Category: Culture

The Henpeckification Of Masculine Discourse

Uses of language have historically varied according to the company one was in or according to the setting and context in which one was speaking. A man might use different language when speaking to his compatriots informally then he would use if he needed to communicate the same idea in proper company or in a formal atmosphere. Men understood that other men could take direct speech without freaking out like preadolescent little girls who have just been given a stern lecture by their fathers on not getting their assigned homework finished.

With the rise of political correctness the gonads of masculine speech are being crushed between the failing testosterone of the omnipresent metro-sexual “male” and the estrogen of a permanent and twisted feminine class who seem to be perpetually on their periods. In our henpeckified climate today it is largely irrelevant anymore whether or not one is correct in their argument if the person making the argument can be dismissed because they have violated some kind of artificial psychologically invented and p.c. enforced “you hurt my feelings” code.

Please don’t mistake this as a essay advocating brutish and sottish conversation. I’ve worked much of my life with guys who could make whole sentences using nothing but scatological language. I know what it means to hear the same exact four letter word in a sentence used as adjective, noun, and verb. When I argue for the ability for men to be able to speak as men again, I am not arguing that all men should be allowed to be verbal cretins. I am merely arguing that men be allowed to speak as men again, which means a certain pointedness,and angular brevity, garlanded with a rhetorical splash. This kind of speech is only rude if you’ve grown up during the henpeckification of masculine discourse.

The ironic thing is that the current p.c. speech that is being pursued today is not only not masculine speech it is not even feminine speech. I would be embarrassed if my daughters began to be limited by its strictures. Rather, it is a speech code designed to create timid slaves who are afraid to speak their minds lest they offend the ruling class who is making these “boy George” speech rules. This p.c. henpeckificaiton of the language has the intent of impoverishing the language so that the great ideas that need great language to be adequately expressed will be impoverished along with the language.

If you want to control a people one way to do it is by controlling their language and speech. Greatness will never arise from a people where their speakers and writers are left inchoate, inarticulate, and sissified.

Braveheart and 2042

“The trouble with Scotland is that it’s full of Scots….If we can’t get them out, we’ll breed them out.”

English King Edward I (Longshanks)
Dialog From The Film Braveheart

Part of the theme of Braveheart was the will of the Scottish people to retain their own unique ethnic identity over against the attempt by the English to destroy Scottish culture and ethnicity. This is a theme that is likewise picked up in the film “Rob Roy.” I’ll venture to guess that when most people viewed these films they were outraged by the attempt of the English to squash Scottish identity, ethnicity and culture as it was depicted in the film.

The attempted destruction of a set people and culture may raise the ire of movie goers but it seemingly barely raises the blood pressure of Americans as life imitates art in America. This week Americans were given a view of our end as a unique culture and people. News outlets reported that,

White people will no longer make up a majority of Americans by 2042, according to new government projections. That’s eight years sooner than previous estimates, made in 2004.

By 2050, whites will make up 46 percent of the population and blacks will make up 15 percent, a relatively small increase from today. Hispanics, who make up about 15 percent of the population today, will account for 30 percent in 2050, according to the new projections.

Asians, which make up about 5 percent of the population, are projected to increase to 9 percent by 2050.

People need to realize that this diminution of white people in the West is not some kind of freak accident. Indeed, it is not not anymore accidental then the plan of Longshanks in Braveheart to destroy the Scots. Ever since the Teddy Kennedy inspired immigration bill in the 1960’s there has been a concerted effort to destroy white ethnicity in America and the culture that is attendant with it.

This attempted destruction has not only been pursued through immigration policies but also it has been pursued through the government schools which have inculcated a mindset, through its educational and curriculum dominance, that embraces both cultural-cide and ethnocide. This idea has now likewise been picked up in Churches which have embraced the multi-cultural assumptions that are driving the elimination of the ethnic makeup that has made and makes the West, the West. The Church has taken it all one step further by wrapping the multi-cultural agenda in Christian jargon.

This drive towards the death of the West that we are heading for serves the agenda of globalist who are intent of building a uni-culture that reduces and flattens out all cultural, ethnic, religious and racial distinctiveness. What is coming in the West with the reduction of its historic majority population will either be a new mongrel ethnicity that results from the combination of intermarriage, or more likely what will occur is a balkanization where different people groups will cordon themselves into regional and demographic pockets with the peace being kept between disparate people groups by a strong centralized government.

It’s an odd thing that many Christians can watch Braveheart and cheer like wild when the Scots defeat the English attempt to crush their ethnicity and culture, and yet they get all contemptuous when some Americans desire to keep their ethnic and cultural identity accusing them of silly things like racism. Similarly, people would have understood that any ending of Braveheart where the Scots lose their ethnic, cultural and national identity would have been unsatisfactory but yet they have no problem with the prospect of America losing its ethnic, cultural and national identity.

The trouble with America is that it is full of Americans. If we can’t get them out we’ll breed them out.

Where Does Homosexual Marriage Lead?

Recently I came across somebody who was for homosexual marriage but who insisted that the allowing of buggery marriage wouldn’t allow other abominations like marriage between groups, or marriage between man and beast or marriage between adults and children. Below is some of the interaction.

Maggie,

That having been said, I would like to throw out a couple points of (respectful) disagreement or, at least, commentary. First, I think the United States was well down the road of removing a Biblical justification for disallowing anything a long, long before gay marriage was ever on the table. Gay marriage doesn’t accomplish this removal of Biblical justification for our laws, since that was already a done deal long before the Massachusetts and other state courts considered whether prohibitions on gay marriage violate constitutional equal protection clauses.

Bret,

Maggie, you’re right about this. Gay marriage is just the latest consequence from being consistent with moving law off the only rational basis that it has. Law presupposes a lawgiver. Get rid of the idea of a transcendent lawgiver and what replaces the basis for law is an immanent lawgiver which in turn yields the consequence of relativism in the legal realm. Gay marriage though, perhaps exhibits most clearly that These United States has removed the Biblical justification for law.

Maggie

The premise behind the court decisions prohibiting laws against gay marriage is an old one. The premise was that any law that makes distinctions among categories of people must have a “rational basis,” and the rational basis cannot be God’s Word, since basing legislative decisions on God’s Word would be a state endorsement of religion in violation of the first amendment.

Bret,

First of all what standard shall we use to describe “rational basis.” I would contend that the only way to find a “rational basis” is by using God’s Law-Word as the transcendent standard. I would go one step further and say that the concept of “rationality” itself cannot be consistently arrive at apart from an appeal to God’s transcendent Law-Word.
Second, I don’t know why using God’s Word as the rational basis is a violation of the first amendment but using man’s autonomous law word as the rational basis isn’t likewise a violation of the first amendment. Indeed, as the law order is always reflective of and descends from religious a-priori commitments there is no possibility of having any rational basis that isn’t a violation of the first amendment.

Maggie,

(I don’t mean to imply that God’s Word cannot be rational; rather, that an argument that boils down only to, “God said so,” does not meet the “rational basis test” under our laws.) It seems that the heart of the argument is really about whether church and state should be separated in the manner I have just described. I think it should be, and I am guessing that you think otherwise!

Bret,

Maggie, it is not possible to separate Church and State. Our defacto State Church in our country today is the Government schools, and our defacto officially state religion is humanism.

Still, I agree that we need to do better than arguing by saying “God said so” though that certainly is always the place we must start. We start with “God said so” and we move on to explain why God’s saying so is the stuff of which the good life is made of.

Magie,

I disagree that the Bible is the only possible basis for proscribing certain activities such as bestiality. Many other moral codes (probably most moral codes) abhor cruelty and unnecessary suffering. A corollary of those principles is that one should not engage in sexual relations without meaningful consent from the other being involved. I don’t think you have to be a Christian to be morally opposed to animal cruelty, such as torturing an animal for sport (as opposed to killing it for food) or subjecting an animal to sex for the sole purpose of sexual gratification (as opposed to breeding an animal for purposes of increasing one’s livestock).

Bret,

Apart from a transcendent God it is not possible to define what cruelty. For that matter, apart from a transcendent God who cares about cruelty or suffering? Apart from a transcendent God I don’t know why anybody would be concerned with meaningful consent.
Now its quite true that you don’t have to be a Christian to be morally opposed to animal cruelty but you do have to be a Christian to be able to be consistent about any moral opposition in regard to the cruelty of animals.

Maggie,

If there ever were a push to legalize bestiality in the United States, I would be happy to join with the readers of this forum in vigorously opposing it.

Bret,

Your problem Maggie is you’re so yesterday. If you had been alive 100 years ago I suspect your biblically conditioned moral instincts would have said the same about homosexuality. But now you live in times where the winds of morality have changed and so you find homosexual marriage acceptable. I suspect if you had been born 50 years in the future you would be for bestial marriage. You’re simply a reflection of your times and culture.

Obama’s Speech To Be President Of The World

“The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”

Barack Hussein Obama
Berlin Speech

I don’t know if I’ve read a speech from an American Politician speaking in such a public context that was more explicitly globalist than the speech delivered by Barack Hussein Obama in Berlin last week. It was clear when reading the speech that Obama has his sites set on something quite loftier than President of These United States. Obama clearly understands that if he is elected as President he is literally the leader of the free world.

There is much that troubles me about Obama’s wall deconstruction vision. Obama wants all kinds of walls to fall choosing the fall of the Berlin wall as a metaphor for barriers in society and between nations that he believes likewise need to come down. The problem is that the metaphor doesn’t work well without some kind of enemy named that needs to be defeated. It is true that the Berlin wall fell but it was only because some enemy (communism) was totally defeated and extinguished. It would seem then, that in order for Obama’s other walls to fall what has to first happen is that an enemy has to be identified so that it may be defeated so that the B. Hussein Obama’s walls can fall.

First, what will a President Obama do to make sure that the walls between the haves and the have not countries will fall? What enemy is to be defeated here? Is the enemy the wealthy? Will they be defeated by his entering into some kind of trans-Atlantic socialistic redistribution of wealth where America will “share” (by plunder) its wealth with those designated as have nots? People don’t generally seem to realize that Marxist plans to tear down walls between countries with the most and countries with the least result not in the country with the least being lifted to a plane of equivalence with the rich country but rather the richer country, as an enemy, is brought down to the same level of misery as the country that has not. Socialism never enriches people, but instead gives those who are impoverished the satisfaction of knowing that everyone is as miserable as they were and are. Tearing down walls between the countries with the most and countries with the least when not pursued in the context of genuinely free market incentives only leads to all countries being equally impoverished and results in the enemy of wealth creators being defeated. If Obama does for the poor countries of Europe what LBJ did for the poor people of America in his war on poverty we are certain to move from our current economic twilight to the darkest midnight. If the walls between the countries with the most and the countries with the least are to fall then some enemy in all this needs to be identified and crushed just as the communists were crushed leading to the fall of the Berlin wall. My guess, given what Obama has spoken about concerning his economic plan, is that the enemy is private property not held by the State. This is the enemy that must be defeated so that the countries with the least can become the equal of the countries with the most.

Second, what will a President Obama do to make the walls fall between races and tribes. Who is to be the enemy identified here? Is the enemy that must be destroyed before the walls fall between races and tribes those who find satisfaction in the race and tribes God placed them? Will President Obama have a forced miscegenation program? Will he give tax incentives to people to marry out of their race and tribe? (By the way… what tribes still exist in Europe?) It is clear as Obama’s speech is read in full that Obama believes in the idea of America being a proposition nation.

“What has always united us – what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America’s shores – is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people…

It is his belief that Mongolians, Rwandans, and Venezuelans,et. al. can be genuine Americans if they just believe the same set of ideals. The insistence that a nation is made out of shared culture, shared history, shared sense of homeland, shared religion, and a shared extended family is the enemy that must be destroyed if the walls are to fall between races and tribes. America is to become the universal propositional (set ideal) nation where concrete realities are set aside for abstractions. The walls that come with being a particular people in a particular place with a particular history, religion, culture and lineage must come down. Everyone should understand that the result of the walls falling down between races and tribes is becoming part of one global race and tribe. The pursuit of the erasing of racial, ethnic and cultural distinctions is the pursuit of the Tower of Babel wrapped in soaring egalitarian rhetoric.

Third, a President Obama would tear down the walls between native and immigrant. Consistent with our approach so far, we ask, where is the enemy that needs to be defeated before those walls can fall? I suspect the enemy is the native who cherishes his way of life and how his culture and society is organized and doesn’t desire to pay for his own destruction through confiscatory taxation so as to prop up the, more often than not, illegal immigrant. Immigration in America is being used to destroy what is left of what little remains of Christendom and the lingering memory, kept alive in out of the way lacunae, of what it means to be uniquely American. America’s globalist imperial elite have decided that they desire a constituency that is anything but American and so the walls must fall between native and (illegal) immigrant so that we can achieve status as a universal nation.

Fourth, and perhaps most troubling is that a President Obama desires to tear down the walls between Christians, Jews, and Muslims. And so we ask, who is the enemy that needs to be defeated so that these walls can fall? The answer to that question is any adherent of these particular faiths who take their God and faith seriously. In order for the walls to fall down between these faith expressions the content of these faiths systems must be watered down so that the respective gods in the systems are made subservient to the new faith system that will unite the global village where the distinctions that come with economic variance, race, tribe, homeland, culture, or religion are completely eclipsed. What is ironic here is that the pursuit to tear down the walls between Jews, Christians and Muslims, could conceivably unite them in order to oppose a one world religion.

Obama’s speech in Berlin was boilerplate globalism. He understands that the next epochal move for humanity, as directed by the religion of humanism, is to reconstruct Babel. Before that can be achieved the walls that keep the unitarian and unipolar world from being achieved must be destroyed. This is a different vision from Christianity. Christianity sees a world where walls fall because false religions (Judaism, Islam, humanistic globalism, etc.)are destroyed through the proclamation of the Gospel and Spirit wrought regeneration but where the diversity of races, tribes, and culture is retained and treasured. The vision of the Christian faith and the vision of unipolar humanistic globalism is the difference between heaven and hell.