Our Man Is A Man

Robert Redford in All Is LostLately, Hollywood produces films that feature some trapping of progressive thought or feminist angst, when they are not producing films that garner “lame” as its own genre. Generally I watch older films or films that tend to avoid, if not downplay, some of these aspects. Fortunately for me, I discovered a film that is distinctly un-Hollywood and is downright politically incorrect.

The film is All Is Lost and it stars Robert Redford. Here’s the trailer:

The main thrust of the story is a man alone on a boat in the middle of the ocean and struggling to survive disaster (I won’t say any more). It is simplistic, straightforward, and beautiful in its blunt story telling.

It is a story of a man who persists in the face of the odds.

There are no women in this film. There are no fat, angry feminist telling him what he is doing wrong and deliberately trying to provoke a fight while thinking it’s all cute. There are no power-boss ladies tromping up the steps of their power and lustfully enjoying the emasculation of the men around them. There are no light, wallpaper girls who fall in love with shy, metrosexual boys who have yet to find puberty. There are no female super-toughs. Thank God there are no female super-toughs.

At the same time, there are no overblown macho men who smoke cigars while shooting endless bad guys with dual guns while flying a helicopter carrying a tank. There are no street-wandering adolescent man-boys who fall in love with those shy, stumbling girls.

Here is a man who is nothing more or less than what he is. He is confident, adventurous, and courageous. His decisiveness and self-control are constant throughout every ordeal he faces.

This film is what a man needs to be. It is not what progressives want men to be, nor what the gaytopia crowd wants men to be, nor what feminists want men to be. Our Man is his own man.

The West needs men like Our Man.

If only women would let Our Man be a man.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Beautiful Women Need Not Apply

John C Wright has an article up on the value of beauty. He makes several good points, but one in particular stands out.

The Left hates this argument [the argument of beauty], because – since it is not put into words – it cannot be refuted in words. It can only be refuted in images: a urinal, a several cow head, a can of shit, a messy bed. These images are ugly, aggressively ugly, meant to be demeaning, meant to be absurd, harsh, jarring, repugnant and gross.

If there is one reason to reject the culture of feminism, it is because it seeks to deliberately destroy what is most beautiful in humanity: feminine beauty. The push for “strong” female characters who trash talk, the celebration of “body art” (which is actually body disfigurement), butch-bitch haircuts, and the crème de la crème of the anti-beauty movement, fat acceptance is all part of the feminist rebellion against the reality of beauty.

The motivation for such movements is said to be the need to counter men’s sexual exploitation of women and the unrealistic visions of beauty portrayed in magazines and entertainment. Feminism may be right in saying that American decadence has promoted both sexual exploitation and supreme superficiality, but that becomes mere excuse for the fundamental rejection of beauty in and of itself.

And as feminism seeks to purge beauty from women, they have no problem encouraging the same in men. Gay men in feminine fashion and boyish hairstyles parade their attempt to be beautiful men by mimicking feminine beauty in a superficial sense.

It is considered a crime of epic proportions for a man to say he dislikes overweight women with pixie haircuts, foul mouths, and chunks of metal piercing various parts of their face. However, it is a man’s right to say so and it could be said it his duty. Women who defile themselves externally show they are defiled internally. While there may be a legitimate reason such internal defilement (men can be monsters), to seek the abolishment of all beauty by endorsing and encouraging blatantly irresponsible behavior towards the body is fighting a wrong with evil. The result is ugliness.

It is more than external ugliness. A woman with a defiant and foul mouthed attitude, a woman who drives herself through life loudly and proudly, reveals that she has no ability to appreciate the beauty of feminine meekness, a beauty of the heart. So often men marry ugly women and attempt to emulate the feminine beauty of meekness their wives should possess.

Men are motivated to be gentlemen when there are ladies to be found. When a woman discards her beauty for her appetites and her feminist-induced hatred for beauty, she leaves behind the natural femininity that is deserving of a gentleman’s strength and honor. Men no longer have a reason be gentlemen as feminism continually soils and rips apart the feminine beauty that they yearn for.

This makes American sexual dynamics utterly confusing to men. They naturally desire feminine beauty and look for it in women, where nature says it is to be found. What they find is feminism shaming them for searching for that beauty in women and encouraging them to mimic it in themselves, which is unnatural.

The result is men becoming increasingly withdrawn from marriage and relationships for individualistic stoicism and hedonism. Or they adopt some form of feminine beauty to make up for the deficiency in their wives. Or worse, they maintain their masculinity and hammer it into utter passive submission to the demands of masculine women.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Thoughts On The Hobby Lobby Case

I imagine a man who gets up in the morning and begins his day in prayer. With a Bible and a rosary, he prays and sets in his mind clearly what he believes and values. He dresses and goes to work. This man is a small business owner and has several stores in his chain and several employees.

The government issues a mandate that guarantees that a woman will have various contraception medication available to her without cost. Required to carried the financial burden is not the government who produced the mandate, but private employers. Among these contraception medicines is one that induces a miscarriage, or abortion, of a pregnancy that is mere days along.

The man has strong convictions about abortion, based on his religious beliefs concerning family and sex, and does not accept abortion. He has been informed that he must use the fruits of his labor to pay for women to use abortion-inducing medication. His conscience will not allow him to use funds he has worked for to support an action that violates his deepest beliefs.

The secular government says he must support a woman’s access to abortion using his funds in direct violation of his religious convictions. So he goes to the US courts to challenge the mandate. The secular voice says that a woman’s right to abortion-inducing medication is a health and legal issue and no one should deny a woman access to that medication. The religious voice says that abortion is a moral issue and no individual should be forced to violate his conscience.

Modern secular rights are in conflict with historical religious convictions.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A False Cloak Of Virtue

Satan can be a Christian, too.

CNN recently reported that the Pope has officially ex-communicated members of the Italian Mafia. The Pope declared

Those who in their life have gone along the evil ways, as in the case of the Mafia, they are not with God, they are excommunicated.

No Christian is his right mind would honestly say that the Pope was being unloving and intolerant. There are not going to be calls for Mafia rights or mobster equality. No civil rights groups are going to call the Pope “Mafiaphobic” and “intolerant.” Excommunicating the Mafia will not be seen as “hate.”

What is so provocative about this is the reality of how the Mafia has integrated itself into the Catholic Church.

The Pope’s remarks will resonate strongly in this part of southern Italy, where the Mafia attempt to portray themselves as upstanding religious men in good rapport with the Catholic Church, in order to maintain local credibility.

The Mafia could care less about Church teaching or the long-held doctrines that constitute its orthodoxy, its fundamental beliefs. They have chosen to defy Church authority and simply wrapped the cloak of Christianity around their lifestyle so that the surrounding culture, being dominated by Catholic teachings, does not see them as the barbarians they are.

The same can be said for feminists and homosexuals. Even though Christianity has held throughout its history a patriarchal view of family and church, feminists have defied Christian teaching and pushed for equality in the church. Following that defiance the homosexuals have shunned centuries of teaching and fought for the right have homosexual parings recognized as legitimate Christian unions.

If these twin pillars of equality were merely aspects of a completely secular State opposed to Christianity, then this would be little more than the natural conflict between worldviews and the resulting cultures. What has happened, though, is that feminists and homosexuals have declared their views fully legitimate and demanded that their desire for a Christian identity be acknowledged and fulfilled by Christianity.

Most conservative Christians who divorce or commit adultery (it could be argued the divorced do commit adultery) admit that what they have done was in defiance of church teaching. Though they are as worthy of excommunicating, they at least admit that divorce and adultery are sins in the eyes of God. Feminists and homosexuals will not even admit that.

Like the Mafia of Italy, feminists and homosexuals seek to “… portray themselves as upstanding religious men in good rapport with the Catholic Church, in order to maintain local credibility.”

In excommunicating the Italian Mafia, the Pope shows the Christianity is still capable of defending God’s declarations on matters in direct and clear ways. The fact that it has not done so in terms of divorce and adultery and has accepted at its altar feminists and homosexuals reveals Christianity is not compassionate, but merely cowardly.

Worse still is that feminists and homosexuals, having now secured legitimacy through claiming identity with Christianity may one day turn and prosecute those Christians who will not accept their legitimacy. They will not care about Christianity, but will use the State to excommunicate from society those Christians that will not accept their lifestyles.

And for the record, the thorn of this issue is less about feminism and homosexuality, which are issues in and of themselves. In a purely secular setting, with ideas emerging from irreligious schools of thought, feminism and homosexuality can be openly be accepted as a secular culture has no prohibitions against such things. It is the attempt to take secular ideas and claim they are rooted in Christianity that assails the church. It is using Christianity to promote ideas that are obviously in violation in Christianity that is so egregious.

The left understands what they are doing. In 2005, a Pennsylvania court forbid the teaching of Intelligent Design along with Evolution in classrooms. The outcry was that ID was Creationism masking itself as a scientific theory. In other words, Christianity was accused of trying to wrap itself in a cloak of naturalistic biology to call itself “scientific.” The secular world drew a clear line between what was science and what was religion and forbid religion to call itself science (even though ID is essentially agnostic). Christianity has been, for all intents and purposes, ex-communicated from calling itself scientific. This happened while the political-paganism of feminism and homosexuality were not forbidden to call itself Christian.

It should also be noted that if Christianity were to simply disappear from society, feminists and homosexuals would continue on as they are, simply adopting some other form of spirituality. The church’s demise is of no consequence to them because they are not, fundamentally, Christian.

Christianity is being used as a tool by non-Christian forces who desire to ingratiate themselves into a culture that is dominated by Christianity, the same thing the barbaric Mafia attempted with the Catholic Church. If there is a prayer that should be on the lips of those who love the Church (Catholic or Protestant), it is that the cloak of “Christian” be ripped off to reveal the devil underneath.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Time To Be Really Sexist And Racist

Two things to note:

  • There are no more gentlemen because there are no more ladies. These are sluts to have pornographic sex with, not women to marry and raise a family with.
  • The historical Anglo-Euro culture which produced classical music is not compatible with the modern Afro-Pop culture which produced Sir Mix-A-Lot. One builds civilization for the betterment of man through marriage and family and the other drags man into the mud of primal sexual instincts.

Western culture continues to decline from a lack of sanity.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

What Christian Men Can Learn From Forinicating Men

adultOne website that has provoked me to seek manhood and genuine masculinity is Return of Kings. I never fail to walk away from what I read with a renewed sense of the calling to be a man. The struggle is that Return of Kings is a site dedicated to masculinity through personal conquest in terms of achievement and sex. Winning a one night stand with a young college female is simply part and parcel of the site’s focus. As a Christian, I believe male sexuality comes from God and is intended to be contained and expressed within marriage of one man to one woman. On this point, I part company with the thoughts on the site.

The main strength of such sites is the focus on men and solely on men. The writing is about men, who they are, what they naturally possess, and what they are capable of, both good and bad. Missing are compromising considerations to political correctness, feminism, or feminine sensibilities. Being offensive to women is not a goal, but neither is it a hindrance. The feelings of women are simply not a factor.

This sensitivity to women is why churches are succumbing to feminism and why ministry to men are secondary in church efforts. The desire for churches to keep the biblical idea of avoiding fornication has morphed from teaching a strong doctrine of discipline and purpose into a self-help program meant to teach men to be sensitive to women’s feelings on sex and marriage. The benefits of Christian limits on male sexuality for women should be secondary. The benefits apply primarily to men. It takes male potential and focuses into a creative purpose.

Free Northerner covers this idea quite effectively when he writes:

The average male, is  generally neutral in his inclination to his choice between hedonism, destruction, and creation … Creation requires the most effort and is the least enjoyable (at least in the short-term), but it creates value for society and meaning for the male human … So, how does society encourage a male human to create? There are really only three ways: force, access to resources, and sex/family … A male human will willingly create and undergo hardships he wouldn’t otherwise for the benefit of his mate and his children, and their futures. He will try to create (or destroy) to attain more resources than he would normally need or want simply to give to his family. The third option is the only stable and reliable option where the majority of males will willingly create rather than engage in leisure or destruction. It is also the only option for society where the male doesn’t have a decent chance of responding with destruction.

The current thinking is that masculinity in men is either destructive or selfish, but it is femininity in women that civilizes men and makes them creative. This idea is encapsulated in the concept of Christian men as apes and Christian women as princesses:

The image of human evolution as a symbol of civilized apes applies primarily to men. The image of God as King with heirs apparent is applied primarily to women. Primitive apes walk down the aisle to marry heavenly princesses who have the right to be doted on and called “beautiful” for their entire lives regardless of how they actually conduct themselves. The primitive apes are told “man-up” and shoulder their duty and enjoy the gracious privilege of actually marrying an evangelical woman. The preachers herald the union in utter ignorance while openly criticizing both evolution and feminism. It is the ultimate culture of male inferiority and female superiority backed by God and scripture, so saith the ape and princess co-pastors of mega-non-denomiational female-oriented churches.

Heralding women as sources of civilization in opposition to male destruction essentially places women on a pedestal and establishes them as morally superior to men. The moral superiority of women is a fundamental, if unspoken, tenant behind the push to advance women into male spheres of life and is the driving force of ministry to men in Evangelical Christianity. In the film Vanilla Sky, this idea is the point of revelation for the main character:

This was a kind woman. An individual. More than your equal. You barely knew in your real life, but in your lucid dream, she was your savior.

A woman as a man’s savior is not totally without fact. However, Christianity and its morals for men are not based on the needs and wants of women. Those morals are derived first from a heavenly Father and scripture. Woman in and of herself cannot save a man, but Christian morals leading a man to be with a woman can.

Fornicating men who live a self-centered life are right in that their being a man is the beginning of who a man is. This goes against the church culture that holds that a woman in relationship with Jesus (another man) is the beginning of who a Christian man is. Given that the Christian God is male, both Father and Son, and that its sacred text is both male-oriented and divinely designed to be so, to make woman as the center of the Christian man’s life is counter to Christianity itself.

Christian men should learn from the male-centered culture where men live for masculinity that being a man is the foundation of their lives. However, their sexuality is governed by marriage, making marriage an institution given by God to men for men.

[Edit: The quote from Vanilla Sky actually said, "More than your equal" and not "More than a woman. Correction made. MM]

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Hatred of God and Country

Military chaplainThe United States military is facing the possibility of appointing atheist chaplains. The initial contradiction of having someone who does not believe in the existence of God functioning as a clergyman, someone who represents belief in God, does not seem to be a problem. Greta Van Sustren reports:

An atheist group is demanding an atheist chaplain in the military. The group claims that as more atheists join the military they need somewhere to go for support.

When soldiers who believe in God need support for their faith, the realities of war and the harsh life of a soldier is the primary challenge. Difficulties wear on a man’s belief in a transcendent God who is fundamentally good. But why would atheists need support? Does war make them question their atheism and tempt them to seek out God? If that is the case, then going to a chaplain would be the last thing an atheist should do. A chaplain, after all, functions primarily as a member of Christianity, and Christianity’s defining point of truth begins with the existence of God. When an atheist needs to talk about his problems, a counselor would be a better answer than the contradictory position of atheist chaplain. Modern psychology is fundamentally separated from sectarian ideas and operates on purely naturalist methods. It is about Freud and not faith.

The more common sense answer is that atheists need support in their atheism against the influence of their fellow soldiers. Soldiers in the military tend to be men who pray and read from holy texts, especially the Bible.

Proposing the position of an atheist chaplain is an effort to deliberately undermine the influence of Christianity among soldiers by forcing a religious position to adopt irreligious approaches in order to accommodate soldiers who do not believe in God. Such a change would not be just for the handful of atheist soldiers, but would apply to all soldiers, especially Christian. Those who would seek support for their faith would find a secular vacuum in the very position established to protect and venerate their faith. Atheists pushing for a chaplain position is ultimately an act of deliberate subversion of the Christian faith in the military.

It is the same reason feminist Sandra Fluke enrolled at the Catholic-influenced college Georgetown University and then deliberately challenged the college’s stance against insurance funding for birth control, a core conviction within the Catholic faith. It was an effort of subversion.

Atheists entering the military may or may not be an act of patriotism, but the push to establish a chaplaincy represented by irreligious thought is not. It is a political move meant to challenge Christianity in the American military until it is expunged of faith. The Christian soldier serves God and Country, but the atheist would demand service to Country and defiance of God.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments