is designed to be the place where sex happens. Marriage and sex are not the same thing, but the latter is a necessary condition and the primary reason for the former. Marriage is meant to channel the incredible power of human sexuality into a constructive force- biologically, psychologically, and socially. When the heat of sexuality is allowed to run outside of marriage, it is inevitably a destructive fire. And of course, having a marriage without sex, is like building a forge to do basket weaving. So it shouldn’t be controversial to say that by design sex should be happening in marriage. Which means spouses owe conjugal relations to each other. They are in fact entitled to sex with their mate.

For all the women out there who apparently hate the very idea of having s8xual relationship with their (prospective) husbands: why don't you go join the nunnery? Seriously though, depriving your spouse is a just cause for divorce. When we abolish no-fault divorce, it'll be one of the divorce grounds again. 

Hat tip to Will from Patriactionary

Incel Revolution Part 2

 Wow, that was quick:) The video got more than 10 000 comments in 2 days and now gone;) 

I wonder why...

P.S. And...it's back again!

Is An Incel Revolution Coming???

 This is quite interesting though long. still worth watching, imo:

If You Are Upset With Your Government

 Rejoice! At least, you are not living in Scotland:

 Under the new legislation, anyone deemed to have been verbally ‘abusive’, in person or online, to a transgender person, including “insulting” them could be hit with a prison sentence of up to seven years.

That instantly led to a flood of bad faith reports, including from conservatives making a mockery of the system and from deranged left-wing activists trying to punish their ideological adversaries.

David Threadgold, Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, said that the new legislation was being exploited to pursue personal and political vendettas.

“Police Scotland have gone public and said that on every occasion, reports of hate crime will be investigated,” Mr. Threadgold told the BBC. “That creates a situation where we simply cannot cope at the moment.”

Western Values We Are Fighting For

 Prague hospital performs abortion on a wrong woman:

 Medics mistakenly terminated the fetus of an expectant mother who was four months pregnant on March 25.

Words fail me. They are offering her a compensation. As if you can compensate the mother for killing her child. You know I have many thoughts on this issue but can't really say anything because of LAWS. So you will just have to fill in the blanks yourself...

As long as it all happens in Minecraft, of course!

 

Excuses For Female Behaviour

 I've thought I heard it all but this is really mind-blowing. Apparently there are those among us, who blame Adam for Eve's sin, and even go so far as to say that his fault was not offering himself as sacrifice for her sin instead of Jesus Christ. That is, he should have declined the apple and then gone and offered himself up to wash away her sin (sounds a bit blasphemous to me, but OK) but since he hadn't done it, "we all died in Adam".

Now let's look what the Scriptures say. Did God punish Adam for his wife's sin or for his own, and what was the sin exactly:

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;   18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;   19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Appears quite clear to me that Adam was punished a) for listening to his wife instead of God and b) for disobeying the clear command and eating the forbidden fruit.

Here is how Matthew Henry explains it:

We have here the sentence passed upon Adam, which is prefaced with a recital of his crime: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, v. 17. He excused the fault, by laying it on his wife: She gave it me. But God does not admit the excuse. She could but tempt him, she could not force him; though it was her fault to persuade him to eat, it was his fault to hearken to her.

If something, Adam was guilty of trying to blame his wife, the way Eve tried to blame the serpent, but she still was responsible for her own actions and punished for it accordingly. Adam wasn't punished for her actions, but for his own!

Do you need any other proof that conservatives are extreme pedestalisers? BTW, a guy who asked if Adam should have physically restrain his wife from eating the fruit was right away accused of having abusive tendencies. Here you have it, ladies and gentlemen, women are mentally on the level of toddlers and can't be held accountable for their actions but are apparently entitled to all the rights of adults and also special treatment because they are ladies (would a man trying to physically restrain another man from doing wrong be accused of abuse?)

Dispensationalist VS Covenant Theology

 Interesting.

The Miracle Of The Empty Tomb

 He has risen indeed:

Courtesy of Gab

We are going away this weekend, I'll write more on Tuesday. Have a blessed Easter you all:)

Good Friday

 

Image courtesy of Gab

Reasonable Clothes For Women

 Though much of what I'm going to say applies to men as well:)

I get a lot of topics to write about from YouTube videos and discussions. Recently YouTube by some reason pushed some episodes of a Nigerien (that is made in Niger) soap opera about life in a village. It is in some French dialect so I couldn't understand much at all, but I was impressed by the clothes the ladies wore. Now you should keep in mind that in Niger the majority of population are Moslem. However, women don't wear the traditional black stile garment we often associate with that faith, but rather something which I would describe as very reasonable, especially considering the climate.

They wore long colourful skirts with long leggins underneath and long sleeved denim/dark coloured blouses, turbans on their heads and lots of gold/jewellery. They looked feminine and dignified, and their clothes while cool offered protection against the sun.  

When we visit an archeological museum we see women wearing European medieval costumes. They consist of long colourful robes, head-coverings and sometimes hats worn on top of it (depending on the period they are portraying). And while Roman soldiers were known for their short tunics, female clothes were still long and covered the entire body + hair unless she was a slave. Slave girls were more undressed because their modesty and chastity were not protected by the law. 

Traditional clothes women wore in the West until recently were of the same type, though obviously of different styles. Hats and headcoverings by women were still worn till 1960s at the least, though dresses became much shorter. Men still wore long trousers and often hats. Then everything changed. Hats and wearing clothes in general was declared the tool of oppression/patriarchy and to emancipate oneself you have to prance around as undressed as the weather allows.

The funny thing is that while "they" definitely promote it, "they" in this case aren't the government officials but rather the MSM, the fashion world and (female) popstars whose skimpy clothes are eagerly copied by the young girls hoping to become just as popular by being "cool and s8xy".

Various Western governments, on the other hand, keep warning people about the dangers of the sun exposure and urge them to put on what could only be described as "modest clothing", like in this article.

 While they don't mention skirts/dresses (that would be too patriarchal, I guess) their educational video shows a girl wearing a dark knee-length dress. The stores are full of long summer skirts, btw, which offer even better protection since they cover more of your legs. And don't forget your feet. Open sandals are more risky than more traditional foot wear, or sport shoes which one usually wears with socks. 

Isn't it rather funny that all traditional cultures and religions expected folks to cover their nakedness, especially women and that it perfectly coincides with modern medical/scientific advice??? By the way, keep in mind that even when the UV index is low there are still UVA type rays present which normally don't cause sunburn, but they contribute to premature skin aging and are thought to suppress immunity. In fact, this article claims that just using a sunscreen regularly is comparable to botox in making you look younger. 

Well, I guess sticking it to the oppressive patriarchy is worth getting skin cancer and may be even dying. Or is it???

I Only Want To Say

 It's Holy Week again, yesterday was Palm Sunday. I don't have time for an effort post right now so I'll just leave you with this amazing performance by Ted Neeley:

Also, Christ is King!

She Was The Victim The Whole Time

 People got very upset in the past when I said it, but it's true. North America is like the ground zero of feminism. It would be literally impossible in any other country:

A former Tennessee cop who got axed for her trysts with six other officers on the job has settled her federal civil lawsuit against her former employer for a whopping $500,000, according to reports.

Maegan Hall, who claimed she was “sexually groomed” by a cadre of male colleagues on the force, sued the city of La Vergne last year after word of her raunchy romps made national headlines.

On Wednesday, the La Vergne board voted 3-1 at a special meeting to settle the suit, WTVF News said.

Just to remind you of her behaviour:

Hall, 28, made national headlines last year after her stationhouse sexcapades went public, including affairs with her supervisor, Sgt. Lewis Powell, and others.

According to an internal investigation, Hall hooked up with several colleagues, sent them nude pictures and went topless in a “Girls Gone Wild”-themed hot tub party — and even performed oral sex on two cops while on duty.

She also allegedly had a threesome with one of the cops and his wife, according to the city’s report.

The hanky-panky cost several of the male cops their jobs, including Powell.

Sugar and spice and everything nice, eh? Womyn are strong and independent and equal but also can't be responsible for their own (s8xual) behaviour. Well, we can thank Victorian feminism for this, I guess. 

Isn't Tennessee like a bastion of conservatism? But then, of course, conservatives generally support treating adult females like minors out of some misguided sense of chivalry. Well, chivalry was meant for ladies not for well you know...

The woman in question was married, btw. This is a real life example of why many young men eschew marriage nowadays. Here is some advice for you guys: if you are in a similar situation, go for the jugular in court. Victorian chivalry need finally to die out for the society to change for the better.

Jesus Christ And The Merchants

 A friendly reminder that money-making should never be the highest value for a Christian:

What Happened To Kate Middleton?

 This is really weird. What's going on???

The End Stage Of France?

 You probably already heard about it, too? 

Monday's vote by the two houses of the French parliament enshrined in Article 34 of the French constitution that "the law determines the conditions in which a woman has the guaranteed freedom to have recourse to an abortion".

Abortion rights are more widely accepted in France than in the United States and many other countries, with polls showing around 80% of French people back the fact that abortion is legal.

Before WWII there was death penalty for abortion in France. 

It's not enough for Macron, though. Every knee should bow:

French President Emmanuel Macron said on Friday that he wants the European Union to guarantee the right to an abortion in its Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Those are the Western values I keep hearing about so often right? Which make us so superior? You know what they also make us? Extinct.

"We're going to lead this fight in our continent, in our Europe, where reactionary forces are attacking women's rights before attacking the rights of minorities," he told the crowd attending the ceremony in Paris, in front of the Justice Ministry.

Last time I was in Paris, 13 years ago it hardly looked like a European city at all. Something tells me the situation isn't getting any better, because, minorities Mr Macron so cares about, don't use this fundamental right, unlike silly ethnic French women. 

At this point I'm past caring anyway. If the people collectively decide to eradicate themselves to please women and give space to foreigners, so be it. This is just terminal. I simply object of them forcing it on others.

Woman's Duty

 I'm sure by now most have already heard about another victory for the traditional family, this time in Ireland where the voters overwhelmingly rejected the changes to the Constitution supported by all mainstream parties, and kept the language from 1937 which explicitly states that mother's duty lies at home:

The second change — a proposed 40th amendment — would remove a reference to women’s role in the home as a key support to the state, and delete a statement that “mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labor to the neglect of their duties in the home.”

I know American conservatives like to blame the government for everything, but let's be honest here. Who is standing behind the government? Notice that the original text basically means that the family should have a decent living standard so that the mother is not forced to neglect her home for the sake of making ends meet. The truth is that it's "the business community" so beloved by all Western conservative parties which really pushes female employment, just like they are pushing open borders. 

Those people are not your friends. It's time conservatives stopped worshiping merchants and "free markets" at the expense of the family and the nation. And if they won't...it's time for Christians to stop supporting them.

Are They Doing Something With Time?

 Here is a really weird discussion I read on YouTube. People were discussing how everybody seems so busy nowadays and then some guy said: "They are doing something with the time. Haven't you noticed how the days are shorter? They say there are now 18 hours in the day instead of 24."

I know it sounds crazy, but on the other hand though...The days do appear very short. Personally I blame smartphones. You take the darn thing in your hand, check some social media and utube vids and suddenly like an hour has passed.

Well, what do you think? Any ideas?

Meanwhile In Ghana

 Just some news from around the world.

There is currently a rebellion going on against Pope Francis. Some say, it will cause a schism in the Catholic Church:

 A group of 90 Catholic clergymen, scholars and authors have published a joint letter to "all Cardinals and Bishops of the Catholic Church," urging them to oppose a Vatican document approved by Pope Francis that allows priests to bless same-sex couples for the first time.

In the letter, the Catholic conservatives say that Fiducia Supplicans, a Vatican doctrine released on December 18 and signed by the Pope, would lead to the blessing of "objectively sinful" relationships. They add that the cardinals and bishops should "forbid immediately the application of this document in your diocese" and "ask directly the Pope to urgently withdraw this unfortunate document, which is in contradiction with both Scripture and the universal and uninterrupted Tradition of the Church."

Some Catholic priests went so far as to film themselves praying for the Pope to die and laughing about it:

A group of ultra-conservative priests from Spain and Latin America have been forced to apologise for saying they wished the Pope would die “as soon as possible”.

The comment was made during a filmed chat between members of a group called The Sacristy of the Vendée, which describes itself as “a counter-revolutionary priestly gathering”.

In it, Gabriel Calvo Zarraute, a priest from Toledo says: “I also pray a lot for the Pope, so that he can go to heaven as soon as possible.”

Another priest then also expresses his support for the Pope’s quick death, with other participants laughing at the comments.

The video was posted online and has had more than 60,000 views. 

Not only priests, but also some high ranking military officers appear to be upset by the current state of things in the West. Italy  suspended an army general for writing a politically incorrect book:

 ROME, Feb 28 (Reuters) - An Italian army general reprimanded by the defence minister for publishing a book disparaging LGBT people, migrants, minorities and feminists has been suspended from duty for 11 months, his lawyer said on Wednesday...The book says homosexual men are not normal and claims there is an "international gay lobby" trying to brainwash the world. It also appears to question whether Black people can be Italian, referring to Paola Egonu, an Italian volleyball international born in Italy to Nigerian parents.

 Well, I don't know about Nigeria, but in Ghana they don't care about "rules based world order'' any more:

Ghana's parliament passed a bill on Wednesday that further clamps down on the rights of LGBTQ people in the West African country.

The "Human Sexual Rights and Family Values" bill enjoys support from a majority of lawmakers in Accra and has been sponsored by a coalition of Christian, Muslim, and Ghanaian traditional leaders.

Same-sex intercourse in Ghana was already punishable by up to three years in prison, but while discrimination against LGBTQ people is common, no one has ever been prosecuted under the colonial-era law.

The new bill, commonly referred to as the anti-gay bill, now also imposes a prison sentence of up to five years for the "wilful promotion, sponsorship, or support of LGBTQ+ activities."

 Meanwhile in the USA progressives are upset about the pastor who won the Republican primary for governor of North Carolina. He is considered controversial because in a "fiery speech" he declared that there are "but two genders":

Robinson faces off against NC Attorney General Josh Stein, who won the Democratic nod Tuesday, and would become North Carolina's first Jewish Governor. Stein and Robinson will compete to replace term-limited Gov. Roy Cooper.

"Robinson is an abortion-banning, election denying, social media conspiracy theorist and come November every voter in the state will know exactly who the real Mark Robinson is," texted Morgan Jackson, a senior Stein adviser, to Politico.

Robinson, meanwhile, is on a quest to defend America against people "who want to destroy it."

Why Student Loans Are Immoral

My previous post links to VD, and he, in his turn, links to another blog which goes into great length to discuss what usury is and what is a traditional Catholic position on the issue. I'm not sure how many people would really bother to read the whole of it, but since I found the topic very interesting myself, I decided to do a sort of summary of it plus add my own thoughts on one of the most contentious modern issues, student loans. 

So here comes. There are basically 2 different kinds of loans, usurious and non-usurious. Usury nowadays is often understood as charging an unreasonable amount of interest on the loan, but it's not correct. It's the type of loan itself, not the amount of interest you have to pay, which creates usury.

Here are 2 examples to illustrate the point I'm trying to make.

Situation 1. My friend Jane needs 20 euros. She asks me to lend her money. I make her sign the contract which states that if Jane doesn't pay me 20 euros within 1 month, I'm entitled to her hammer which cost about the same. I then can sell it online and get my money back. This type of loan is non-usurious because it's tied to property with real market value.

Situation 2. Jane wants to borrow 20 euros from me. We sign the contract which stipulates that if she doesn't pay within a month, then I can sue her in court for a portion of her future earnings. This type of loan is always usurious, because it's tied to a person, and something which doesn't really exist at this moment. It could be very well that in 1 month Jane loses her job and has no salary at all. Her "future earnings" are non-existent.

Usury is considered immoral because it is akin to slavery, since it lays claims on a person, and not a thing/property. Hence the term "debt slave". By this definition, all student loans are usury and sinful. Even if the chance exists, like in my country, that they are forgiven if you get your diploma. Since it's tied to the possibility of you passing your exams in future, which may or may not happen. This "diploma thing"" doesn't even exist at this point.

Traditionally, the magisterium taught that the sinner was the one who lends, and not the one who borrows. So a student who feels his only chance in life is to borrow money to get a degree is misguided at best, and a victim at worst, while the system which allows for it is wicked and immoral.

Conservatives naturally side with the usurious banker in the case. Sorry, couldn't help it. But there is really a nuance to the whole situation. There should be some sort of a debt jubilee for student loans after which the system should be reformed. However, the proper way to handle it is, imo, not to give those people free money, but simply cancel all the debt. Let the usurer bear the costs. Simple as that:)

Usury Is Morally Wrong

 A very interesting post on usury by VD:

Now, the history of economics, especially as recounted by Murray Rothbard, is essentially the history of relentlessly challenging the Catholic Church’s ban on usury. And in retrospect, it’s clear that this incoherence is the direct result of centuries of gradually chipping away at the concept through adulteration and expansion of the moral and legal permissibility of usury.

Why Conservatives Keep Losing...Again

 

  I think I already wrote about it before:) Anyway, I don't have much time today, so just a couple of thoughts. Conservatives keep losing because it's inherently "bourgeois" ideology, i.e. they are obsessed with being respectable. God forbid they would break any rules, engage in  street activism or, in general, do anything except b8tching online about "liberal double standards" or in the best case, holding a prayer vigil. 

While I'm not a big fan of D.Trump, I still remember how "traditional conservatives" were denigrating him in 2016 as "crude" and "boorish". Remember that famous "grab them by the 88888" remark? It had all these prissy types reaching for their smelling salts. He committed the ultimate sin of "not respecting women" by (gasp) wishing to bed them!!! Oh the horror of horrors, he had a libido.

 Conservatives are the ultimate pedestalisers. They simply can't bring themselves to criticise women so if they do criticise feminism they somehow make it the fault of men. Along the lines of "men are so weak nowadays that women have to join the army". They keep pretending that it's still 19th century and all these sluts girls out there throwing themselves at chad and tyrone are simply pure misguided angels seduced by big bad men. They themselves would never offend any woman by desiring her, hence the reason why they chose chad in the 1st place, lol. 

Being ultimately too cowardly to do anything themselves they spend an enormous amount of time  online attacking those who try changing things by inventing various conspiracy theories about psy-ops and stuff (not that psy-ops never happen, but you know what I mean). They have the personality and charisma of a Victorian schoolmarm and are always ready to scold those who in their opinion, deviate from the conservative standard. They are the enforcers of the speech norms (no, you can't say anything about the behaviour of group X. That's not NICE!!!)

In short, they keep losing because they simply refuse to fight. Conservatism is simply loser ideology. 

“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This [Northern conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation.What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism;... Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom.

P.S. While I do love The Lord Of The Rings there is a reason why it's so popular among conservatives. It's about good guys per chance acquiring the Ring Of Power and refusing to use it!!!

Physical Fitness Tests are Sexisss

 Holding women up to any kind of standards is discrimination:

A police force has come under fire after scrapping compulsory fitness tests on the grounds they are unfair on women.

British Transport Police said female officers were suffering 'indirect discrimination' from doing a so-called bleep test – in which they have to run up and down a 15-metre track for three minutes 35 seconds – because they were far more likely to fail than men.

Now only new recruits and specialists, including dog handlers and armed officers, are required to pass a fitness test.

There Is Nothing Glamorous About Divorce

Here is an interesting video about women regretting their divorces:

 

 Here are a couple of things to consider. First, WARNING: language. Not PG friendly:) 

Second, I've know guys who did exactly the thing he says never happens, like leaving his wife for another woman, but his general point stands. 

Third, the lady with 4 kids is a real basket case and the ex-husband is much too nice, which is why she probably left him in the first place. 

And finally, the last case. I've written on my blog about a similar story, but it ended much worse. The woman hanged herself in front of her minor kids. 

Women in the past were taught how to attract men, to make them marry you and, the most important thing, how to keep them. Appears to be a lost art nowadays...

Is It "Their" Fault?

 If you are on Gab you know that the front page more often than not consists of memes and slogans, with a couple thought-provoking posts thrown in between. One of the memes spread around today went along the lines that the society is collapsing because "they" made the art ugly (among other things). Now I've seen the variations of this theme going around for ages. 

Who are "they" you will ask. Well, it could be anyone. "Deep State", "Special people", "Liberals," "Communists", "Demonrats", "Bankers" and sometimes, "elites" in general. 

Here is something I have been thinking about recently. The idea behind this type of posts is always that the elites are doing it on purpose, for some nefarious reasons, which is, possibly, at least, partly true. There is, however, an aspect of the problem which nobody seems to consider. Any society, how progressive and liberal it is in theory, has social classes. In traditional Western class system we have  upper class, middle class and lower class. Upper class are ruling elites, middle class are free property owners and craftsmen, while lower class is rather heterogenic. 

Traditionally it would consist out of the descendants of medieval serfs, landless peasants (and in general people too poor to own any kind of property), various vagabonds and antisocial/criminal elements.

European class system has never been very rigid, and there was both upward and downward mobility, however, the upper class still largely consists of those who are called "old blood/money". I read about some Swiss/Italian families which are 1000 years old and all this time have been in top 10% of the income bracket. In UK and Germany there are families who own property such as historical castles for more than a thousand years. Well, you get my point.

Upper class people, whether good or evil, generally have a higher IQ which, together with clannishness and ambition/lust for power is one of the factors which allows them to keep their dominant position in society. It is those people who throughout the centuries have had time to create high culture, works of art, music and literature. Their youngest sons became clergymen and studied theology. They have shaped European culture for more than a thousand years.

It was European nobility who first converted to Christianity, made it the official religion, and sometimes forced it on the peasants, who had kept their old pagan folks-beliefs well into Late Middle Ages. It was upper and upper middle class in Great Britain who created Victorian culture we admire so much.

Lower classes? Well, they did enjoy stuff like gladiator fights, public executions, traveling circus, and fairs where cripples were showing their handicaps for money. In the 19th century, there was an enormous effort by the elites to "enlighten" poor folks and to improve their living conditions. It worked! Even factory workers were reading novels like those of Dickens in Victorian England and visiting opera.

And then, what happened then? Somewhere in the mid-19th century Western elites lost their faith. They put their trust in science and "killed God". Some stayed "Christian in name only", others turned openly atheist. Ironically enough, it was lower middle/lower class who kept to their faith the longest, but now in Europe they chiefly lost it, too. In the USA, many people still identify as Christian, but for far too many of them, their religion is more like belonging to a social/entertainment club. My husband calls it "circus churches". 

Once Western elites stopped being Christian they simply lost their ability to create transcendental works of art. The last one of this kind in English language was probably Lord Of The Rings. Recently I read the preface to a Game of Thrones novel which stated that it is more morally complex than LOTR. The very first page I opened had a sentence that ran approximately like this: She f888ed her father. And later "she needs a good f888" Well, that is modern moral complexity on a display right here. I'm fairly certain that Tolkien could not have written it.

Western elites are currently atheistic nihilists (some think they are downright satanic) or (like some American politicians) use religion cynically to appeal to their voters and manipulate them into obeying the government (how many churches have adopted the alphabet agenda?) Elite sons are not choosing careers in the church which is one of the reasons of the theological stagnation and church having lower status in general. 

Art and culture produced by these elites naturally reflect their essence. "They" probably aren't even doing it on purpose, to corrupt the masses. They simply can't behave otherwise. Modern art and culture simply reflects their core values, on the one hand, while on the other hand, it appeals to the lowest common denominator because it sells better. You know, the types who used to enjoy gladiator's fights and public hangings. 

Until "they" become Christian again, there will be no change for the better.

 

Are Husbands Supposed To Support Their Wives?

 Recently I read a discussion about polygamy. One guy said that Islam only allows polygamy to provide for widows and orphans/divorced women, but as usual, men abused this right by marrying young hot 2nd wives when their 1st wife grows older, which, in his opinion was very wrong. However, he continued, in the case of helping some poor (war) widow it could be a noble thing to do.

A European lady was surprised. She asked if women in his country worked at all and why would they need a man to provide for them and their children. "In my country everybody works," she stated. Now I wonder which country it is and how did it stray so far from the original design, and I find it especially sad that the lady stated she was a Christian, so let's look at what the Scriptures say about it. A funny thing is that OT allowed polygamy and expressly stated that if the man took another wife, he still had the duty to keep his 1st wife in the way she was accustomed to:

Exodus 21:

 7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.   8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.   9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.   10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.   11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Here is what Matthew Henry wrote on the issue:

"Concerning maid-servants, whom their parents, through extreme poverty, had sold, when they were very young, to such as they hoped would marry them when they grew up; if they did not, yet they must not sell them to strangers, but rather study how to make them amends for the disappointment; if they did, they must maintain them handsomely, v. 7-11. Thus did God provide for the comfort and reputation of the daughters of Israel, and has taught husbands to give honour to their wives (be their extraction ever so mean) as to the weaker vessels, 1 Pet 3 7."

So yes, men are supposed to provide for their wives. And then, of course, there is this famous 1Tim 5:8 verse, which is not only about widows, according to John Gill:

 But if any provide not for his own
Not only for his wife and children, but for his parents, when grown old, and cannot help themselves

This, btw, takes us back to the whole Boomer problem. Boomers are accused of not supporting their adult children financially, while here it is stated that it's adult children who have to provide/care for their aged parents. Hmm
 

You Don't Have To Accept Their Bull888t

 How many parents are conditioned to "accept their children as they are" and never dare to show disapproval of their choices? Well, this one dad had enough:

Happy Belated Valentine's Day!

 

Well, I am awfully sorry I didn't congratulate you yesterday, but we were too busy celebrating our wedding anniversary:) Hope you all had a great time with your loved ones!

Rawhide

 

How Did Grandma Manage To Stay Home?

Grandma:

"My grandparents didn't have any money to spend on luxuries for their home, but you know what? It was always clean, everything had its place, there was never clutter, and it always looked like a pretty little place that you'd want to visit for the day and drink some lemonade. My grandmother scrubbed her walls and her floors, and they sparkled. She had pride in her home - her two-bedroom home where she raised nine children who were always clean and well-behaved."

Darla Shine, Happy Housewives, New York, Regan books, 2005, p. 73.

Being A Homebody Is OK

We all have probably heard about extrovert-introvert distinction however modern social science thinks these conditions exist as a spectrum and most people fall somewhere in-between (called ambivert), however extroverts are often seen by many as an ideal, especially in business and management.

Our society is biased towards extroverts and it starts at school, as this article documents:

In a way education by its nature favours the extrovert because you are taking kids and putting them into a big classroom, which is automatically going to be a high-stimulation environment. Probably the best way of teaching in general is one on one, but that's not something everyone can afford. So, school ends up becoming this place where introverted kids learn that they have to act like extroverts.

One of the reasons for this is the demands of big business:

But this really reached a pitch when we moved from an agricultural society into the world of big business. And that's when it really became the case that to stand out and succeed in a company, with people that you had never met before, the quality of being very magnetic, very charismatic in a job interview suddenly became very important. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. And, it was some what coincidentally some what not, accompanied by the rise of the cinema and the idea of movie stars. And so movie stars became the ultimate guide on how to be magnetic and charismatic.  

I think we all share this bias to some degree, I mean when you look around you notice that the outgoing, charismatic people are largely considered to be successful and good role models while quiet, reserved people are viewed as mousy. And while the author of the article claims that women are allowed to be "more demure", this is not the case, in my opinion, and women are constantly encouraged to be loud, aggressive and spend as little time at home as possible.

I remember how a friend was embarrassed that she was seen knitting through the window by a postman, "because knitting is for old(er) ladies", just like cross-stitching and other quiet hobbies. 

Yet, if extreme extroverts aren't even a majority why should we all be catering to them? May be some women really detest staying home and would rather be out engaging in office drama and slaying dragons, but what about the other type of women? Those who actually like being at home? Why should they be ashamed of who they are?

Recently I was following a discussion on social media where a lady said exactly this. Work sucks. I'm glad I can stay home with my children. I like being at home anyway. And another answered along the lines that she was a homebody, too, and the mom of several (!) small kids yet people were telling her she needs a job otherwise she'll get crazy from staying home. Well guess what, some of us would get crazy if they had to stay in the office the whole day.

Home is not a prison and it's OK to be there often and to like it:)

Putting Clothes On Women

 

Sorry couldn't help it:) 

Feminism Meets Cold Water

 Here

Attention Women: Is Your Hairdresser Sabotaging You?

 Mine doesn't because I actually don't have one and never cut my hair:)

Intrasexual competition between women is often covert, and targets rivals' appearance. Here we investigate appearance advice as a vector for female intrasexual competition. Across two studies (N = 192, N = 258) women indicated how much hair they would recommend hypothetical clients have cut off in their hypothetical salon. Clients varied in their facial attractiveness (depicted pictorially), the condition of their hair, and how much hair they wished to have cut off. Participants also provided self-report measures of their own mate value and intrasexual competitiveness. In both studies, participants' intrasexual competitiveness positively predicted how much hair they recommended clients have cut off, especially when the hair was in good condition and the clients reported wanting as little as possible cut off – circumstances wherein cutting off too much hair is most likely to indicate sabotage. Considering data across both collectively, women tended to recommend cutting the most hair off clients they perceived to be as attractive as themselves. These data suggest that just like mating, intrasexual competition may be assortative with respect to mate value. They also demonstrate that competitive motives can impact female-female interactions even in scenarios which feature no prospective mates, and are nominally unrelated to mate guarding or mating competition.

Great discussion on VD's new substack, btw. 

AI Vs E-Thots

 Funny this:

Women And Draft

 

Surrounded By Energy Vampires

 A book review. So today I finished a book by Thomas Erikson, a Swedish author, called Surrounded by Energy Vampires, which is a part of a series. I read it in Dutch so there won't be any direct quotes, you'll have to believe me:)

Normally I don't buy and/or read modern secular popular psychology/self-help books, but I made an exception for this one; first, because of the name (some people do drain your energy) and, second, because one of the chapters deals with narcissists (if you ever have been a victim of them, you'll understand). 

So what can I say? My general impression of the book is positive. There were things which I liked/found helpful, but also some things I didn't particularly care for.

The book is well-written and quite engaging and I managed to finish it in 4 days (!). It discusses different types of so-called "energy vampires", i.e. people who emotionally drain and manipulate you and gives you some advice on how to deal with them. In doing so, the author uses DISC model, an international model which divides people into 4 basic types represented by 4 colours (red, yellow, green and blue) or some combination of the above, dependent on whether they are intro- or extrovert and relationships or  objects-oriented.

 The main problem for me was that this book's target audience are office workers. It goes into detail about modern office politics and all the drama it creates, which made me very happy that, thank Heaven, I don't have to deal with any of it. To be fair, Erikson also gives examples from normal daily/family life and mentions other occupations besides "middle manager", albeit briefly. But never a housewife:) In fact, they don't at all exist in his universe and he several times goes out of the way to make his book as unis8x as possible, including such  examples as a genius IT lady and men making breakfasts for their families before going out to work (must be normal in Sweden). It's also secular and the existence of higher powers is only mentioned once and rather skeptically at that.

 That said, he isn't entirely politically correct, or in any case, less than I expected which is quite refreshing. He does mention that men and women can differ in displaying certain character qualities and does hint that certain "energy vampire" types are more common for males or vice versa. 

Some of the author's observations are very interesting, e.g. when he claims that our society sees being extrovert as a virtue in itself and encourages everyone to behave accordingly and be constantly "on the move"/ run around instead of sitting quietly at home, or that it rewards "victim mentality" and thus creates more people who are proud to have victim status. 

I also liked his suggestion to punish a teenager who passively-aggressively shirks doing domestic chores by doubling the amount of work and supervising him doing it. I mean, I know enough mothers whose teenagers have no domestic duties at all and the thought of punishing them by making them actually do something at home would horrify them, even "the good Christian conservative types", so I was amused when a liberal Swedish feminist guy suggested it. 

When dealing with bullies Erikson mentions how the society nowadays likes to present them as the victims (they were abused by parents, had a difficult youth etc) but the reality is quite different: they are toxic sociopaths who get a kick out of abusing those below them on the social ladder and should be avoided at all costs. He gives the same advice about narcissists and adds that they can't be changed (though I'm not sure I agree they were born that way) so the best thing to do is to avoid them. He also points out that modern "cancel culture" is wholly driven by narcissists who pretend to be holier-than-thou but in reality, are nasty, evil individuals.

On the other hand, when one has a difficult (marriage) partner, his advice is not to right away run to a nearby divorce court but rather to try and fight for your relationship, which, again, is quite refreshing in the times of easy divorce.

The chapter which I found particularly helpful was the one about the news and social media. Erikson gives some interesting info: 90% of all news is negative and is designed to be so to trigger you and keep you in the constant state of stress. He recommends news/media fast of 30 days to try and find out if you are feeling any better and claims that his quality of life has improved considerably after quitting following news cold turkey several years ago. He also warns about the dangers of (excessive) social media use and the general unpleasantness of having to deal with "smartphone zombies" at the dinner table etc. 

Go out and help your neighbour instead, he recommends and I agree wholeheartedly.

He also gives some tips on how to avoid procrastination which are quite helpful. And then, his last advice: remember that you can't really change other people or to avoid all irritating types altogether. The only person you can really change is yourself. Change your attitude to life and others and you'll feel better.

I'd say "amen" to that.

What's Happening In Texas?

Is this a real thing? Will it lead to something bigger? Or is it just a political stunt???

A Ban On P0rn?

Interesting.

 An Oklahoma state senator has proposed a law that would make watching pornography a felony and ban sexting among people who are not married.

The bill, set to be introduced next month by state Sen. Dusty Deevers (R-Elgin), would prohibit consuming or producing sexual content that “lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value” in any medium.

The measure defines “obscene material” as the depiction or description of any “acts of sexual intercourse,” including those that are “normal or perverted, actual or simulated.”

Thoughts? 

A Feel-Good Post For Today

 Sorry, have been very busy:) Love you all (image from Gab)

Donald Trump And Alcohol

 I can actually credit my recent teetotalism to Donald Trump. Seriously. As you probably know, he doesn't touch alcohol at all (here is an old BBC article on this topic). Trump is quite old, overweight and likes eating at McDonald's but he is still remarkably fit for his age. 

I remember before he was elected folks online had been discussing his unusual health. He was campaigning all over the country and flying a lot yet always looked full of energy. Someone asked: "How comes he doesn't suffer from jet lag?" And the other guy said it was because of Trump's total abstinence. 

Well, that made me think. It certainly flew in the face of everything I ever heard about "moderate drinking" and how it's supposedly good for you. Then I did some research and decided to quit. I've been doing it on and off but have now come to the point when I don't enjoy drinking even small amounts of alcohol. At all.

I think my health has improved because of it. It could be a conformation bias, of course. D. Trump is meanwhile 6 years older and appears to be as fit as ever, especially comparing with his chief contender. Alcohol has been linked to brain damage and dementia, btw.

So what do you think about it all? Feel free to share!

The Thick Web Of Conspiracy Theories

 Really most of them don't make sense. You know what they do though? They make Right-wingers look bad. 

Let's start with the most recent one. Covid-19. I had been reading stories about how it was a conspiracy since the very beginning of the pandemic. Apparently, such different countries that normally can't stand each other as the USA, Russia, China and Iran all united in one big conspiracy together with WEF, UN and probably aliens to oust President Trump or hurt the Western economy or make us all digital slaves or something something. 

Listen, I agree that many of the measures taken by the Western governments (don't know about other countries so won't judge) were retarded and overblown, however, corona did exist, and it was dangerous to certain categories of people, such as, the elderly, those with serious diseases (cancer, heart disease), and the overweight. We all collectively had to suffer because those 3 categories are like 50% of the modern Western society, could be more in some countries, lol.

However, I had corona and it did feel different from flu. I was totally whacked for 2-3 weeks after it, and I was told that I recovered indecently quickly. But after you had it once good, the next time you get it, it's really nothing special. 

The next one is corona vaxxx. People are dying left and right from it, right? Except they are not. I know plenty of vaccinated folks and they are all alive and kicking, with a couple of exceptions. One died from cancer, the other one from untreated diabetes type 2. I also heard of those who had side effects from the vaccine, one elderly person even developed a blood clot in his lung. This happened very quickly after his 1st injection, not 2 years later though. His sister didn't vaccinate herself and spent 2 months in the hospital with severe corona (she was in 2 of the groups mentioned above).

Side effects can happen after any vaccine you take. My mother got swelling in her lung after a tetanus shot. You know what, if necessary I'd still take a tetanus shot over developing tetanus. The government had no business mandating corona vaccines (or any other vaccine) though and I'm glad my country never went so far, because we have workers' rights. Trade unions came in force against it and we had a strike which closed some of the havens of Rotterdam for just half a day, and it was enough to make the government change its mind. Collective action wins over rugged individualism every time.

The next one. Raw milk. It will cure any disease and give you eternal youth and pasteurised milk will send you to an early grave (yes, I know I overdrive). Raw milk was prohibited because raw milk spread tbc and diphtheria, among other things.   Raw milk when it was sold widely was usually boiled for a certain amount of time at home. Here you can purchase it on farms. You are advised to boil it. It has a higher fat content.

If you are lactose intolerant, raw milk won't cure it. I never ever had problems with store-bought milk, in fact, I love milk, but started developing stomach issues with the raw one. It's literally not worth the hassle and health risk, despite what "nutrition bloggers" tell you.

Sugar. Sugar has a conspiracy theory of its own, seriously. Apparently, the USGov wants you to eat sugar, for nefarious reasons. Except a very simple Google search will take you to semi-official nutrition advice such as this, which literally tells you 

• Men should consume no more than 9 teaspoons (36 grams or 150 calories) of added sugar per day.
• For women, the number is lower: 6 teaspoons (25 grams or 100 calories) per day. Consider that one 12-ounce can of soda contains 8 teaspoons (32 grams) of added sugar!  There goes your whole day’s allotment in one slurp.

I could go on and on, but will keep it short for the purposes of this blog post so I'll add the last one. Vegan conspiracy. Vegans want you to eat bugs. Or the government wants you to become vegan and eat bugs. I'm not a big friend of vegans, but let's be fair. Vegans don't eat bugs. They even refuse to eat honey because it's "the product of exploitation" or something. So while various government may promote bug-eating, it has nothing to do with vegans whatsoever. Also, the French eat snails. I tried them once, wasn't impressed. But one could say that eating insects is a long-standing European tradition:)

Also what did John the Baptist feed on in the desert? Locusts and wild honey? Vegans deny it, btw, and say that he was a vegan, too, and the word "locust" was just mistranslated.

Western governments can certainly be criticised on many things, but personally I don't think they're in the business of genociding us all with covid vaxx, sugar and insect protein:) Take nutrition and health advice from the internet with a grain of salt and do your own research.

The Importance Of Mothers

 I remember the words of an old song, Mother gave me life, Mother is the most important word in every language. This simple fact is somehow denied in our modern times. I recall reading a magazine about pregnancy and childbirth from a midwife's office where some "child development specialist" claimed that it really doesn't matter for your child who is raising him, you or a nanny. This is obviously a lie, invented to make working moms feel better about themselves.

Here is a simple test. Have you ever being scared witless in your adult life? May be not in real life situation but in a dream? Whom did you call for help? There is a story I read once about American war prisoners in Japanese camps in the 1940s. Japanese were in the habit of torturing them for fun, to break their spirits. These men would call their mothers. Not Dad. Not Granny. Not a baby sitter. Not a nice day care lady. No, these once tough soldiers were screaming for their moms. 

That is not to say that a father isn't important. And, of course, it's a blessing to have loving and involved grandparents. I'm saying it as someone partly raised by Grandma. I loved her to pieces and still do, though she has been many years deceased. She was a real proper lady with high moral principles, feminine but hard as nails if the need called. They don't make them like that any more. Still, Granny was Granny and Mother is Mother if you know what I mean.

If you are planning to have children you should also be planning to stay home with them. And not only "while breastfeeding" or "until they go to school" or any such nonsense. Teenagers need their mothers, too. Your baby won't try alcohol behind your back. Your toddler won't do drugs. Your 1st grader won't have orgies at home. We all know who is prone to try all these things if there is no one around. It's not a modern problem, either. I remember when I was in high school there were certain homes where no grown ups were present during the day where certain things happened. Sometimes working mothers even had to quit their jobs to set things right.

It didn't get better since that time, if something it got worse. 

Whatever pretty lies the society has been telling you, it still doesn't change the real facts. It's not your mother's responsibility.

Should Marriage Be Based On Love?

 I should say yes, among other things, and if not love, then, at least, mutual attraction. I mean it's incredible to me that some folks push the idea that it's absolutely not important for the future spouses to have any kind of feelings for one another. Because "romantic love" is the root of all evil, don't you know?

Well, I don't know about romantic love, whatever the heck it is, but passionate love is quite important. "Passion" sounds rather old-fashioned nowadays because it's actually an euphemism for s8xual desire, and marriage literally can't exist without s8x. Even Medieval Catholic Church would give annulment if marriage was never consummated. Consummation means having s8x. By the same logic, later on Protestant countries would grant a divorce if one the parties refused the other in bed refused to perform their "marital duties."

How are you supposed to have a healthy s8x life if you aren't attracted to your spouse? I don't think many of us would like to return to the times of "lie back and think of England":) Of course, we all know examples when even arranged marriages turned into stable loving relationships, so you don't always have to be "madly in love" before your wedding day, but a pure marriage of convenience, especially when one of the spouses (usually the woman) is repulsed by the other and married him purely for money or some other reason, is a recipe for disaster, especially in the times of easy no-fault divorce.

Do we really need to drag the worst of Victorianism into our present day and how would it make our family life better? 

It's Not Your Mother's Job

 To raise your children. There, I said it. Things have come to the point when Grannies quit their jobs to babysit their grandchildren while their daughters, the moms of these kids, keep on working. The funny part is that Boomer/early Gen X Grannies themselves kept on working when young and didn't bother to properly raise these daughters because it wasn't cool to be a SAHM or something, but now want to live vicariously through their daughters.

I'd like to quote Darla Shine's Happy Housewives:

Right now I want to talk to all the moms out there who can afford to be at home with their children. Women who have husbands who can support their families...I have to ask you: What are you doing? 

I know you feel guilty about your choice to continue working your way toward that glass ceiling, and I do agree with you that it totally sucks that you have to give it up for your family, but that's just the way it is. I'm sorry...You brought these little people into the world, so go home and raise them. It's not your mother's responsibility. 

Regan, 2006, p. 19. 

I did a review of her book here.

Happy Epiphany!

 image from here

Real Life Examples Of Alcohol Abuse

 First I want to put up a disclaimer: I'm not telling anyone to stop drinking. I don't think drinking small amounts of alcohol is sin. I don't believe like Baptists do that wine in the Bible was necessarily grape juice. I still sometimes may drink a half glass myself, on rare occasions.

 However, the truth is that alcohol has been a scourge of my people (White Christian Europeans) and now that they are getting less Christian, it only gets worse. So I just wish to give you a couple of real life examples, with some details changed for privacy reason, to explain why I think the best amount of alcohol to drink is none, outside of communion.

A young woman got married and had a child, started drinking and her husband divorced her. Got married again, got another child, The 2nd husband couldn't tolerate her alcohol habit any more and divorced her, too. She hanged herself on Christmas Day and her oldest child of 4 was wandering in the streets asking strangers for help.

A neighbour started drinking after his relationship broke down. Tried to commit suicide, the family talked him out of it. Got drunk on Christmas Day, fell off the stairs and broke his neck.

A woman had a drinking habit, got married and caused her husband to drink, too. Became abusive and beat him up. He divorced her. The children didn't want to do anything with her either, ended up all alone.

A woman started drinking at home, with her husband. Became addicted. Later became sick and had to quit. Went through Hell, couldn't sleep normally for months. 

A young woman started drinking in her student years, ended up a single mom. Had a binge drinking episode which resulted in internal bleeding. Bled out to death all alone with no one to help. Her mother was left to raise her child.

That's just several stories which come to mind right now, I could go on but it would be rather repetitive as it's always the same story. People start drinking in their youth or because they have problems, end up addicted, family breaks down and early death follows. And before you say, but I won't get addicted here is the last example:

two men were friends and cousins. Started drinking at the same time. Both had a tendency to binge. One later got sick and decided to quit, just like that. Without any negative health effects, either. Drinks half a glass on his birthday and that's all. The other one went to rehab several times and still can't stop. The point is, you never know beforehand who becomes an addict and who doesn't.

Happy New Year!!!

Guess which language is this?