Bigfoot Pundits catching up

David Brooks is finally acknowledging the need for households and families. This sounds an awful lot like Aaron Renn’s newsletter on the fall of the household. He’s totally wrong about much though:

During the Victorian era, the idea of “hearth and home” became a cultural ideal. The home “is a sacred place, a vestal temple, a temple of the hearth watched over by Household Gods, before whose faces none may come but those whom they can receive with love,” the great Victorian social critic John Ruskin wrote. This shift was led by the upper-middle class, which was coming to see the family less as an economic unit and more as an emotional and moral unit, a rectory for the formation of hearts and souls.

Actually, the “hearth and home” concept dates back to Adam and Eve. 2500 years ago, Xenophon wrote about households in “The Estate Manager”

But while extended families have strengths, they can also be exhausting and stifling. They allow little privacy; you are forced to be in daily intimate contact with people you didn’t choose. There’s more stability but less mobility. Family bonds are thicker, but individual choice is diminished. You have less space to make your own way in life. In the Victorian era, families were patriarchal, favoring men in general and first-born sons in particular.

You know what else is exhausting and stifling? Replacing the extended family with the State or GloboMegaCorp. I find my options pretty damn limited by both. Also, There may be SOBs in your family, but they’re YOUR SOBs, as Steve Sailer put it. Social friction is part of life. One of the reasons GloboMegaCorp loves Hindus so much is they’re very good at navigating social frictions due to their upbringing in a traditional extended-family society. Almost all CEOs of GloboTechMegaCorps are Hindu. The CEOs of IBM, Goolag, and Microsoft are all Hindu. Apple is probably next. I know of another several billion-dollar tech company that’s about to have a Hindu CEO.

Bear in mind that Brooks is citing his extended family – Jews – almost exclusively in his article. For my part, I found Aaron Renn and CR Wiley’s writings on family and households far better.

Mexico: The Reality

Few of us really understand Mexico. I’ve been there several times and each time I went, the problems were worse than the last. Back in the ’90s, places like Monterrey and most of Baja were pretty safe. Tijuana was even fairly safe compared to today. What is life like for the average Mexican? It’s mostly one of working around the government and taking matters into your own hands.

Consider the crime and gun laws in Mexico. Despite the laws, there are plenty of guns in Mexico. They may be illegal, but you will not be punished for having one since impunity levels in Mexico are close to 99%. Most Mexicans probably won’t use one since they’re expensive and Mexicans are poor. They usually use a knife even when they have access to all the guns they could imagine as is the case for this cartel hitman.

Just four months earlier, my girlfriend and I had been robbed at gunpoint in the same city, just two blocks away from the U.S embassy in Guadalajara. We never bothered reporting the crime to the police because it is a simple waste of time ( It is a well-documented fact that only a tiny fraction of crimes committed in Mexico result in a conviction. The exact number as to this country’s exact impunity rate varies between 93 and 99 percent, but no serious analyst believes that it could be lower than 90 percent. Only about seven percent of all crimes are reported because it is an extraordinarily arduous and an exceedingly time-consuming process. On average, the victims report having to visit between three to five offices in order to report even a relatively insignificant crime such as petty theft and the entire ordeal often takes an entire work-day, roughly between 9am and 4pm. Yet, many of such offices close between noon and 1:30, which means that if the petitioners have the resolve to continue, they must plan on turning this endeavor into a two or a three-day affair.

It’s really too late for the Mexicans to establish a legitimate state because the Cartels have grown so powerful and govern more effectively than the government. On a local level, the Mexicans have managed to expel the cartels from some places only for those who did the expulsion to create cartels of their own. I think the average Mexican, despite his problems with the government and cartels, is part of the problem. The culture – composed of Average Mexicans – simply can’t sustain anything better. We could take some of the pressure off them by executing drug dealers and traffickers and getting users off drugs, but there is simply too much money to be made in the Drug War. Expect these problems to spill over into the United States more and more.

Ed Calderon explains:

Mind the Gap documentary

I starting watching this documentary on Hulu and couldn’t finish it because it hit too close to home. Much of it is what I saw growing up: friends from broken homes beginning to split apart and have out-of-wedlock children as they hit adulthood to repeat the cycle of hopelessness and poverty. No faith, no family, little hope for climbing the social and economic ladder. This is all over the United States today and not only in the decadent place I grew up.

“Do not be anxious” and some other thoughts

A woman over at Desiring God wrote a good piece on anxiety. Lately, I’ve been wondering why so many women are writing about theology. This is new in church history. All of the authors of the Bible and all of the great theologians in human history are men. The human brain shows as much sexual dimorphism as the rest of the human body divided into male and female. I am firmly of the opinion that male intellectual accomplishment versus female is not due to male oppression but male gifts. That women are writing most of the theological content means that the content will likely not be as good as men writing it. Female writers tend to focus mostly on female problems; male theologians are expected to address both sexes. Both viewpoints seem to contradict the thrust of Paul’s argument that women ask theological questions of their husbands at home rather than speak out in church. It’s easy to Paul’s argument as cultural but we have basically the same culture as Paul in the first century. What I mean is that the amount of daylight between 21st century American culture and 1st century pagan Roman culture is small in terms of its religious orientation. It’s also easy to say that Paul’s mandate applies in mostly the church until you read Ephesians 5 and his other writings (1 Corinthians 11) and Peter’s agreement. Therefore I don’t think women should be writing about theology. Some theology should be directed mostly at women. Certainly the confessional standards of the church are for both sexes. But the weightier books should always be directed at men who can in turn equip their households. That, I think, is the model of the New Testament. (This is certainly open for debate. We have examples of women in Acts correcting Apollos, but her husband was there. )

What’s really going on here though? Women are bored at home quite often. Many need more intellectual stimulation than they’re getting from doing dishes, raising kids, and taking care of their husbands, much of which is often thankless toil. They long to be Proverbs 31 women who are engaged in a variety of commercial activities which are interesting work. The problem is that 21st century Protestants operate under a definition of “household” that is foreign to 1st century Biblical authors. In fact, it’s foreign to all authors before the industrial revolution. In the postmodern household, there is not much context for a Proverbs 31 woman to exercise her gifts at home since men our out working for GloboMegaCorp and households are no longer productive. So they write. What else can they do that makes money and exercises their minds? Maybe we – both men and women – should think more critically about our households.

Natural law and prospects of persuasion

I just read this essay over at Mere Orthodoxy and it agrees strongly with my personal experience. The summary is that many Protestants have risen to the challenge of defending natural law theologically, none are optimistic about its persuasiveness in the public square. This should be obvious since the public cannot tell the difference between male and female, much less what oughts we should derive from what is. If Westerners from a Christian civilization do not find these arguments persuasive, how much less will non-Westerners find them persuasive? How insufficient, therefore, is natural law as a basis for relations among nations?

To summarize, while Protestant scholars are increasingly open to the idea of natural law, many register a vote of “no confidence” when considering the question of how persuasive we can expect natural law arguments to actually be. They are hardly alone in making this assessment either, for many Roman Catholic scholars of natural law have expressed similar sentiments.

Let’s look at this practically. Westerners believe in Hume’s “ought/is” distinction: you can’t derive ought from is. Just because you have a brain doesn’t mean you ought to use it. Just because you’re male and larger, stronger and more athletic than your wife doesn’t mean you ought to defend her from an intruder, and so on. Further, you can’t tell a Westerner to use the brain God gave him to study or to use the limbs God gave him to work since he doesn’t practically believe God gave these things: we’re just evolved from a common ancestor of apes. Natural law, in the Western tradition, hinges on Creation, man made in the imago Dei, and a telos for nature, including man. All of these things depend on special revelation (the Bible), not general revelation (Creation). This should pound the nails into the coffin for natural law as a basis of public morality or reason in the West. So what? Be pessimistic about the West as a whole but try to build Christian community on a local level. Remember: reality wins in the end whether or not the Left denies it exists.

The alpha male in church and society

Vox Day’s socio-sexual heirarchy is a good model for understanding male-male and male-female interactions. Like any model, it’s not perfect and has boundary conditions, but that doesn’t undermine its usefulness. It’s very important to seek honest feedback on where you rank on the model. Ask your friends or wife. A realistic self-assessment is the basis of self-improvement.

It’s also important to evaluate the other men around you for several reasons. Surrounding yourself with gammas will make you a gamma. Associating with alphas is a both a two-edged sword and dangerous if the alpha is a bad man. Even if the alpha is a good man, bear in mind that much of what he wants you and others to do is in alignment with HIS mission in life, not necessarily yours. You must always be aware of this and wary of what an alpha is trying to get you to do.

Alpha: The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. The classic star of the football team who is dating the prettiest cheerleader. The successful business executive with the beautiful, stylish, blonde, size zero wife. All the women are attracted to him, while all the men want to be him, or at least be his friend. At a social gathering like a party, he’s usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha’s gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status.

Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+.

Notice who is the center of the alpha’s universe: himself. The women around him are for him and his purposes; so are the men. Obviously, the Bible opposes this mindset. He who would be first shall be last and the last shall be first. The alpha’s other shortcoming is similar to the problem alphas face in nature: there can be only one man at the top. Other males are either subordinate to him or a threat. In nature, males that haven’t been defeated by the alpha are challengers. Alpha male sons of Adam suffer the same difficulties being alphas. Also, they’re daily getting older and weaker. No one stays on top forever and this is always in the back of their minds.

I experienced this recently at a dinner with a bunch of guys I went hunting with. I rode 30 hours in a car with an alpha 10 years my senior and his surgery partner who is more of a sigma. I tend to be a sigma. We all had a great time in the car. I thought I was this alpha’s friend. At the dinner party, he started negging me and trying to put me down. I could’ve gotten mad and lashed out angrily, but instinctively I knew he’d say something like, “I was just kidding, bro! Lighten up!” Then he’d laugh with the others around him. Instead, I just laughed it off and made some deflections. He eventually got tired of it. I didn’t think too much about it until my wife and I discussed the “friends” we had in our area and whether they were really our friends. My wife didn’t like this alpha guy and brought up the incident. She was pissed about it. I explained my response and she agreed it was the best way to handle it until I learn a better one (this is in progress). I showed her the socio-sexual heirarchy and she agreed the guy is an alpha and I’m a sigma which explains my threat to this guy: I’ve always been a skeptical outsider who does his own thing and therefore can’t be bent to an alpha’s purposes. If you want a problem solved, leave me alone and I’ll solve it, but don’t micromanage me to support your own ego. This, combined with my other traits that mimic those of an alpha, makes me a threat to one. This explains the chewing I got.

This behavior can also be found in the church, which is the last place it should be found. One way you see this is that ministers (often with the elders) will cook-up some program they want everyone to participate in. The program is socialized and moralized as “Kingdom Building” but is really “Reputation Buidling” among the ministers friends at presbytery and general assembly. The program will build the minister’s kingdom, not God’s. He, as the alpha, is just trying to use you for his purposes and manipulating you with Christianese. Jesus deals with this behavior directly in Matthew 20:

But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[c] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,[d] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Good alphas recognize that their mission must be in line with God’s mission and must look out for the people below them as they look out for themselves. These are the First and Greatest and Second. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Many ministers nowadays don’t even like people and, to the extent their mission is out of line with God’s, they don’t even love God. To the extent that they’re lording over their flock and binding the consciences of those in their congregation to their personal mission, they’re no better than worldling alphas.

Most alphas nowadays, whether in the church or without, are not looking out for anyone but themselves. When they ask you to do something, ask more questions. Ask why. Questions quickly expose motives. Be prepared for some angry, moralizing, shaming responses but stand your ground.

Your time is precious, be careful who you spend it in service to.

Natural law and Romans 1

Radical 2Kers argue that natural law – God’s moral law published in Creation and written on the human heart – can be a basis for national and international law. Romans 1 seems to refute this soundly:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Here, the Bible explains that men know they need to worship God but instead worship Creation. Consequently, God gives them over to “shameful lusts” including unnatural relations with members of the same sex and also general disobedience to the moral law published at Creation and summarized the the 10 Commandments. If God is giving man over to ignorance of and disobedience to the moral law published at Creation, how can it be used as a basis for natural law? It can’t. Rather, these unnatural and immoral acts coming from the worship of Creation become national law. We see this in almost every human civilization that’s not based on the Bible, and in ancient Hebrew civilization as it exchanged worship of God for worship of Ba’al and Ashteroth and the pantheon of Canaanite gods. Vishal Mangalwadi confirms this is still going on today, which is why so many believers in the Global South want their societies to be governed by Biblical principles, just as the Reformers did. It’s simply awful to live in a society where everyone is violating even natural law because God has given them over to ignorance of it and suppression of it. The Reformers knew this. They even lived in merciless, wicked societies filled with Biblical ignorance, which was bad for everyone. These are the societies Third Worlders are fleeing when they come to the West. Why do you think they’re so desperate to get here?

Life in a low-trust society

Mexico is collapsing. It has never been a nation-state in the same sense as Western states but it was much more stable with a semi-functioning government. The cartels used to report to the government and it was relatively safe if you minded your own business – safe in the Latin American sense. Now, the government reports to the cartels and even defeats Mexico’s military.

All this has lead, predictably, to an increase in violence. In the past, you could write-off the violence as cartel members killing each other. Not any more. The violence has spread well-beyond the drug trade into adjacent markets: extortion, prostitution, kidnapping, and other forms of theft. This is what it’s life living in a low-trust society, which is what the USA is now. Even if the Mexicans were armed – and many are armed illegally – it still takes trust between neighbors to repel gang predation. It takes cooperation with honest government officials to fight crime. If your neighbors and government have even a 10% chance of being on the payroll by the cartels, what are the odds you’ll ask them for help? You could be asking one of their informants for help and then you’re dead.

Gang extortion has wider implications than just poverty – it also means you lose your property rights. If a gang decides to use your property for storage or trafficking, it’s no longer yours. If this is likely, why buy property or capital equipment? If you can’t buy property or capital equipment, how do you earn a living? Most poor people throughout the world have a home-based business: all their possessions and income are within the 4 walls of their house and co-located shop.

It’s not long before we have the same problems here, enabled by the elites and the voters. The elites play this game by building low income housing in your middle class area and moving section 8ers and immigrants into it. But the cartels are more skilled and ruthless at extortion and they’ll eventually figure out our law enforcement are no match for them. (Many of our state, local, and federal bureaucrats want completely open borders). They’re already crossing our borders armed and having gunfights right on our Southern border.

Put yourself in the shoes of these Mexicans and think about what you’d do if the cartels moved into your town. They’re probably already there, in fact.