In the previous entry on the low-cut, low-rise, low class clothes of modern women, clothes that leave a man feeling insulted or in a constant state of  distraction or alienated from his normal male responses, Clark Coleman argued that men should shame women for their appearance. I said I thought it was unlikely that they would.

Perhaps I was too pessimistic. Maybe it could happen. Certainly it would be a great development.

But would men have the courage to criticize women who are powerful and attractive or even those who are their friendly co-workers? Can they afford to criticize women who are powerful and attractive?  There are effective ways to go about it. No woman likes to be called a slut. It’s a word that retains its power, unplugging the secret, stoppered spring of modesty and shame in even the most uninhibited and sexually practiced of women. Men have used this word often in reference to women with little social status, those who are not beautiful and who are sexually loose. They risk nothing in doing this. Could they use it against someone successful, in a position of influence, surrounded by admirers and yet dressed in lingerie at work?

As another reader comments below, the situation is serious for men. They sometimes risk financial and social ruin in criticizing women.

A. Servant writes:

First, on your discussion of female immodesty. Excellent piece, couldn’t agree more, especially the observations of Lawerence Auster, as he describes the three choices a man has when reacting to a woman in immodest dress. I couldn’t describe my reaction over the years to this type of woman in public, but I knew it was strong and very uncomfortable, and it has been exactly as he describes. I go out of my way to ignore these women and make it as obvious as I can, but in a way I felt I was giving up some kind of power and didn’t like it at all. Further reading on the blog and the discussion of “sluts” made me come to the realization of exactly what power I was giving up. I think if I could just purely act from my God-given nature and not have to worry (which one really does these days) of the feminine backlash, what I would be most comfortable doing these days is telling these women on the spot, in public, to put some clothes on. This would take my power back. I may even go further in telling them not to disgrace themselves, have some self-respect and regain a bit of modesty. “Slut” could work, but I’m sure would be too explosive. 

You may ask what is stopping me. Sincerely voicing one’s conservative opinion in public with people who are most obviously not of the same value system is becoming downright dangerous. I have been verbally attacked with such vitriol on several occasions for just the mildest of references, and even been physically threatened. This part doesn’t really bother me for I understand it and expect it, but it is impossible for it not to be emasculating, because if someone loses their cool and actually does something stupid and I am pushed to the point of maybe physically defending myself, the consequences are very real for a decent man with a career and responsibilities that cannot afford (often literally) an incident as such. So it becomes emasculating in the sense that you must constantly self-censor and not speak basic truths, so as to “avoid trouble”. That is not what God put righteous men on this earth to do. For anyone that may think I am being overly dramatic, I could give you many specific examples of incidents in my career where just in order to keep my job I had to be extremely careful not to reveal my true conservative leanings, but the details would be too many for this format. I can assure you though that I am extremely professional, successful, and easy to get along with, but I am very masculine and work in management of production, and as such, am a “take charge” kind of guy, for it is necessary for success in this type of work. I say that so as to clarify that there is no doubt that these incidents could stem from lack of performance, and 15 years ago I was admired for this demeanor. It is extremely obvious that as a “take charge” kind of guy in a workforce dominated by the political correctness and feminism of today, you are targeted just for the mere fact that you put performance over “feelings”. It is often hard just to survive day by day, forget trying to shame people into better behavior. 

Mentioning shame reminds me of Robert Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrahand his excellent analysis of the destructive effects of modern liberalism on our society. He makes a very strong case that shame has lost almost all of its public stigma and can no longer be used as a corrective tool in the public realm. Sadly, I would have to agree. David Kupelian in the Marketing of Evil has another deep insight on the dynamics of this situation, but from the spiritual point of view. He states, and I agree completely, that when people rebel against God by abandoning their God-given conscience, freedom to do anything that feels good and that feeds their ego is what now feels “right” to them. As such, there are no limits, because human desires and pleasures have no limits, so anything that puts a limit on their behavior is sincerely met with resentment and even hostility. Normally, what restricts someone for the most part is their conscience, and it used to be that when that failed, society used shame and stigma. So now, with millions of people in our society living as such, completely “free” from restrictions of conscience, they feel liberated, although they are destroying themselves and our nation. If they encounter someone that will actually show them true love and speak the truth to them, thereby pulling them from destruction, their conscience is activated and it feels like an attack. They actually, truly believe that it is hateful, for that is how it feels. Their ego has become an addiction, and just like a heroin addict will hate you if you take his heroin away, these people will hate you too.[Laura writes: That’s a very good description of the phenomenon.] 

These observations of mine and others on this matter are further confirmations to me that saving our nation and society at large isn’t possible and shouldn’t be our goal as Christians. Perhaps, in the event of an major catastrophe that wakes the population from their lustful carnal inebriation into sobriety and they must truly toil and suffer again, I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine an event of such magnitude taking place, for the magnitude would have to be colossal. 

That leads me to close with my second and brief comment on the “Abdication of Man”. Mrs. Wood writes, 

“….. (today’s man) dressed in his play clothes, fighting wars alongside girls, changing diapers, submitting to women at work and home. He is no longer lord or hero…..” 

Perfectly said. So I propose a challenge to the like-minded. Do we as Christians want real men, real families, real careers, real women, that can actually live their values without fear on a daily basis? Then we must begin to physically unite. Blogs like this are great to begin, but this is still the cyber world, and I can’t nor do I wish to live here. Granted, I live in a pretty liberal state (will probably move for work soon to a more conservative area), but I know many self-proclaimed conservatives and can guarantee that none of them would dare to have a conversation like this one or others found on this blog in the work place or even in public, and I don’t blame them, for I wouldn’t either. But I hear daily conversations in public and the workplace with pride about meterosexual children, abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. ad nauseum without a bit, not one bit, of apprehension or concern for those that may find these subject matters offensive. We have been reduced to cowering beggars and as such, most men have reverted to a permanent adolescent state, trying a least to salvage some joy from life. That is not a life for a Christian man, it is worse than death. It is a disgrace. Mrs. Wood, you have pointed out many a time that the structure of our laws and societal values must be changed to regain some societal health, and that is true. But we all must realize that just like with the founding of this country, that is only done amongst people with shared core values. 

Where do we begin?

Laura writes:

As I’ve said before, the single most effective thing a man can do is have children and raise them to reject all this. Men may not be able to affect their co-workers, but they can affect their daughters. I realize it’s not always possible.

We will physically unite, but it will take time. I am not ready to say that “saving our nation and our society shouldn’t be our goal.” You have to remember how quickly all this has happened and how monumental the changes have been. When ideas take hold they can have a sudden and sweeping effect.

There is one other important thing to remember. Many people are deeply unhappy. They are begging for normalcy and don’t know where to find it. Loneliness and the absence of piety, reverence and beauty in their lives is killing them from the inside.

N.W. writes:

A. servant writes, “I propose a challenge to the like-minded. Do we as Christians want real men, real families, real careers, real women, that can actually live their values without fear on a daily basis? Then we must begin to physically unite.” 

This is an idea I’ve been pondering for some time. A society joined on nothing but a common religious conviction is a perilous thing.

Historically, what usually resulted was celibate ascetic religious communities, monasteries and convents. Later, after the Reformation, one encounters the Puritan Pilgrims, the Anabaptists and the Shakers. At a certain point in the 19th century such communities secularized and lead to such endeavors as the Brooksfield farm experiment. The 1960’s brought communal living to a whole new level, culminating in such incidents as the Manson family killings and later Jonestown. Essentially, what I am driving at is the fact that religious communities that derive their primary political identity solely from their religious conviction demonstrate an inordinate propensity to become consumed by either asceticism or decadence (I recommend Norman Cohn’s In Pursuit of the Millenium and Eric Voeglin’s work on religious movements of the Middle Ages.)

In the healthy life of any society we must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s. In our present predicament we would do well to remember that the political practices of the West are firmly grounded in the pagan traditions of the Greeks and Romans. While Christianity gives us a glimpse of the transcendent and divine, it was the earthbound pagans who provided our civilization with the the means to live in the mundane present.

When Christians separate themselves from the mainstream to form their own communities, they would do well to be especially vigilant of the pitfalls of Manicheanism, and avoid rejecting the bawdy with the beautiful, in as much as a Bowdlerized society will destroy itself. While we are blessed with (and should make ample use of) both traditions, I would rather live in a city founded principally in the Greco Roman tradition than solely in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

While the best are graced by faith, hope and love, it is justice, fortitude, prudence and temperance which make a truly great city. 

Laura writes:

N.W.’s comment reminds me of something I have noticed in the Christian homeschooling movement. While by and large this movement has done more to advance the freedom of thought than any other modern development in education, there is also a strand of parochialism in it, a rejection of that part of Western culture that is not explicitly Christian.

Erin Hargrove writes:

I’ve been reading your blog from the beginning and have enjoyed it tremendously. I thought I’d comment on your statement that women hate being called sluts. I would have agreed with you until my oldest daughter went to college two years ago (after being home-schooled K-12) and discovered that girls are using the words slut and whore as terms of endearment for each other. It may sting for a woman over a certain age, but not apparently for the under 25 crowd.

Laura writes:

Thank you for writing.

I guess it’s to be expected though I had held out hope. In an age of sluts, the word would eventually lose its power. But to become a form of endearment? I am depressed.

Girls set up a wall of invulnerability to shame by using the word in this way.

A reader writes:

I recommend this piece on “the Misandry Bubble.” It states:

“The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020. “

Laura writes:

A culture of misandry hurts women as much as it hurts men and that can be seen in the increase in single motherhood and the widespread casual neglect of children today. At least half of these children are girls.

Karen I. writes:

I think the shaming needs to start with parents. A couple of decades ago, a girl dressed the way many do today would not have been allowed out of the house. Her father would simply not allow it, and in most families I knew of, they would certainly say something along the lines of, “Go change and don’t let me see you dressing like a slut again.” End of story. The girl would be very unlikely to dress that way again and their sisters got the message as well. But, now, anything goes and parents don’t pay enough attention. I suppose that has something to do with our culture of single parents, where 40% of births these days are to unwed mothers and many other children born to two parents eventually also find themselves in single parent homes. Without a father in the home, girls run wild. Also, mothers are not providing a good example. They are sluts themselves, having children out of wedlock, and dressing and behaving like tramps. I know of several single mothers who dress immodestly in an attempt to attract a new mate. They are so insecure they take it as a compliment when a man says they are “hot.”

Sheila C. writes: 

I’ve been following this thread carefully and concur with everything I’ve read. Like Karen, I also have an extremely handsome ten year old son; he hasn’t yet been harassed by girls, probably because he’s been in a small Christian school with children younger than he. He’s a bit immature but as innocent as he ought to be (which is rare these days). My older son’s girlfriends have been every bit as poorly behaved/dressed as one would expect. We even ran into a former Christian middle school classmate of his who is now a single mother. There’s really no true protection from this aggressive, sexualized culture other than raising your children as well as you can, and to be as aware as possible, and to pray. My husband and I are at once both careful and firm in our comments on our older son’s girlfriends and on the behavior we expect of him, and on the severe familial and financial consequences he will incur if he crosses certain lines. I continually pray he will mature enough and somehow meet a Christian girl who is both interesting and attractive and modest enough to show him how a true woman (even a rather young one) can and should behave. I’ve also tried to prepare myself to be implacable in the face of his failure, which is a distinct possibility. He has free will and is as exposed to sin and temptation as much as anyone on the cusp of adulthood is today, and is as prone to failure as any of us. I have in no way abdicated my parental role, but must accept his increasing independence (legally and socially) and rely on him to make the right choices – a truly perilous journey.

A. Servant’s comments truly made me grieve how low we have fallen. I am fortunate enough that I do not work out of the home (indeed, the tax penalties for doing so would be prohibitive) and my husband’s employment is not threatened by my personal web comments (to the best of our knowledge). My husband is concerned, however, that my lack of fear in making openly politically incorrect statements will either get me arrested or physically accosted by one of our immense local population of cultural enrichers. If everyone cowers in fear, however, we will continue to slouch toward Gomorrah in ignorance and apathy. Even the mildest of comments (I recently relievedly noted in a checkout line, only somewhat sotto vocce, that thank goodness I wouldn’t have to wait behind some Chinese customers) almost always results in both incredulity and agreement from other whites who marvel at my daring. Why is it so daring to speak the truth that everyone privately acknowledges? Why is it so daring to exercise my first amendment rights? A. Servant is correct: we cannot and do not live on the web and need somehow a real community of like-minded people. Where is this to be found? I live in a “conservative” state and have not found such a community in church or in various Christian schools. Everyone is careful to bow to diversity, to love the stranger in the gates, to pay obeisance to the multicultural god. Where am I to go? Even on the web, almost all hide behind pseudonyms. I can understand men wishing to protect their families and their livelihoods, but who is to take a stand? If men can’t or won’t, then truly our culture is doomed (as I believe it is and has been for some time).

I have one slight disagreement with Laura. While women’s shameful and shameless appearance is a sign of desperation, in a way (all these women looking for attention and approval and then castigating it at the same time), it seems more a sign of aggression and conquest to me. My husband noted that we have been socially conditioned to turn away and pretend not to notice aberrant behavior, which then becomes even more aggressive and aberrant and in your face, and you must stare directly into the abyss and pretend not to see. That is where we are today – staring into the abyss and pretending it does not exist. Whether it’s Muslim or black hostility, white timidity, infertility, feminism, whatever the threat, we must not dare notice it or openly comment on it. Even my ten-year-old knows this, and is always begging me not to say certain things because he’s embarrassed or because it will anger others (my most common public comment to him is not to shuffle his feet; to walk like an American and not a Chinese peasant, or to tell him that a Christian American does not do ‘x’ or ‘y’ – and I say this openly in the presence of non-Christian, non-white, non-Americans – thus his fear and embarrassment). I read a column by Thomas Sowell about the death of gentlemanly behavior among athletes, but there was nary a connection to black athletes. I listened to a symposium in which David Horowitz spoke about our national danger from a shadowy third column, but ne’er a mention of the fact that most of those he names are, like himself, Jewish. If these are the voices of warning, what is left? I mourn my culture and my country and I will not be silent.

Clark Coleman writes:

As I tried to indicate in my previous comment, it is too much to address the whole society. We need to start in the churches. In my church, men from the congregation (not paid clergy) teach the teenage and college and adult Bible classes. We sometimes substitute in the pulpit as well, when the preacher is out of town or ill. We have a platform. It is uncomfortable to teach on controversial moral subjects, so we usually just teach some particular book of the Bible when it is our turn to teach again. But we could speak out about relations between the sexes, about standards of dress, about the language used by teens and college students (words we would have been disciplined for using are now commonly used, such as sucks), etc.

Only by speaking out about certain issues do we establish a norm. Do our teens and college students realize that certain words they use, and certain clothes they wear, are offensive? Probably not, because no one wants to be judgmental, to give offense, to be prudish or moralistic. Well, I hereby declare myself to be a judgmental, intolerant, moralistic prude, and quite proud of it. The next time I teach at church, some of these subjects will be addressed.

I understand the excuse people have given about fearing repercussions if they speak up “in public” about these matters. What is their excuse at church? The truth is that we have become a nation of cowards who have no excuse. The society, even within the church, has no standards because we are afraid to give offense to the forces of depravity.

I would like each of your readers to ask themselves when was the last time they heard a lesson or sermon at church about profanity, immodest dress, and/or promiscuity.

Laura writes:

Excellent points. I have never heard the issue of improper clothing addressed from the pulpit. When my mother attended Trinity College in Washington, D.C. years ago, all of the women had to have their dresses approved by the college before a dance. It was considered the business of all adults to pressure the young to act and dress properly.

By the way, one bright spot is that there is plenty of advice to young women on the Internet about how to dress in modest and attractive clothes. Lydia Sherman at Home Living has written extensively on the subject.

A. Servant writes:

I would love to share your hope and enthusiasm for the salvation of our society and country as a whole, Mrs. Wood, I sincerely would, and for brief moments I think I can, but always revert in a few hours to the realization that those were just fleeting moments of desperation. I would love to be wrong on this, you have no idea how much I would like it that if in ten years you will be gloating “I told you so!”, but I just can’t see it. I don’t know this, but my sense is that it is possible that some Christian individuals, usually conservative housewives or others, maybe small business owners in rural, conservative areas, are somewhat insulated from daily interaction with the mass of the progressive mainstream, and as such, are possibly somewhat naive as to what they are dealing with. [Laura writes: See my response to this point below.] No one, of course, can avoid it completely, but it is completely different experiencing it in school, or on TV, or the movies, than having to work together with these hateful individuals and have no choice but to acquiesce to their agenda. This means executing, planning, etc. on a daily basis with these heathen over many long hours, and as such, coupled with the observations of society at large, one gets a very strong sense and insight as to how completely entrenched they are, how confident they are that they are right and we are in a “brave new world”, and how evil and pitiful anyone is to them with an opposing point of view. It is true that there are many people that are extremely unhappy and dying from within these days, that I cannot deny, but there are more who are delightfully intoxicated on power and lust in this new heathenish paradigm. And the many unhappy on whom are hopes rely are not in positions of power. Yes, it is true that ideas can take hold quickly, it could happen, but I would rather prepare for the worst and hope for the best. This is doctrine of Christ. Bankrupt philosophies can rule for centuries. Look at the Dark Ages. I’m sure that the majority was miserable and desperately wanted change, but it didn’t come, and it didn’t come for a long time. Socialist Russia was discredited from within in probably less than two decades after its inception, the majority knew it was a lie, but it still continued for five more decades. Today, the majority believe the lie, they don’t need to be coerced or intimidated by the state to accept it. We are intimidated, but they are “celebrating diversity.” 

N.W. writes about the negative examples of attempts at exclusive Christian societies, and his point is well taken, but that is nothing of what I had in mind. If you look at the examples that he listed they have nothing to do with the true practice of Christianity, all they did was claim Christianity. Satan does that every day, all day long. Faith without action is nothing. This blog, what we are doing right here, is true Christianity folks. “The day will come and is already here when people will worship God in the way that He truly wants”, said Christ. This is it. Honest discourse about real matters, done intelligently, with respect. Manson and Jones were both drug freaks that espoused group sex. Convents and monasteries deny the natural urge and God given commandment to procreate with many, many other unbiblical practices. What I have more in mind is something far simpler, such as just cleaning up the moral contamination of the past 50 years. Basically, erase the sixties. Private property, technology, the family, individuality, and basic English Common Law all stay intact, but biblical values will guide how these things are administered. To give some more positive examples of Puritan Christian societies that have functioned for a long time and are still functioning, actually are flourishing, look at the Amish, the Mennonites and Hudderites, even some Mormon sects, and even those are way too dogmatic and isolated for me, we don’t have to go nearly that far. It is no coincidence that the pinnacle of American culture was the 1950s, that is according to wages, standard of living, crime rates, education etc., and I will take the position that morality was at its zenith at the same time. We just need to copy most, not all, of the social norms of that era.

Clark Coleman writes that he would like to take this debate to the pulpit of his church and I wish him all the success in the world with all sincerity, but would also like to warn him as well. He may find out just how “Christian” his congregation is when he starts to “criticize” their “children and their lifestyles”. I know, because I have done it before (not in a church, but with fellow “Christians”) with completely benign intentions, thinking I was sincerely helping. I suspect that no one has heard any mention of these issues in their churches because the same rule applies in the church as it does to society at large these days, that these subjects are “personal freedoms”, and as such, are beyond address. Mr. Coleman, you may get away with addressing the issue, but try giving some follow-up after the fact, perhaps if you see a young lady in the congregation after your sermon who is dressed inappropriately and you demand she leave and change her clothes. I would love nothing more, nothing, that you report back in a couple of weeks that it was all a great success and we have leapt forward on a certain front, at least one, but I am not going to hold my breath. With all due respect for any regular church goers, if it helps you I am glad, but I quit attempting to fit into an organized religious structure years ago. I tried and tried for years, but don’t hear any of the discourse there like I do on this site, and this is what is necessary. We are in a crisis people, and crisis calls for dramatic action, not bake sales or more quotes from scripture without any, any practical application. 

Sheila C.’s thoughts echo mine so closely. I would only like to caution you on one front and that is this. In your frustration –  and I don’t deny it, I feel it too –  don’t be too confrontational for the sake of the war to come. Remember that we are in a spiritual war, battles don’t mean much if we lose the war. I understand what and why you do what you do with your son, I do the same with my daughter, it is good, but don’t underestimate the wickedness of your adversary and the true power they hold over us right now. He may be left alone at times and is not strong enough at his young age to confront an attack alone ( I am not referring to a physical assault here although it’s possible) and his faith must not be allowed to fail, for we and God both need him. This is why it is so important that we physically unite, so we don’t feel that we have to take on the world alone, so we can affirm to one another that they are the heathen, they do what the heathen do, but we are of God, so it doesn’t matter. But when we feel isolated, like the world is caving in on us, it is only natural that we will strike out with righteousness, but we must be so, so smart about it. “Do not give what is holy to the dogs, for they will only turn and attack you.“. 

So on that final note, I have another proposition. If I were in the position to do it myself, I swear I would tomorrow, but I can’t right now. But in the meantime, I would like to propose to Mrs. Wood that some sort of e-mail exchange or introductory process be initiated through this site.

Laura writes:

Every housewife in America, unless she is Amish, Mormon or an Orthodox Jew, lives in the heart of the beast. No one is more despised by our culture than the homemaker who believes in her vocation and supports neither outright careerism nor non-committal, do-as-you-like, don’t-rock-the-boat feminism. Servant couldn’t be more wrong about traditional women being insulated from what he has seen and experienced. The only homemakers who have any kind of status are those who are wealthy, in which case people are generally willing to overlook their betrayal of feminism. Most women in my position experience serious passive aggression by other women, a thousand slights and cuts meant to marginalize them. Women who are powerful, who are callous to children and husbands, who neglect their homes, and who glorify their girlfriend gangs are openly celebrated both by popular culture and by family and friends. 

You couldn’t be more wrong about not understanding what you say. A housewife lives on the frontlines of this culture war. Only the strongest survive. 

I consider this website and similar ones a form of bonding. It’s important to clarify our positions, hone our arguments, and make contact with others. 

I am happy to keep an e-mail list. Anyone who wishes to be on the list can let me know. I can then forward it to anyone who asks for it, provided they are not a first-time reader who appears out of nowhere. I know Jews and other non-Christians who are serious traditionalists and who support Christian traditionalists. As a result, I would not limit this list to Christians. I would not keep a list of addresses on an accessible page out of respect for privacy. 

I agree with Servant that anyone attempting to fight the culture war only at church may run into serious disappointment and resistance. America’s churches have been able to successfully rally members against abortion and same-sex marriage, but have left many cultural issues unaddressed out of fear of alienating those who are materially benefiting from feminism. I do not expect this cowardice to vanish anytime soon. The alternative involves financial risk.  Prayer is an important and essential form of resistance. To pray is to engage the enemy, to light the torches and man the guns. Mystics and monks are warriors. But it is cowardly and irresponsible for those who are not mystics or monks to only pray that we may be rescued. 

N.W. writes:

A. servant writes, “N.W. writes about the negative examples of attempts at exclusive Christian societies, and his point is well taken, but that is nothing of what I had in mind. If you look at the examples that he listed they have nothing to do with the true practice of Christianity, all they did was claim Christianity.” 

I disagree with A.S.’s assertion that these examples have nothing to do with “the true practice of Christianity.” The monastic orders have historically been a stalwart example of the true practice of Christianity and most of the greatest works on the Faith have been penned by religious celibates. My point, however, was this; if religious belief is the sole guiding principle of an isolated community, there is a great danger that this community will destroy itself through asceticism or decadence. 

The religious communities of Europe and the Middle East were part of a larger society. They may have been self-sufficient on an economic level, but they would have been unsustainable without the larger community around them (celibacy and all that presenting a slight hindrance in population growth.) 

A Servant writes, “Basically, erase the sixties. Private property, technology, the family, individuality, and basic English Common Law all stay intact, but biblical values will guide how these things are administered. “ 

At a cursory glance this sounds nice, but we must remember that the sixties were the inevitable outgrowth of the fifties. It would be a pity to have a repeat. In the long run, what is needed is a thorough examination of western thought from the pre-Socratics to the present to ascertain what error within the Western tradition has allowed us to come to where we are. The issues which confront us are much more than just the loss of virtue within society, we must remember where the ideologies of the twentieth century arose from. Glen Beck making Obama look like a fool on Fox does nothing to counteract the philosophies of Sartre, Marx, Feuerbach, Hegel, Rousseau, Descartes etc. It is in them that one encounters the origin of our difficulties.

Sheila writes:

I appreciate A. Servant’s cautionary words. In my family’s search for a new church home, we recently visited a large church with a well-known national pastor, who actually addressed (albeit indirectly) some of the issues I’m so concerned about. Each week’s prayer before the offering has included mention of our troops; today the pastor also mentioned praying for our country, which has strayed so far from the founders’ intentions – yes, those were his words. Last week’s sermon was about those who are exceptional (in ability, intellect, whatever) and how they must be patient, submissive, and subordinate. He cited the example of Jesus and his staying behind at the Temple when he was twelve. His words to his parents then were his first in the Gospels, and the last for another twenty years! He went back to work as a carpenter, listened to his parents, and submitted to proper authority until the time of his ministry.

Today’s sermon was about letting go (of things, of people, of ideas) and clinging only to the cross (quite the opposite of the prosperity gospel we read so much about). The example was Abraham’s preparation to sacrifice Isaac in response to God’s command. This, again, flies in the face of conventional wisdom, where one’s job or possessions or societal position determines one’s mental well being. On the ride home my younger son mentioned a book I had read to him some months ago, “The Bronze Bow,” and we discussed how the protagonist Daniel had to give up his hatred of Romans and his passion for Israel’s independence and humble himself before Christ. This truly resonated with me, the need to let go of so much of my anger at being besieged in my country – even my love of my country – and let God provide. This does not mean, however, what I think N.W. is citing in his examples of monastic orders and so on. We are not to cling to this world but neither are we to ignore it and focus only on heaven. God created this world and our place in it, and he provided us with gifts to use in His service, but we must not grasp (the pastor cited a poem wondering how God can fill our hands with riches when they are firmly grasped closed on what we already have). I think we must be careful not to deny this world and our place in it, or our individual will and role here on Earth. 

On a more serious note, I am reminded of Milton’s mask about Comus (worldly pleasures and sin) and the Lady (Christian virtue). When Comus urges her to relax and partake of a feast he is providing, arguing “Wherefore did Nature powr her bounties forth … But all to please and sate the curious taste? … Beauty is natures coyn, must not be hoorded.” the Lady vigorously objects to “false rules pranckt in reasons garb. I hate when vice can bolt her arguments, And vertue has no tongue to check her pride.” She knows we are to be sober and temperate, not riotous, but too many interpret this to mean ascetic and totally apart from the world, which is one of Laura’s critcisms of some of today’s home schoolers. It’s a balancing act, with human nature, free will, and corrupt society on one side, and heavenly virtue on the other. We must abjure both the Pharisees and the Philistines. It is so hard, though, in the face of the constant onslaught. If anyone else has any words of wisdom to assist in this battle, they’d be appreciated. As far as exchanging email addresses, I have no objection, but would like further explanation of to what point – to ultimately meet in person? To plan? For what, or to do what? In the meantime, I am so thankful for this forum you provide, Laura.

A. Servant writes:

The reason to exchange e-mails and get in contact with one another is to take this struggle to the next level and be proactive. I too am very grateful for the forum that Mrs. Wood provides and wouldn’t want to see it change, it is an excellent public exchange that brings people together to address issues, but if we really want to form a community much more must be done. Forget even forming a community, if we simply want to stop the encroachment of destructive non-Christian values in our personal lives we must start to activate as much as the progressives do for their issues. But we can’t do that without truly knowing and trusting one another on a deep personal level and that needs to be done firstly through personal correspondence. I have set myself a personal goal this year, and have given myself about a two year period, to aggressively seek out other like minded individuals to see if there is any hope of saving this country or at least a part of it. I recently realized, like you Shelia, that I have been very angry about our state of affairs, and seem to get more angry and frustrated all the time, but don’t do anything. I talk a bit on a personal level with some that I personally know, but can’t really go into the detail necessary because they just aren’t that committed, and the rest of the time I seek out information on the internet. Thanks be to God for the internet where I have found forums like this one that have given me hope that there are others that are just as angry and frustrated as myself, or I believe I would have completely given up hope on the society and everyone in it. But I haven’t done anything still, I just read and post. I know that when God puts an anger in me that won’t subside, it is because he wants me to act and won’t let me rest until I do. There are many biblical examples that support this belief of mine. 

If within this time frame I have given myself I am convinced that the population here is too corrupt, too decadent, I will go abroad. Where, I don’t know yet, will I find what I am looking for on this earth, probably not, but I will at least die trying. 

I understand that the following is somewhat off the topic of men shaming women, but it serves as an example of the type of discussion that I think should be had via personal correspondence. 

I think in general, all of us, myself included, are over-educated. There are so many sites where people want to discuss, debate, infer, discuss, debate, wax poetic, etc. to infinity that sometimes I feel that we are guilty of the same sin at its core that the liberals are guilty of: extreme pride. How much needs to be said? Do all these words put us in the right? Let me give you some good practical examples. We have three immigrant groups that are dominating us in their respective fields, and in my opinion, come from societies that are vastly inferior in moral standard to ours, so why is this? I am originally Canadian so I am going to use a bit of my experience from there because it fits perfectly to demonstrate where we are headed and what is happening in this country currently as well. Canada is really no different culturally than the US; it is another variant of post-European western culture. In Canada, the two largest minority groups are East Indians and the Asians, specifically Chinese. These aren’t the two largest minorities in the US, but they are excelling here in the same way that they are in Canada. When I was in high school in the 1980s the children of these people vastly outperformed the native Canadians academically. Of course there were individual exceptions, but as a group, without a doubt they were vastly superior. You rarely saw their children at parties on the weekend, they weren’t concerned with fashion trends or popularity, and generally had a much more humble demeanor. Upon graduation and entering the workforce, I saw the same trend continue, and after getting to know a couple of Asians and Indians pretty well through work, I asked them their opinion as to why they believe their children are out-performing ours. One straight told me this- We aren’t stupid like you Canadians, we hit our kids. After further discussions over time I began to realize that these two groups generally see us as clowns, at least they did at that time. I was pretty much still a kid at that time, and remember one older Chinese man saying to me one day that I was “a good white boy, I didn’t run around like an idiot like the other white boys.” 

I am not taking the modern liberal line that we are the “wicked white people” and the poor third worlders are our moral superiors in every way, not in the least, but I must also be honest that we as a culture have fallen a long way. We are extremely decadent and many are outright lazy and believe an honest day’s work is above them, even conservative Christians. I am a chef and can tell you that I literally couldn’t run a kitchen in this country if it wasn’t for Mexicans (the third group I mentioned before, they are out performing us in simple labor). It’s not because they are so good, it’s because they know true suffering and can shut their mouths and go to work out of necessity. I have learned fluent Spanish over the years and as such know their culture in detail, also living in Latin America myself for several years and don’t really have any respect for their culture at all, but as producers it’s a different story. I used to use white high school kids as dishwashers, but can’t anymore, they back talk, don’t follow direction, are slow and can’t concentrate on any task for more than a few minutes without stopping to try and draw attention to themselves. They exude self-indulgence and pride on all levels. Once again, there is the rare, rare exception, but generally, they are useless. More often than not, the white adults are worse, usually drug addicts, alcoholics or some other form of social deviant. This wasn’t the case 20 years ago.

My point is this. Hard work, disciplining your children, respect for authority are all Christian values. How is it that these heathen cultures are living these values better than us? Maybe the same thing is happening today that happened in ancient Israel. God promised to bring inferior peoples on the Jews to rule over them as punishment for disobedience. And if they didn’t repent, which they didn’t, these people would continue to come and gather more and more of what the Jews had worked for until the Jews were no more as a nation. 

For me, this is as plain as day. It is plain as day also, that a huge part of our current afflictions stem from abolishing corporal punishment with children, which these heathen cultures still use. How any Christian can argue to the contrary, which almost all do, defies logic. I am not talking of abuse, I am talking of discipline administered that is balanced with love and a good example, applied by a mature, God fearing adult, preferably male. All cultures have used this since time began to instill order and respect, but in our arrogance and pride of the last few decades, we have decided that this ancient, proven practice is below us. No “time out”, or “grounding” or “lost of TV privileges” has the effect of humbling and demanding respect that an old fashioned fanny tanning does. I went to elementary school in southern Mississippi and remember friends with fathers that they truly respected and loved, good men, admired in the community, but these kids knew as sure as the sun coming up that if a D or F came home on the report card, pop gave them a knife to go into the woods and get the biggest switch they could find. They were often sent back to get another if pop didn’t think it would inflict the amount of discomfort necessary. It was usually only once that this would happen, for after that, no more Ds and Fs came home. This was an open practice, laughed about years later, like “Dad, you sure did give it to me good!”, and no one, absolutely no one, attacked Dad for doing his job. To the contrary, the comment to the child was unanimous- Guess you won’t come home with bad grades again, will you? 

This brings me to my point about connecting with others. We need to know each other’s values intimately before anything can be agreed upon to take action or all we will have is friction and that has to be started through personal correspondence. So to Shelia in particular, what would her thoughts be on work, trades training, corporal punishment, etc? Would you Shelia, find the above example of the common discipline we used to use “barbaric” like the majority do, even Christians? The automotive industry spends nothing in this country on training and development at the high school age. In countries like Germany and Switerland, it is law to take a trade at the age of 15, and by 18, everyone, by law, will have a trade, and be of use. Mercedes spends over 100 million a year on apprenticeship programs. The kids work at a Mercedes plant half of their high school day. As a chef, I worked under all Europeans in Canada, and there (like every other industrialized country in the world but this one) cooking is a recognized trade with government certification, and I can tell you that in the areas of trades, the Europeans clean our clocks. I can run a kitchen with half the staff if they are efficient, European-trained cooks. No wonder with our heathen attitude to work we are bankrupt and must go to war to pay the bills. There is much ado in recent years about Chinese corporal punishment and the harvesting of organs from the executed. My Christian-based values have no problem with this at all. Our system, with years and countless appeals on death row, or life sentences on behalf of the tax payer where inmates can run highly successful gang operations from behind bars, is a disgrace. No wonder God is blessing the Chinese and they hold almost a trillion dollars of our currency reserves! The Buddhists are better Christians than ourselves! 

So way before any personal meeting would take place, these are the kinds of discussions that must take place. Would Shelia and her family be willing to stand by a man that is arrested for physically disciplining his child because a heathen neighbor reported him for “abuse?” Would they take him in and help him fight in court to have that neighbor arrested for slander and trespass? Are there others that will pool their resources and open businesses that intentionally discriminate in favor of heterosexuals, single-income households and be disciplined and committed enought not to use heathen credit as usury is a sin and the prime tool used to enslave good people? When the federal government comes demanding that affirmative action quotas be implemented in the businesses that we have started, will you stand with me sueing them for religious discrimination all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, even if it means going to jail yourself? Will others be willing to re-implement old fashion discipline so that in the case of the 10 year old that wants to dress like a slut, Dad lets her know that those clothes will not come out once more, and if they do, she won’t be sitting down for a week? 

The reading and debates have been necessary and will continue, but the above paragraph is but a small example of how I believe we need to start acting, not just talking. I think that most, even Christans, see what I have written above as “radical”, and I couldn’t disagree more, and I think, as painful and hard as it will be, it is not only not radical just simply necessary. What is more radical, what I have put here, or drugging seven-year-old boys for being boys? Or reading them a story in school about the prince and prince that fell in love? Or the planned “pigsex” party by homosexuals in Washington after the Obama victory in a ballroom of a major hotel? 

I am prepared to do all this and more, for I know that we are commanded to follow in the footsteps of Christ, and He gave his life, so we must do the same. I will probably end up doing it alone, but must do as we are also commanded, and that is to try and gather as many as I can before I pay for my sin with the ultimate price. 

What will you do? 

N.W. writes:

The primary problem is that a community founded upon traditional values will shame contemporary culture. Unaccustomed to feeling shame, contemporary culture will seek to destroy the perceived source of their shame, the traditional community which A.S. seeks. Such a community is so beyond our current societal norms that the implementation of it would be a radical act. This community would be racist, misogynistic, homophobic, cisgendered(look that one up, its a laugh) and patriarchal. Egalitarianism would be an impossibility. If founded upon a solid realistic premise beyond just blind faith it would work(I’m a big fan or Fides et Ratio, not too many along those lines since the Enlightenment and the Reformation unfortunately.) Unfortunately, it would also find itself to be the target of every liberal group out there.

For example, look at the controversy which erupted when Ave Maria township in Fla. announced it would not carry contraceptives in its drug stores. While such a decision could fall under the categories of patriarchy and misogyny (burdening some poor girl with an unwanted pregnancy) it wasn’t overtly racist. I can only imagine the media firestorm which would erupt when a conservative township did something which could be construed as systematic institutionalized racism.

The flashpoint between secular and conservative mores has not yet been reached. It will occur however, through the homosexual movement and the institutionalization of same-sex marriages. Churches which oppose this will be accused of inciting hate in their congregation. One can already see the tension arising from this issue in the Lisa Miller case. Civil disobedience will be widespread in regards to this issue.

In my opinion there are two courses of immediate action open to traditionalist today. The first is the wholehearted support of the traditional liberal arts education offered through such institutions as Thomas Aquinas College, Thomas More College, Kolbe Academy, Christendom, and the Erasmus Institute. A strong liberal arts education reveals the richness of the western tradition in all aspects of life. A strong grounding in the philosophy, literature and politics of the West informs ones understanding of the faith and provides one with a sure foundation to debate the cultural issues which confront traditional conservatives today. Our intellectual opponents have a tradition of mere centuries to draw upon; the thinkers of the Enlightenment would have discounted all thought before the 1600s. We, on the other hand, have a tradition which spans millenina and we would be fools to forget it.

The second course of action which is open to us is the formation of communities based on strong family connections. I have an inherent distrust of happenstance relations formed over the net. One does not know who one is dealing with. This whole means of communication is an artifical construct which is inhabited by hordes of artifical constructs. Through the manipulation of language a clever individual can assume any persona on the web. Blood relations in a concrete community however are something tangible and provide a real connection. An individual is only as good as their word and when there is no one to vouch for their word coming to trust them is a slow process. On the other hand, when a person is a part of a known larger family, the family can vouch for the individual.