Category: Family life

Doug Wilson’s Support of Abortion

 “No human fetus shall be subject to abortion after the scientifically determined age of viability…  I do recognize that this is the mother of all incrementalist proposals. “

Doug Wilson 
 Proposed constitutional amendment.

1.)  Wilson is a typical post WW II conservative. Post WW II conservatism is seen in the example wherein nobody seriously proposed reversing the New Deal, instead post WW II conservative always argued that the New Deal should be moderated and controlled.

Here we see that same impulse in Benedict Wilson. Wilson argues essentially that, ‘we shall not reverse abortion but we will make it reasonable and we will limit it by controlling it.”

2.) I’m sure Benedict Wilson reasons, “Well, we can never stop this cold so let’s start with making it ‘reasonable.'”

But the question that begs being asked here is, “reasonable by what standard?” Benedict Wilson steps right up to the plate and answers the question. The standard of reasonable is political pragmatism. Pope Doug argues,

“A strong majority of Americans are on the pro-abort side with regard to the first five weeks of pregnancy, and on the pro-life side in the last five weeks of pregnancy. “

This is pure John Stuart Mill / William James pragmatism. The greatest good as determined by the greatest number of noses. For anybody keeping score nobody ever suggested that pragmatism was synonymous with the Christian faith.

3.) Note that this is the same exact policy that Bill Clinton championed in the day that he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” This is what Pope Doug is arguing. He is arguing to keep abortion legal as long as abortion is rare. Presumably, Benedict Wilson would have to argue, given the fact that he desires to keep abortion legal, that abortions that occur would be safe – and this despite the idea of a “safe abortion,” has to be the mother of all oxymorons.

4.) All of this tracks with Wilson’s penchant for always trying to cut the Solomonic baby in half. For example, Wilson offers a “Christian Nationalism” where Mosques and Synagogues are allowed though there will be no Minarets or the Muslim Adhan. For example, Trinitarian illegal immigrant Christians at least are “trinitarian Christians” (and so presumably acceptable) while Muslims are not. No word by Wilson on so many Jews holding dual citizenship while serving in political office. This penchant of Wilson to always go after “half a loaf,” was stated explicitly when Doug himself testified he was not interested in being Rushdoony 2.0
 but was trying to achieve being Rushdoony 0.5.

We learn from all this Doug is all about containment. Doug is so busy pacifying and then codifying the most recent innovation of the Liberal ethos (in this case abortion) that he doesn’t realize that he is making a pact with the Devil.

4.) Part of that pact with the Devil is that by means of a Constitutional amendment Doug is proposing giving the torture and murder of the unborn the absolute color of Constitutional Law. With a Constitutional Law on the books, as supported by the Benedict Wilson “Christian” community, the result would be that Christians have lent their approval to a proposal that amounts to “Thou Shalt Kill,” when a pragmatic majority pushes you to do so.

The dirty little secret about the Roe decision is that it was never the law of the land because court opinions do not establish law, they only interpret law. SCOTUS has no power to enforce its decisions and the legislative branch can overturn SCOTUS decisions by new legislation if they have the will do to so.

Section 1 Clause 1 of the US Constitution states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Given that “all legislative powers” are vested in the Congress of the United States, then no legislative powers are vested in either the Executive or Judicial branches. The judiciary, without any legislative power, cannot make law. It is for this reason all decisions passed down from the court, since its establishment under the US Constitution, begin with the header, “Opinion of the Court.”  Understanding this fact makes it clear their decision in Roe v Wade is only their opinion applicable to that case and is not law.

However, what Benedict Wilson proposes would have the color of law and it would find Christians being employed to champion the passage of such a Benedict constitutional amendment. I can see the signs now on the picket line, as carried by Christians …. “Jesus Supports Killing Some Babies,” or “Christians For 2nd Trimester Abortions.”

5.) It is interesting that Benedict Wilson here uses the language in his proposed amendment the word “fetus.” This has always been the language of the pro-abortion hags and warlocks. Honestly, to use the word “fetus” gives away the whole argument as to why abortion is wicked. If what is in the woman is merely a “fetus” and not a human being made in the image of God then abortion is just a medical procedure after all. Yet, Pope Doug uses the word “fetus,” and by doing so gives away the store.

6.) Wilson, with this proposal, has shifted the protection of life from the fact that it is the image of God to the fact that it is scientifically determined. This is an embrace of scientism, where science becomes the arbiter of all truth. In Wilson’s proposal I can hear echoes of Anthony Fauci saying, “I am the science.” If it is science that is going to determine life and not the fact that God’s image is stamped on all of us then who is to say it can’t be scientifically determined as to who is and is not living life that is worthy of living? Surely that can also be scientifically determined also. Wilson has opened Pandora’s box here with the consequence that once the nose of science and “scientifically determined” is under the tent of determining life it will soon enough be the case where science will be the determining factor as to what constitutes all life. I am sure my Ella would lose out here.

7.) Benedict Wilson can say in his piece supporting this barnyard collation

From the moment of conception on, every child is a child, and to draw an arbitrary line, prior to which line you can kill the baby and after which you cannot, is an approach which is logically and theologically incoherent.”

So, Wilson admits before making an argument that is logically and theologically incoherent that his argument is going to be logically and theologically incoherent. However, that doesn’t matter because Wilson has given up on logical and theological coherence in favor of Utilitarian / Pragmatic illogic and humanist incoherence. Paraphrasing Don Corleone I want to say to Wilson,

“Wilson, come here. What’s the matter with you? I think your brain is going soft from all that comedy you’re playing with those FEDS who have paid you off.”

A final word about Wilson’s incrementalism. When has incrementalism in reversing liberalism ever worked in the political world? Incrementalism works fine in going from left to harder left but I would love to see some example where incrementalism worked in shifting the Overton Window to the right. To be honest, I believe that a better argument could be made arguing that the worse things become if they become instantly worse over night the quicker things will become better because people won’t tolerate it. I don’t support that argument but it is a better argument in my opinion than what Benedict Wilson is making.
 

 

Touching, Marriages, Authority, & Todd Friehl Being Dumb

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church.”

Ephesians 5:22-23

Recently, there has been dispute over passages like these in Scripture. Rev. Rick Appleton, for example, was defrocked by a PCA Presbytery for a sermon he preached from Titus that speaks about the roles of women vis-a-vis men.

There are two extremes to avoid here. One is obvious and that is the wife who is out of control and who runs her husband. This seems to be the extreme that we are seeing a good deal of today in families and in the Church. However, a couple of generations ago it was the other extreme that was a problem, and that was the extreme of husbands using texts like this to be little tyrants in their marriages and homes. I don’t see that as much today but 40  and 50 years ago I saw it with some frequency. These were cases where the wife was so maltreated that her humanity and individuality was almost lost because she had been so badly treated by her husband.

Over a hundred years ago Charles Hodge spoke to this extreme when he wrote,

“She (the wife) is to be subject in everything. That is, the subjection is not limited to any one sphere or department of the social life, but extends to all. The wife is not subject, as to some things, and independent of the others, but she is subject, as to all. This, of course, does not mean that the authority of the husband is unlimited. It teaches its extent, not its degree. It extends over all departments, but is limited in all, first, by the nature of the relation; and, secondly, by the higher authority of God. No superior, whether master, parent, husband, or magistrate can make it obligatory on us, either to do what God forbids, or not to do what God commands. So long as our allegiance to God is preserved, and obedience to man is made a part of our obedience to Him, we retain our liberty and our integrity.”

Charles Hodge

What Hodge is saying here is that no human authority is absolute. All authority is the authority of a steward and should the steward abuse the authority that God, as King, grants that steward, then the authority of that steward is null and void. All human authority is conditional on being consistent with the authority wherein it is derivative.

So, yes, wives are to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord but the husbands are to create an atmosphere where the wife in submitting to the husband is really merely submitting to Christ.

Obviously this same principle applies in the other areas that Hodge mentions. When it comes to superior and inferior roles the superior’s role is only as legitimate as they are in submission to the Lord Christ as their superior. No temporal or earthly authority is absolute. All legitimate authority is derivative and dependent upon God’s authority being upheld, as revealed in Scripture.

Back in 2020 when the Government was abusing its authority in the context of Covid, Mr. Todd Friel, a “Reformed” chap with a radio show that gets some traffic commenting on the Government’s authority had this to offer,

“I believe that if the government tells me to put pinwheels on the side of my head every time I go out in the public I am going to put pinwheels on the side of my head.”

You can listen to this 1 minute clip with the context below. I don’t believe Friehl has ever apologized for this idiotic counsel,

Now, we are learning what some of us knew at the time that the Federal Government (Magistrates) were exercising authority that was not legitimate and just as a wife has no responsibility to obey a unlawful command from a husband so citizens have no responsibility to obey a unlawful command from the magistrate. This is Hodge’s reasoning.

Bringing this back to husbands and wives, we live in a time now, as I said where we tend to see the extreme more often of wives cucking husbands, but that fact should not find us sling-shotting in the other direction wherein men treat their wives as if they are dopes that are not mature, wise, and cherished women.

Men, if you abuse your wives your marriages, children, and lives will the lesser for it. Similarly, if you let your wife run you, your marriages, children, and life will also be lesser… far lesser.

Is The Rejection of Kinism a Matter of Theological Unfaithfulness? Answering Tomes

“The maximal form (of Kinism) identifies kinism with biblical theonomy or Reformed orthodoxy and treats rejection of the system as theological unfaithfulness.”

Jonathan Tomes
Substack Series on Kinism

Now we need to pause here to ask Mr. Tomes here what are the options left to us for social order organization if we reject Kinism. This is a crucial question that nobody seems to be asking or answering, and it is a question I’ve been waving my hands and jumping up and down trying to get people to answer. Consider, that if one is determined to reject Kinism it strikes me that all that is left in its place is,

a.) Internationalism (New World Order / Communism)
b.) Civic Nationalism (Propositional Nationalism)
c.) Egalitarianism/Multi-culturalism (which Communism [a] has historically  pushed)
d.) Economic Nationalism

Inevitably choices (b) and (d) end up being (c) since (b) and (d) by definition  exclude genetic connections. Civic Nationalism and Economic nationalism operate on the basis that descent from a common ancestor is not necessary. The options, (b) and (d) operate on the basis of non-natal connections and so is inherently anti-Kinism. I would observe that all the options above end up being some form of Internationalism.

So, if those options are indeed the only other choices left to choose from besides Kinism, then I would agree that the rejection of Kinism is a matter of theological unfaithfulness, since what is being advanced by our opponents is a social order that does not reflect reality. The dilution of natural family ties and the Ordo Amoris is contrary to the way God made man to function.

People who reject Kinism must provide an alternative social order organization that isn’t egalitarian/multi-cultural and that is Biblical.

I, along with all the Kinists everywhere are waiting for that non familial social order that isn’t egalitarian/multi-cultural and that is Biblical. It strikes me that all other options, in the words of Joseph Sobran,

“… consistently attacks three basic social institutions that, by offering independent bases of action, loyalty, and authority, impede the state’s monopoly of power: private property, the family, and religion. Marxism attacks these things directly: it confiscates property, breaks up families, and persecutes worshippers. (It may be forced to come to terms with all three in order to avoid collapse, but in its early phase it tries to abolish them, and it accepts them later only as dependencies — smaller subdivisions — of the state.) Liberalism avoids the direct attack; it prefers to subvert property, family, and religion more gradually, undermining their definitions rather than attempting open violence.”

Revolution; Its Downstream Impact On Male & Female Relations

“It was always the women, and above all, the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”

George Orwell
1984

Now consider the implications of this and the implications of the implications.

1.) If party propaganda can market compassion as being synonymous with conformity while also rebranding control with “care” the result is that the State taps into the feminine role as nurturers who champion compassion and care (conformity and control) in order to enforce ideological obedience from the citizenry. People will be forced to be compassionate and caring by the State.

2.) If propaganda combined with State action successfully wins over the young women market on this matter of “care and compassion”, the young men are sure to follow as young men will do almost anything to woo young women, up to and including, feminizing themselves in order to please and attract the pool of women whose nurturing side has been exploited by the State and the zeitgeist. This means that young men will now also be supporters of Statist command and control mechanism and that in order to woo women who support the State because those young women are convinced that the State is being benign when it offers up a care and compassion to the citizenry which is in point of fact a mask for command and control.

3.) All of this in turn creates un-masculine men (effeminate/soft men) who have embraced femininity in order to mate with women whose femininity has been bastardized from what God created it to be. The result of this is women who have embraced a bitchy feminine posture and men who likewise emasculate themselves to be male versions of bitchy women.

4.) This is turn leads to the break down of the family as women finally recoil at the idea of being married to a weak effeminate man. Women flee the marriage and find a State that is cast in their image willing to support their decision to commit hari kari on their family.

5.) The ironic thing here is that though the man is now dealing w/ a broken family, the State comes along side and forces the effeminate ex-husband to provide for the bitchy ex-wife in the creation of a second household. And all of this in the name of a care and compassion that young women, and young men in pursuit of young women, keep voting for.

6.) Rinse and repeat enough times and you get young men who resolve never to marry and so become incels and you get young women who resolve never to marry and you get middle age cat women who, because they have no children to nurture, take up lunatic left social causes to be replacement children upon which they can pour out their nurturing side. This, in part, explains rows upon rows of women in 2016 going to DC to protest Trump’s first inauguration while wearing pink “pussy hats.” Another example is the way single women can infantilize illegal immigrants and minorities, taking them as her proxy children she never had and pouring out on them all her care and compassion that the cat lady might have once poured out on her own.

7.) Incel men then, having never married and never had children, to provide and protect for, tend to become middle aged adolescents who never grow up. The responsibility of raising a family matures a man and without that properly maturing pressure young men are increasingly forever teenagers. They also tend to hate women and so objectify them for sexual pleasure alone or become sodomites or massive porn consumers.

8.) As an aside this may explain why sane women are often attracted to “bad boys.” Some women want men who break societal expectations and who are independent in a very raw way. These relationships can work out depending upon how the “bad boy” can harness his “badness,” to productive ends. However, “bad boys” have a hard time making it through the cultural institutional gauntlet since the cultural institutional gauntlet exists to reinforce the propaganda that care and compassion are synonymous with conformity and control.

McAtee Defends Kirk Against An Angry Female Family Member

Like many Americans I have found myself shocked this past week by the murder of Iranyi Zarutska and the assassination of the Christian Charlie Kirk. The violence has been heart rending. Perhaps, however, what has been just as shocking to me is the glee that has been communicated by many unhinged Americans over the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I mean, I knew that these people hated Biblical Christians but I could not have guessed that the hatred was so wide and deep. It has been heart rending to read people exulting in Mr. Kirk’s death.

Even more heart rending was to read a closely related extended family member join in this ghoulish celebration.

Below, find interaction with this family member who thinks she is wise but really is wicked. She has me blocked on social media but another family member actually took the time to send it to me. I take the time to do this because I am concerned that I have other family members I love who are going to be dragged into the wickedness orbit we see this family member spouting.

____

MN writes,

I do think it is dangerous to rejoice in violence. I also think the argument of feeling sad for this because he had a wife and children isn’t good enough. Most evil men have. I have more grief for what this says about our society. About the distractions and divides people in power have put up that have gotten us to this place. People like Charlie Kirk.

So while I am pondering about what to think and how to feel about this. These are some quotes I will ponder:

Bret responds,

First you say that it is dangerous to rejoice in violence and then you turn around and try to justify the rejoicing in violence that is ubiquitous. You write that “feeling sad because he had a wife and children isn’t good enough.” In other words, one has to have more reasons than a widowed wife and orphaned children in order to be justified in being saddened concerning someone’s death.

Second, you make it clear that your sadness is not about Kirk’s death but rather your sadness is the fact that an evil man like Kirk, per your subjective standards, has placed distractions and divides in American society. So, if we are to take your words seriously what you have told us is that it is not the death of Kirk that makes you sad, but rather it was the life of Kirk that made you sad, because, in your subjective opinion, Kirk placed distractions and divides in American society.

Next, we have to ask, what evidence do you have that Kirk was a “evil man?” By what standard are you adjudicating in order to lower your gavel and say “Charlie Kirk was evil?” It certainly isn’t Scripture that is your standard because Kirk was careful to anchor all of his positions in Scripture. So, by your own subjective say so you’re trying to sell Kirk was an evil man? Who really is the evil person here?

MN writes,

Now you turn to quoting Kirk, thinking by doing so you are proving how evil he was. So… let us consider your quotes and your implicit reasoning behind the quotes that you provide proving he was a wicked man;

“It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the 2nd amendment”

~Charlie Kirk

Bret responds,

So, let us join you in pondering this, understanding that you think this quote proves the Kirk is a wicked man;

1.) If you could bring Kirk back to life he would say this again. The man knew the evidence that existed that proclaimed that gun prohibition laws end up serving the purposes of the criminal class. Prohibiting gun only makes it so the law abiding class can’t get weapons. Criminals don’t care if they break the law in order to have weapons. Tell me that you don’t really think that the chap that shot Kirk would not have been able to shoot Kirk if only your precious dumbass anti-gun laws were passed?

Evidence 1 that this family member is just another non-thinking lib-tard.

2.) If we did not have the 2nd amendment no one would be able to possibly fire back when some idiot criminal on a roof is firing at them.

3.) This lib-tard family member HATES the current Trump government but if she can’t get access to weapons how is the left ever going to fight against Trump? Darling, if we take your access to weapons away your ability to defy Trump goes out the window.

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk,

“I think empathy is a made up new age term that does a lot of damage” 

 Charlie Kirk

Bret responds,

1.) Fortunately for you, you will never have to deal with he burden of having empathy or even sympathy. You’ve made that clear with your hardness of heart against Kirk’s widow and orphans.

2.) Still, I agree with Kirk that empathy does do a lot of damage. What good does it do for someone to sit down and cry with someone crying? Does it fix their problem? Does it reverse their victim status, even if that is legitimate? Or instead does it empower people who only think they are victims to continue to be victims? Does it not only end up reinforcing bad and narcissistic behavior causing the one being empathized with to say … “yeah, I was right all along. People should feel pity for me.”

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk

“The biggest thing is this: more younger women need to get married at a younger age and start having kids. The single woman issue is one of the biggest issues facing a civilization.”

Charlie Kirk

Bret responds,

Just because you’re single, angry, tatted up like a 18th century sailor on the Pequod, while being 25 going on 50 doesn’t mean Kirk is wrong here.

Keep in mind here that Kirk is addressing the issue of civilization. Western Civilization cannot continue unless our birth rate matches or exceeds our death rate. Currently in the West, our birth rate at 1.55 is way below the needed replacement rate of 2.1. In light of this Kirk is absolutely on point.

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk

“Marital subversion” and “undermine their husbands”

Charlie Kirk on women voting differently than their husbands

Bret responds,

Again … how can this be denied? Women voting in contradiction to their husband is marital rebellion and should be treated as rebellion. Of course you find this hateful given your feminism. However, the Scripture is against you as it teaches repeatedly that wives must submit to their husbands.

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk,

“When a man and woman are hooking up and the woman removes consent.
Yeah that’s a murky middle grey area”

Charlie Kirk on rape

Bret responds,

It is murky. A woman teases a man by her consent to foreplay giving all the signals that it is a go and then suddenly says… “I have a headache?” Yeah …. that’s murky.

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk

“Women should try to find their husband before they’re 25”

Charlie Kirk

Bret responds,

Again … this is just common sense. The younger couples get married the more likely they will meld together quicker. The younger women get married the more time they have to have babies. The Christian faith teaches that the main purpose of marriage after bringing to glory to God is to have children. Marrying before 25, is pursuant to that end.

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk

“You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white persons slot to be taken somewhat seriously”

~Charlie Kirk on black women in political roles

Bret responds,

Again … common sense. For example, the only reason Ketanji Brown Jackson was appointed to a Supreme court seat is because she was a black female (who during her testimony before the Senate could not even define herself as a female). Black people, exceptions notwithstanding, are merely affirmative action hires – hired in order to allow the company who hired them not to be hassled by the FEDS.

The only sin Kirk commits here is the sin of noticing.

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk

“I’m sorry, but if I see a black pilot, I’m going to think; oh I hope he’s qualified”

~Charlie Kirk

Bret responds,

Pray you never find yourself crisscrossing the country on jets as flown by minority affirmative action hires. Pretty soon the odds are going to catch up with you.

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk

“It creates very angry young ladies and bitter young women that then manifests those women into a political party”

~Charlie Kirk on birth control

Psst … get a mirror and look long and hard at it. You are the angry bitter young woman Kirk talked about.