Well said, Rockford! "Manlet"!
Also well said, FollowingHim
Also well said, FollowingHim
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Socialist marital regulation?
- Thread starter Shadowjak's Dancer
- Start date
So, this is one of those cases where different streams of life collide, because one of the youtube channels I subscribe to just made basically the exact same comparison the other day.
For background, here's a bit of internet jargon that I just learned: "incel" is a smash-up of the words "involuntary celibate" -- a man (usually) who realizes that he's too low status, and is unable to successfully get a partner (even short term) although he wishes he could (as opposed to a MGTOW, who voluntarily swears off women). By contrast, a "Chad" is a man who has loads of casual sex. These terms are similar to beta and alpha respectively, and there'd be a lot of overlap. In the socialist analogy, these would be the corolary to the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
Recently, there was an event where a van was driven into a crowd in Toronto killing ten. The perpetrator allegedly had posted on social media that he was starting the "incel rebellion". As mentioned, the anti-feminist/anti-socialist YT commentator I listened to explicitly described this mindset as a form of socialism. That is, if feminists and socialists think it is moral for the "oppressed" to feel a sense of entitlement to the production of other's bodies (in the form of redistributing men's wallets), why shouldnt low-status incel men, by the same (incorrect) principles, feel a sense of entitlement to women's bodies?
Or, as he jokingly puts it: "We must seize the means of reproduction!"
For background, here's a bit of internet jargon that I just learned: "incel" is a smash-up of the words "involuntary celibate" -- a man (usually) who realizes that he's too low status, and is unable to successfully get a partner (even short term) although he wishes he could (as opposed to a MGTOW, who voluntarily swears off women). By contrast, a "Chad" is a man who has loads of casual sex. These terms are similar to beta and alpha respectively, and there'd be a lot of overlap. In the socialist analogy, these would be the corolary to the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
Recently, there was an event where a van was driven into a crowd in Toronto killing ten. The perpetrator allegedly had posted on social media that he was starting the "incel rebellion". As mentioned, the anti-feminist/anti-socialist YT commentator I listened to explicitly described this mindset as a form of socialism. That is, if feminists and socialists think it is moral for the "oppressed" to feel a sense of entitlement to the production of other's bodies (in the form of redistributing men's wallets), why shouldnt low-status incel men, by the same (incorrect) principles, feel a sense of entitlement to women's bodies?
Or, as he jokingly puts it: "We must seize the means of reproduction!"
Rockfox: It seems like you have read a poorly researched history of women in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. These two governments did not have a form of liberation of women from social constraints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Nazi_Germany
http://bobhistory.wikispaces.com/Treatment+of+Women+in+Fascist+Italy+and+Nazi+Germany
I freely admit I am not well read on this aspect of history. Though I also expect wikipedia to downplay any pro-women or feminist aspects of NAZI Germany.
Suffice it to say, feminism has been wrapped up with fascism, communism and socialism from the beginning.
That is hilarious.
I could be wrong but aside from a few mental breakdown induced homicides, I don't expect any significant violent affect from rebellious incel's. Certainly not to the same level as we put up with from gang culture.
I see the main problem with them is in their support of feminism/far left politics in vain attempts to appeal to women. And even that is dwarf'ed by the damage done by the everyman's support of the divorce and domestic violence complex.
Actually, the articles that were being reviewed in the video I saw were largely a moral panic from a leftist/feminist perspective, equating incels with misogynists, the alt-right, and 4chan, and denigrating them while advocating for their censorship.
But you're right that male feminists also tend to be incels. There's sort of an ongoing meme that if you find a vocal male feminist, just wait a few years, and they'll end up being convicted of sexual harasment or assault.
Well thats about the usual level of insight I expect from the left. Everyone to the right of Stalin is Literally HITLER!
But you have to hand it to them, they are really good at point and shriek.
Which becomes even more hilarious when you realise that Hitler was a socialist too...
Hitler was not a socialist; the basics of socialism: egalitarianism and common ownership- are absent from Nazism.
You have to understand how Hitler defined Socialism.
'Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.
Speech given on December 28, 1938, qouted in The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939 pg. 93
He also inprisoned socialist, marxist and comunist; along side union leaders and cripples. They were the internal threats... then he targeted the jews. Also he had lax gun laws for regular Germans just barred jews from owning guns.Most germans were armed at the time and it was highly encouraged as they were a means to defend the state. We have to keep in mind that Hitler was popular.
https://www.thoughtco.com/was-adolf-hitler-a-socialist-1221367
Ouch! I strongly propose to leave Hitler out of this discussion. I don’t think we can have a proper view on what he was in full detail; we were simply not there.
But I wouldn’t take any of Hitler’s statements for truth he also made clear that everything was allowed for the higher cause.
(For a matter of fact: my parents both suffered under the war and my grandfather died when he was defending our country, so I might not see this completely objective but you are touching some strings here)
But I wouldn’t take any of Hitler’s statements for truth he also made clear that everything was allowed for the higher cause.
(For a matter of fact: my parents both suffered under the war and my grandfather died when he was defending our country, so I might not see this completely objective but you are touching some strings here)
I have long been of the opinion that when a t.v. show resorts to fighting the Nazis, be it some time warp or alternate universe, their time on air is coming to an end. I don't know if it will prove the same for Biblic Families conversation threads...
Hitler is the stand-in for the devil in our modern civic religion and so there is a long running game on both sides of the political spectrum to paint him as being one of the other side.
But as the article sun linked to points out, "Hitler aimed to unite the right and left". Because of that it was a mishmash of policies to appeal to multiple ideologies and defies characterization. They held themselves out as a 'third way', neither left nor right. So it is not a game that can be won and a distraction from the conversation.
I'm more interested to hear if anyone can poke holes in my idea of polygamy as strategically useful in the culture war or my thoughts about why polygamy is good in opposition to the Utopian anti-polygamy argument.
But as the article sun linked to points out, "Hitler aimed to unite the right and left". Because of that it was a mishmash of policies to appeal to multiple ideologies and defies characterization. They held themselves out as a 'third way', neither left nor right. So it is not a game that can be won and a distraction from the conversation.
I'm more interested to hear if anyone can poke holes in my idea of polygamy as strategically useful in the culture war or my thoughts about why polygamy is good in opposition to the Utopian anti-polygamy argument.
Nope. No holes to poke. I think you're right on target.
The modern institutional church is (to a certain extent) and is becoming (to a greater extent) the "state church": It exists as creature of the state and functions as a propaganda arm of the state. Our 'fields white for harvest' are outside the state church....
Eh? Its been that pretty much throughout its history, at least from Constantine's time. Certainly from the point that the RCC crowned Charlemange as Holy Roman Emperor. Even the Referomation didn't disentangle the church from political power, as various princes and nobles would choose to defend one side or the other, leading to a thirty year civil war in the Holy Roman Empire. England initially became protestant for a political purpose, to allow Henry VIII to divorce and remarry.
I suppose America's maintained some degree of separation for the past 250 years or so, but that's not been the norm throughout history.
Last edited:
That's underselling it a bit, but yes, the Founders self-consciously placed the establishment and exercise of religion outside the purview of government. That worked pretty well for over 100 years, until (unfortunately for this group) the Supreme Court gutted the free exercise clause in Reynolds v. U.S. (1895), prohibiting Mormon polygamy. Then in 1954 you get restrictions on free speech in the churches through the Johnson Amendment. This week we saw Paige Patterson getting hammered for comments that would have been unremarkable a few decades ago. And so it goes....
Lots of things about America were outside "the norm of history". It remains to be seen whether enough people will pitch in and help reverse the decline or in the long run we will be seen as just another social experiment that failed.
Outside the purview of the FEDERAL government; the first 10 amendments were originally meant to limit federal, not state, power. State governments were free to, and did, have official churches. And no small amount of the initial settlement followed the pattern of European towns (more like little city states really) where the settlement build and staffed the church. Whether States ought to be able to do that or not isn't germane; the point is, the Founders didn't so limit them.
This is foreign to modern American ears but very much in keeping with how things were done in the old country. It was also the inevitable outcome of the practical situation. When you have a group of people with common religion who organize together to form a settlement, well they also form the church, and exclusively making up the polity, the government too. At least for those practicing Congregational governance. You can see how this looks a lot like socialism.
Which brings up a related issue. While socialism, in the form of leftist marxism is toxic, the same in rightist Christian communities wasn't. Think Anabaptist communes, RCC and Orthodox monasteries, schools of the prophets, and the like. Now I should note I'm a bit murky on the difference between socialism, communism, and Marxism. So I'm not sure fully sure on the differences, especially the philosophical underpinnings.
But Devilish envy vs. Christlike love is one big difference. Another is that Marxism is totalitarian at pushing outward conformance to build an earthly utopia (gods now) whereas Christian communal life is voluntary, inward conformance to reach paradise in the next life (gods later).
All that said, it is worth noting that the Congregationalists morphed into the UCC and related groups which were the incubator of the modern social justice movement. For all I know they were involved in the earlier progressive and feminist movements. However I suspect this is what happens when you become unhinged from Christ and become fully carnal in your outlook (as these types are wont to deny the miraculous, reject the Lordship of Christ and the like).
Last edited:
Well, I figured that was understood.
Some did, many didn't. It wasn't a uniform practice.
At some level of social organization, we need to have a shared culture to cooperate (basically what you're getting into in the rest of your post). At higher levels of social cooperation, we need to leave each other alone and trade freely without trying to impose our culture on others or allowing others to impose their culture on us. The $64 question is where to draw the line....
At this point my concern is specifically with the Feds. The Feds are normalizing gay marriage, the Feds are deeply involved in the divorce court / child support enforcement regime, and the Feds have muzzled the corporate churches and blocked them from direct participation in the political process.
Re child support: One of the biggest tools of the matriarchy is the federal "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" of the mid-'90s. Direct federal involvement in child support collection and enforcement, providing for a global numbering system and labor camps. Check it out at 42 USC §666.
And the corporate churches don't know, don't care, and couldn't do anything about it if they did....
Re child support: One of the biggest tools of the matriarchy is the federal "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" of the mid-'90s. Direct federal involvement in child support collection and enforcement, providing for a global numbering system and labor camps. Check it out at 42 USC §666.
And the corporate churches don't know, don't care, and couldn't do anything about it if they did....
The 'five minute payoff' from the Warren Farrell interview that @Shibboleth posted (spoiler alert) was the part where he describes how the leaders of the National Organization of Women specifically and self-consciously chose financial support and political power over the demonstrated needs of children of divorce, telling women what they wanted to hear to keep the donations coming. Very sad.
The same dynamic is present in the corporate churches. How many of us have had conversations with church pastors along the lines of "I agree with you that the bible doesn't prohibit polygamy, but I could never preach that here—I'd get fired"? Hirelings all....
The same dynamic is present in the corporate churches. How many of us have had conversations with church pastors along the lines of "I agree with you that the bible doesn't prohibit polygamy, but I could never preach that here—I'd get fired"? Hirelings all....
Yes. The divorce industrial complex and its tools (the domestic violence, child support, and child abuse industries) are destroying marriage in this country. That divorce is legal at all is horrible but our society could probably survive free and easy divorce if it weren't for the hammers wielded by that industry against men and their families.
The level of unjustice today against the family that the church is winking at, even aiding and abetting, is unprecedented. I doubt it even got this bad in Rome's day. The establishment church doesn't care. They cheer on single moms and divorcees all day long while losing no opportunity to blame men for others bad actions.
The level of unjustice today against the family that the church is winking at, even aiding and abetting, is unprecedented. I doubt it even got this bad in Rome's day. The establishment church doesn't care. They cheer on single moms and divorcees all day long while losing no opportunity to blame men for others bad actions.
^^^This.^^^
Hadn't thought of it that way, but I agree. Ideally, people would be free to define their own agreements, and then civil courts would simply be in the agreement-enforcing business, as with commercial contracts. The no-fault divorce isn't the problem isn't the problem as much as the anti-male bias ('tender years' doctrine). Level the playing field, and I'll bet we'd see a lot less quick-trigger divorces, even if no-fault were still the basic posture.