A Tragedy

Gentlemen, I witnessed a tragedy play out over the last couple of months, whose story wrapped up recently.  I witnessed the red pill of marriage in action.  Let me try to relate in such a way that I don’t out myself by the things I know.  Having read all the stories for years about the evil things done in the name of marriage, I become used to the stories and came to understand the default godless state of marriage, having taken the red pill of marriage to see what it is and not a silly idealistic state.

What happened seems to be no different than any of the other stories, from what I’ve found out personally and through mutual friends.  I picked up on certain things, and we can fill in others readily.  But gentlemen, seeing what I just witnessed isn’t just taking the red pill.  It’s opening up a vein and mainlining it.  And you can bet for sure that I’m pissed that this stuff goes on.

I have had conversations with both members of this married couple.  I saw them together when I visited different churches.  I had to force down the bile in my gut as I saw certain things with my own eyes.   Even so, with hearing the stories, there’s a certain dream-state there until you see it for yourself and force back the tears of sorrow and the anger at the injustice that’s played out.

Traditional Marriage
From childhood, women are fit into the role of the exalted goddess, whose role becomes finding a husband in order to receive from, and to rule over.  From childhood, she is not held to Godly standards, and learns quickly that men are there to grant her desires, and excuse her faults.  She might have to be manipulative to get her way, but she learns exactly how to manipulate both men and society to do so.  She only has the standard of “beauty”, whatever that means at the time, to measure up to, but learns that she is more valuable than men simply because she is a woman.

However, men are fit into the role of pack mule (hence the title of Dr. Laura’s book, “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands” – the view of men as sub-humanoid fills the book), in order to protect a woman and to provide for her.  From childhood, he is held to every standard of both God and women, starting from his mother.  She ingrains male mother need into him, directing his devotion away from God to first her and then a wife who takes over.  He learns quickly that his wishes, dreams, and desires are meaningless in general – that the sum total of the value of his worth as a man is in the approval of the women around him and he gains it by serving them and molding his life to fit their wishes (women define what masculinity is).

The Very Unhappily Ever After Part
Our couple then lives a life befitting traditional marriage and traditional gender roles, having both been indoctrinated into it by their mothers. He happily works himself to the bone to hand oblations to his goddess, including children for her to indoctrinate.

Then for whatever reason, as I did not ever hear why the divorce was initiated exactly, the wife finds dissatisfaction in her work horse and casts him aside. Given what we’ve read in much of the manosphere, we can probably reasonably fill in the blanks as to why she appeared at a new church.  I would guess that the divorce would have had to been frivolous, since this woman showed up in another church regularly about mid way through this story after being at the original church together since before the marriage began.

He, having taken to his traditional role as husband, finds out very quickly that the pretty little lies he was fed was false.   He finds out that the house is not “ours”, it is “hers”.  The children are not “ours”, but “hers”.  In following her will, she has isolated him from his friends, his own interests, and any kind of support system – he finds “our friends” are really “her friends”.  The church, as ever, stands beside the wife.  He is told that if he would just do whatever it takes to submit to his wife in everything, things would be fixed.   Sadly, as I found out in hearing the grief of this man as he expressed it, there was never an opportunity to genuinely share the red-pill – his focus was all about “fixing the marriage” and he would hear nothing else.

Our story ends in the worst way possible.   In running in the sand so far away from Christ to be the good traditional husband, he found he had nothing in his life.  Even worse for his heart, his goddess rejected him.  The sand swallowed him up, and he took his own life.   It’s never easy when I get such news about those I’ve talked to and addressed by name, but harder in this case for some reason, perhaps that I’m already so acutely aware having done these blogs for four-plus years.

This leads to the end of our story.  Naturally, the wife is finding all kinds of solace and comfort in this new church with this news that her husband did this, placing herself into the role of “the poor poor wife” – never-mind she cast this title aside.   Meanwhile, she does the touchdown dance in private as she has accomplished the divorce fantasy she has set out to fulfill in the fullest way possible.

Naturally, as with any of these events, this was cast upon him as his own sickness as both a Christian man and a husband, never as a consequence from traditional marriage.   The Traditional Marriage Narrative must stand at all costs, and never be revealed for the pretty little lie it is.

Advertisements

A Marriage Made More Vile

One of the things that’s happened in the United States during my blog absence is the further refinement of Marriage 2.0 to include homosexual unions. As I really had nothing directly to say that wasn’t already said before (Homosexuals and Marriage 2.0, not to mention updating the Marriage Comparison Chart), I really didn’t want to immediately comment.

But one thing it does is reinforce the standard attitude of acceptance towards wickedness in marriage. The plunging of marriage into darkness, while defending it as something worthy and not profane and disgusting (i.e. “the sanctity of marriage”) is illustrative of the hearts of the men and women involved. The fact that repentance in sack cloth and ashes has not come from the usual suspects (Christian “leaders” and Christians in general) which enabled this by their acceptance of marriage and its other vile things, further shadows the wickedness of hearts towards the Lord.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:18-20)

If anything, God reveals Himself incredibly by the proper practice of marriage. Yet, so many are holding the truth in unrighteousness. While God has revealed Himself to them in His Creation so they are without excuse, those who claim to be of God have the Scriptures which proclaim the absolute truth and the Spirit who teaches, are beyond any excuse or apology. There is no excuse for ignorance!

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:21-25)

This is ever proven with marriage. They know God, yet they glorify the Lord not as God. As with all things, they reach towards the glory of marriage as God intended it and turn it into a thing that serves corruptible man, destroying it. It is not without coincidence that the pagan worship of the Queen of Heaven and the views extended from there of the infallibility of women have been shaped into marriage, making it into a female-dominated enterprise where husbands submit to their wives, whose sole purpose is to service women at the expense of men. Furthermore, the deceptions of this are furthered by the deception of tradition.

Love is now free, just as it should be, man!
Love is now free, just as it should be, man!

So many who profess themselves wise have become fools in supporting marriage as a venue for the worship of women, believing them the mainstay of social order. Consequentially, the uncleanness of women’s hearts coupled with the sin of Adam has caused men and women to be given up to the lusts of their own hearts, to support the dishonoring of their own selves. They change the truth of God into a lie, supporting the fornication and adultery of women, the prostitution of wives against their own husbands, supporting the divorce culture for women, and bending marriage into a thing that serves the creature known as woman instead of God and renders men into mere chattel, destined only for eternal hellfire. Not to mention, the whole enterprise has warped the woman into the goddess who must be served at all costs, honored far before God is honored.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Romans 1:26-27)

The acceptance of homosexual marriage is and has always been a fait accompli, decided by the wickedness of men and women’s hearts towards God long before the whole idea was ever brought up. Homosexual marriage is only the recompense of shaping marriage previously. It is not so much the errors of actions, but the hearts that those actions came from.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:28-32)

Hence, we should find no surprise that even among the professing Christians that we find almost universally that they do not like to retain the true God in their knowledge, shaping Him into something that approves of them and their actions. There should be no surprise that there is much darkness and spoiling of salt in churches and in “Christians” beyond the practice of marriage, as listed in the Scriptures. There are even many churches who are coming out to support homosexuality.

We are most assuredly facing the end-times, if not of this world, of this nation. Much of the fruit of the spoiling of the sanctity of marriage stems from rendering what is God’s over to Caesar. The Church and marriage have both been rendered over to Caesar, in order to facilitate the service of women over God. The mass acceptance of homosexuality in the Church will itself be a fait accompli for this very reason, along with the justifications of this sin through Scripture that can already be easily found. Enough slam-dunk lawsuits for not marrying and supporting homosexuals in church that go against “The Church, a Corporation of the State”, and they will universally support it, celebrate it, and champion it as holy and proper in the sight of God as the love of God.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

At this time, there’s only one thing left that good followers of Jesus (and not Churchians, who are taught to sit down and shut up and follow their lords instead of the one true Lord) who love Him and His ways can do. Run!

Fireproof in Five Minutes.

(or For Better For Her: How Christian Counseling Destroys Marriage)

Keep hearing all about this Christian phenomena, Fireproof, and wondering what it is all about? But you don’t want to spend the time seeing the whole movie, but got five minutes, I got your hookup. Another video from the North Dakota Family Alliance (aka the gift that keeps on giving) does this for us.

We have the story of Hans and his wife Starr. Pay attention and it takes care of all the Churchian talking points in redefining marriage, and ultimately destroying it.

Naturally if you remember Fireproof, it’s the story of how Caleb the husband doesn’t feel “respected” in his own house. Eventually, the husband does the “dastardly thing” which gives the wife grounds to divorce him, viewing porn in the case of Fireproof. But there are a whole host of other things that make it excusable for a wife to break up the family, all okay with the “Christian” contingent. Meanwhile, she’s doing a whole host of things through the marriage (like pursuing the doctor) that presents no problems whatsoever. After all, she’s the woman, and she’s the victim.

To move to our couple of today:

Starr: I was a button pusher and I knew what buttons to push.
Hans: My anger would just flare out of control, and it would turn into an explosion.
S: From friendly to horrible in a matter of seconds.
S: I think he felt like things were swirling. I could outtalk him. I could, I could take the entire situation, no matter what I done in it, it could about Hans, it could be his fault.
H: We were in an argument and I grabbed her as hard as I could and I threw her down on the bed.

Repeat, the blog author doesn’t condone real physical abuse like what happened. But that’s not what is to be addressed, which is the rest of the video. The rest of the video presents a bigger affront to God than a man’s lapse in loving his wife. A useful place to begin is the bolded sections. There’s a definite admission there, which Scripture speaks to:

A gracious woman retaineth honour: and strong men retain riches. (Proverbs 11:16)

As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion. (Proverbs 11:22)

A foolish son is the calamity of his father: and the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping. (Proverbs 19:13)

It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house. (Proverbs 21:9)

But it could never be that a woman can ever do anything wrong. A woman will “develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally”, so perish the thought that a woman could actually sin! We go on in the story:

S: I was really afraid at that point, because we were married and we had a baby, and things were not getting better. So while he was gone for a week, I had become very involved in an affair.

H: I pulled up to the driveway, and Starr met me there with her bags packed, with our then two year old daughter Kylie, and we went through the exchange of what are you doing and she says I’m leaving, I’m like why, and she’s like are you kidding me, why?

Adultery is always justified of course. But so is divorce in the new Christian system. Divorce is not a hateful evil against the Biblical plan for marriage, and does violence upon both the marriage and God. Divorce, rather, is, as Dalrock describes of Caleb in Fireproof:

Fireproof is a movie about Christian conversion where the catalyst for God to change Caleb’s heart is Catherine initiating divorce.

As with all these stories, Hans and Starr go to “Christian” counseling and find out that God’s change in Hans’ heart is what is required:

H: I started out that counseling session ranting and raving about how Starr was doing this wrong and doing that wrong. I started throwing God’s word in there, and that you know she’s not doing this, she’s not respecting me. I mean the Bible says that I deserve to be respected. Right? [B: He’s right.]

He took a long pause and then he started to read Philippians 2 to me. Jesus came to this earth and deserved everything. He deserved for people to bow down at his feet. He deserved for all the riches of the world. And he had a biblical right to all those things, and yet he chose to take the nature of the servant. And he chose to surrender those rights to God the Father. And as I looked at my life and I looked at Jesus’ life and I saw the huge gap in between the two, the lights came on for me.

You can see the marriage dynamic just flip from Marriage 1.0 to 2.0 in that second paragraph:

marriage_transformation

And how is that done? Remember that the correct notions of Christ and Church are unacceptable to the feral women, which want to be the Princess and the Queen. Note Starr’s tendency in the first quote of this post: “I could take the entire situation, no matter what I done in it, it could about Hans, it could be his fault.” Note that feral nature. Note that sinful nature. And the church supports it by multiplying the unfaithfulness. First the wives, then them, and now marriage gets redefined, using Philippians 2:6-8 to cast the vision of marriage backwards instead of forwards. As the Marriage transformation chart indicates:

marriage_christ_sacrifice

We go on with the story of Hans and Starr:

W: He was changing, and I didn’t like that. Because, everyone either knew or suspected that they knew what I was doing. And he was becoming this great guy, and no one really knew the ins and outs of why I left. We would fight, and I would push all the same buttons and he did not respond the way I was used to him responding.

H: And you have to understand, my life was radically transformed.

W: I remember being very drawn to the man that he was becoming, but now the relationship was dead. I decided I was going to go to counseling, two or three sessions and then be done, that way I could say that I tried and it just didn’t work. And so, I was going to pursue a divorce.

We have a radically transformed life, in that he has now taken the wife in the superior position – he now submits to her. He takes all her abuse, even the adultery (which he would have a Biblical right to divorce her for), with no consequences to her. No responsibility to her. Even note the shame that comes out. But alas, it still isn’t good enough for Starr to have mercy on Hans by not righteously lowering the boom on him. It takes him groveling before her feet in the name of Christ:

S: I vented everything to him about why there was just no way that we were going to make it. And he just listened and then he looked at me in the eye very intently and said “do you believe that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead?” And I said Yes, I believe that. He said, you think that God can take a dead man and raise him to life to save him, but you don’t think he can heal your marriage.

S: And so, I turned to God this much (holds fingers closely together).

H: It takes 100% dependency on Christ in the moment, in the now. And it looks like constant confession and repentance for me. A light that had been shut off came on, and I wondered, what if God could do it?

And note where all the confession and repentance comes from? This is a good illustration of what “Biblical marriage” has become. Not anything that honors “the biblical model and institution of marriage”. That is indeed under attack, but by the very ones claiming to defend the sanctity of marriage against homogamy, causing the breakdown of the family.

marriage-diagram4

They put the women as above reproach. They cause the man to get frustrated in “leading his family”, leading him to do something “dastardly” that a woman can divorce with their full support. She threatens to lower the boom on him unless he “finds God” (namely submitting to her Personal Jesus). He accepts, putting him in the chattel position to her. But remember what kind of guys feral women like, in fact most women like? It becomes a vicious cycle, and sad to say it, Hans and Starr will likely be back in counseling, and the boom will still come.

It’s a travesty before the Lord, but the ones that should know better are doing it. The Master is not powerless that He won’t come back and deal with the wicked evil servants, appointing them a portion with the hypocrites!

Related:

Weasels of the Covenant Marriage

One of the rationales that gets used in Churchian circles to justify the things going on is this:

Marriage is not a contract, it’s a covenant.

Given that it is true from a Biblical standpoint, this becomes something where truth is subtle. The problem, as always, reveals itself in reality. The rationale behind it allows the Personal Jesus to take hold. While there are many articles that come up when putting that phrase into Google, this one from Family Life Today will serve well. Rather than addressing the real problem (and repenting in sackcloth and ashes) and offering solutions, it papers over the real problem:

We like contracts because they have loopholes and bail-out options. It is fine to live by a contract, but we must love by a covenant.

As many have detailed, including myself, there are a number of loopholes these same Churchians present towards women so they can have loopholes and bail-out options. The tone of the article itself establishes the bias by mentioning the poor wife of 30 years that the man decided to divorce – they intend to address men only.

Modern approach to marriage is to focus on personal rights and needs: “I deserve to be happy.” “I’m entitled to have my needs met.” “If this relationship ceases to give me what I want, if it gets tough or real boring, I can walk away.” After all, marriage is a contract, and contracts are made to be broken.

Note that it becomes all about personal rights and needs when it is about women, but when men point out legitimate things such as the wife refusing the marital debt it becomes illegitimate. Then when the cheating wife gets revealed, it gets rationalized away and even supported. The hypocrisy becomes evident in such a statement:

God never intended for marriage to be a convenience-based contract that we could easily get out of but a character-based covenant that we would be committed to for life.

It should be notable that so many of the Churchians support marriage to last as long as it is convenient…for the woman. And heaven help us if the woman is ever held to honor the covenant. The hypocrisy continues:

– Contract is about legalism and leverage
– Covenant is about love and loyalty.

See the argument that stems from this that can be used against a man that wishes to hold a woman to God’s pattern of marriage?

Don’t dare hold her to any of her vows, that’s legalism!

The article goes on to illustrate how that’s done:

If your marriage is a contract, you see your spouse as he or she is – faults, flaws and foibles. Every irritation can become huge. Assume the worst.

If your marriage is a covenant, you see your spouse not as he or she is, but as he or she can become. Assume the best. Overlook imperfections.

As the contrast goes, it becomes not whether she performs her vows before God, but selfless sacrifice on the part of the man. The man is not to question his wife failing the covenant, but to just serve, give 100%, trust her fully, and accept responsibility for not only his faults but hers.

In other words, covenant marriage is Marriage 2.0!

The hypocrisy gets knocked home, as the article uses the example of Hosea as a normal (minus the chastisement of Hosea 2, of course), when it is an exceptional case, along with a definition of love the Personal Jesus would be pleased with:

Covenant love is a tenacious love that never lets go. Never gives up. Never quits – but holds on with a bulldog tenacity regardless of what the other partner does or fails to do. Unconditional covenant love overrides feelings, fickleness and even failures.

Anyhow, the heresy in the idea of covenant marriage should be completely clear:

Covenant marriage dismisses the fulfillment of vows.

To that end, fulfilling the covenant has been removed out of the definition entirely, making the whole concept meaningless. The idea of contract and covenant are so tight that they are almost interchangeable synonyms, resulting in almost exact definitions. A contract is an agreement on the part of both parties to do something. A covenant, by contrast, is a contract witnessed before God. God’s making of the covenant before Israel illustrates this perfectly:

And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord. (Exodus 19:3-8)

It should be without question that the problem with marriage is that fulfilling the vows is not taken seriously. Part of this is the typical pronuptualism that is common in society and the church. People are not counseled as to the seriousness of what entering into marriage represents, and it becomes about everything else but the marriage itself. Loopholes are presented by the Churchian officials all the time to women. No-fault divorce is embraced.

The other part is not representing God’s plan and lifting examples of it up when they are present. In other words, Churchianity distorts the proper marriage vows. Simply put, marriage is not God’s marriage anymore.

As we can look upon the example of Israel (or the cross), grace can be exhibited when it comes to failure of keeping the covenant. But it isn’t a requirement to ignore transgressions of the marital vows, as many Churchians are teaching. In the end, God dealt with Israel and broke that covenant due to their transgression of it. While long-suffering, God brought up those transgressions multiple times, and finally dealt with Israel accordingly.

God didn’t languish with Israel, failing to deal with the transgression of their covenant. He promises he won’t languish in dealing with transgression in His Church. Husbands shouldn’t ever have to languish either.

Sharing Satan’s Plan For Marriage

The latest campaign of feminist hate, #HeForShe, has gotten a great deal of attention, even in the world of religious feminism. Tami Myer uses this (H/T Bee) as an occasion to bring her prescriptions to the forefront. Sadly, though, they do nothing to bring the will of God to light with respect to marriage or sin in general. All it does is bring the same old feminist rebellion against God. Myer writes:

I am cheering for men who will take action against pornography, which demeans women and girls, promotes violence against them, and is life-shredding to everyone involved. I am cheering for men who will take action against abortion, which traumatizes women and kills unborn girls. I am cheering for men who will take action against divorce, which devastates the lives of women and girls.

So in bringing these things up, it seems to confirm the typical feminist biases. Men are the ones that are the source of all sin in the world and women are just innocent victims. In other words, women don’t do anything against the Lord, and men are always to blame. And since men are always to blame, they are always the ones that need to “take action”.

So men need to “take action” against pornography? We know the typical line of the religious feminists is that pornography is a male-only activity. Albert Mohler writes that “Pornography is mainly, though not exclusively, a male phenomenon. That is to say, the users and consumers of pornography are overwhelmingly male–boys and men.” Pat Robertson points out that “a male thing, a boy thing, a guy thing”. Yet 30% of women access visual pornography according to this study. Furthermore, there’s examples of genuine porn addiction, yet women just don’t find recognition of the problem in them.

Teri Meyer's vision of marriage.
Tami Myer’s vision of marriage.

Then let’s continue on and mention all those 50 Shades of Grey books floating around in women’s hands and the Magic Mike watch parties. Then there’s the chick flicks and romance novels. What? No rebuke? I guess women remain uncorrupted by their fantasy world of salaciousness, while men are not? So porn use in women is fun, harmless, and exciting, while porn use in men is horrid and depraved? Seems so. And just men are the ones that need to “take action”?

So men need to “take action” against abortion? These women aren’t being forced to go murder their children when they walk into the abortion clinics. They go there of their own free will. So why is it that men are responsible for this? Could it be feminist rationalization? All these poor women are just being forced into premarital sex by those vicious men, who then force those women to the abortion clinics – this is the vision dancing through the heads of the religious feminists. Poor poor girl to be pushed into doing this by a man! These women know exactly what they’re doing, and are doing all of this of their own free will. So why is it that men need to “take action” at all, when it’s the women doing every bit of this (1% of aggregate being because of rape, incest or the urging of the man)?

So men need to “take action” against divorce? Statistics are fairly clear that women are the ones initiating the divorces, anywhere from 70-90% of the time depending on the study, and almost always for ungodly reasons. Yet this is something that men need to “take action” on? Oh right, the woman was pushed into it because she didn’t “feel loved”, and is totally justified for doing it. Meanwhile, men are sheer villains when they divorce for any reason, including adultery. Witness in Fireproof how the husbands porn use was treacherous to the marriage, while the wife’s courting of the doctor was perfectly fine. So divorce is something men need to “take action” on when women demonstrate again and again that they can’t fulfill their marriage covenant before God?

Women are the ones that need to “take action”, not men!

After calling out men for being the cause of her pet evil in the world, Myer shares her own vision of marriage:

The apostle Paul wrote, “Marriage is not a place to ‘stand up for your rights.’ Marriage is a decision to serve the other” (1 Corinthians 7:4, MSG). A guiding principle for Biblical marriage is mutual submission. A husband submits to his wife’s needs for affection and cherishing. He is for her, not against her. A wife submits to her husband’s needs for respect and support. She is for him, not against him.

As her byline says, she’s not sharing God’s vision of marriage, but Satan’s. She first quotes a passage out of context, using a false Bible, the Message. 1 Corinthians 7:2-6 in most Bibles is about the unconditional access to sex in marriage. As it really appears, using a faithful Bible:

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. [4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

Marriage is a place to stand up for obligations freely agreed upon in the covenant before God. But Myer brings out one of the typical feminist gambits: Mutual submission. This is done by taking Ephesians 5:21 out of the previous context (Ephesians 5:15-21) and putting it into the context about marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33).

God’s plan for marriage is that the husband love and honor the wife as his own body, and the wife is to unconditionally submit to and respect her husband. Satan (and Tami Myer’s plan) is for the husband to submit to his wife unconditionally in all things, therefore making her feel loved.

Myer chooses the words “dishonor”, “affection”, and “cherishing”, but her end goal is just the same: The perversion of marriage where the wife becomes the head of both God and her husband, using the device of her Personal Jesus. She does nothing to honor God’s design of marriage or God Himself. She is just like the other feminists who rebel against God, fomenting this rebellion in others, and shaking their fists at God in defiant anger.

How To Destroy Marriage

You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up.
– Morpheus addressing Neo, The Matrix

There’s one near universal thing that I notice in people. If you go inside the church, you see the power of tradition take hold, even in the new believers. In the world, you see people accept everything they’re presented by their employers, by their government, and other entities without question. What do I notice?

People tend to accept the things they see before them as good without question.

They don’t think about what they’re doing and what is before them. If you tell them the sky is orange, they’ll accept it if it seems reasonable enough. This leads to a little exchange I had with Dalrock on his blog. While there was no significant disagreement, it led to an interesting thought. As Dalrock writes: “Very few people can see this, for reasons I don’t understand.” When you think about these things, they all tend to come together like dominoes in a line.

We begin with the days of the Marxists. It can be logical to surmise that if you want to implant your ideology, especially one that demands total fealty to government as a God, you’ll have to remove the family from consideration. Especially when you consider socialism itself, it becomes verboten for a child to be in a family and have it be considered their child – or their property. Their child to raise, their child to educate. In socialism, the child belongs to society, as administrated by the State. Not too many people will willingly give up their children, let alone to the State. Nor will they give themselves up as subjects of the State themselves.

So as communists, if we want to instate our agenda, we have to get past the family – in other words destroy the family, yet not be so bold as to raise the alarms of the unthinking masses. So how do we do this?

1. Give license and control of marriage to the government, arresting the influence of the Church.

Here, you make marriage “illegal” and then require permits in order for it to occur. The unthinking masses will not think of the implications of such things. The priests will, given that marriage was the exclusive realm of the Church, so we can give them the important role of arbitrator of such things, as well as other benefits in order to look the other way and not present proper Church teachings against the idea. In the process of giving assent to such things as the marriage license and birth certificate, the government can claim the right to raise the child the way it sees fit if the parents don’t comply, and literally define the terms of the marriage. Naturally, we can abolish other “forms” of marriage. This ability to make and define marriage for what it is and isn’t is useful for what must happen later.

Send the child off to the public indoctrination center or else. Give them proper medical care or else. What is the “or else”? Take them out of the home against the will of the parents. The child becomes the State’s to mold in the socialist doctrine. What makes this so? The parents ceded this right in the three-party marriage contract.

2. Foment the sensibilities of women against their husbands and the idea of marriage.

As noted before, we can stir up women against the idea of marriage and family. “That the man was everything and the woman nothing.” And that “the typical family is where the woman has no will of her own, no time of her own and no money of her own.” Briffault’s Law is indeed well-proven, as Alexandra Kollontai addresses the “working woman” repeatedly and exclusively in her work. All that is needed is to whip up anger is to stoke a little consciousness raising. They will remember the previous system of feminism, and hasten to act. The men will remember their proper role of sacrificial lamb to her needs (after all women are good and men are bad), and will not question this happening.

3. Enable no-fault divorce.

Next, we enable the unconditional dissolution of marriage. Given the fomenting of women, and the natural aspect of the feminism already in place, we will have legions of women rushing to take advantage of it. After all, a woman will not have to suffer a husband who beats her and makes her life a misery with his drunkenness and uncouth behaviourthe presence of chivalry will not make people question this. This gives the extra bonus of the division of property, as well as the abolition of parental rights. It will also give the opportunity to condition parents to follow the dictates of the State, as all things the State dictates can be done “in the best interest of the child”.

4. Encourage fornication.

If we can get people to bypass marriage altogether, this will be a bonus. Put out media that encourages it, encourage “sex education” classes which promotes sexual activity, hand out condoms and begin birth control programs, and you’ll get people having sex with one another outside of marriage, devaluing it. In the process, we will need to abolish the idea of legitimate and illegitimate births. As well, you’ll get out of wedlock children which can be more easily controlled by the State.

5. Establish and condition children and caretakers to government provision.

The end goal of the Socialist enterprise is to condition people to seek and find support in the collective and in society, and not from the individual. This can not be done immediately, but can be done through the venue of “child support”. Child support will be accepted over the alternative of family formation, both for cases of broken marriages and out of wedlock births. Again, we can use the traditional form of feminism. Later on, concepts of “social security” and “welfare” can be instituted, again using the reasons of “the best interest of the children.”

The Conclusion Of The Matter
So what do we have in the end? Does all of this sound familiar to you? It is said that you need to learn from history to not repeat it:

According to Marx and Engels, under Communism the “bourgeois” family would have to “disappear,” just as “the capital” would. The practice of parents “exploiting” their children would be abolished, and family education would be replaced by public education.

The year 1917 saw the Soviet government passing decrees “On Civil Marriage, Children, and Registries” and “On Dissolution of Marriages.” The decree “On Dissolution of Marriages” granted spouses unconditional freedom to a divorce, performed by a local court, at the desire of either one or both parties. “On Civil Marriage” decreed that all except civil marriage (including religious marriage) would cease to be recognized by the state, while at the same time abolishing all distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children. (It should be noted that the sole aim of introducing civil marriages was to undermine religion. Writing in 1922, one Soviet lawyer stressed that “[t]he institution of Registrars was necessitated by the fight against the Church.”

Affirming such moves, the 1918 Family Code introduced a whole new morality, contravening the existing practices of marital and family law. In its provisions for divorce, the new legislation granted spouses rights to separate property and thereby abolished shared, family property. The Code also included vague criteria for deprivation of parental rights. Article 153 stated that “[p]arental rights are exercised exclusively in the interests of the child, with courts invested with the right to deprive the parents thereof in case said rights are exercised improperly.” Article 183 prohibited adoption, replacing it with a system of state-appointed foster caretakers. The Soviets were also the first government to proclaim complete freedom of abortion.

All of these steps were in line with the new authorities’ ideology of considering the family the backbone of the oppression of women. Russian Communists thought the liberation of women required destroying family households and family education for public versions of both, while drawing women en masse into public production. Writing in 1919, Lenin argued that “true liberation of women, true Communism comes about only when and where the masses rise up . . . against . . . small-scale households.”

And how many of these things came to light in this country to thunderous applause and approval in order to improve the plight of women? To very little question and opposition whatsoever. When the opponents of homogamous marriage speak of the “sanctity of marriage”, these things never enter their minds. It is because they are in truth on the side of these progressives. It is also a wonderful illustration of how feminism was something only used well by Marxists, nothing that was created by them.

Frankly My Dear, I Don’t Give A Damn.

Conversation in the previous post has turned to the phenomena of the alpha widow. As mentioned there, the idea was full evident truth even not very long ago, but now is “red pill truth” due to the efforts of the feminists, indoctrinating women that they need men like fish need bicycles. Previously, I quoted a portion of the Godfather book (1969) which illustrates this truth perfectly.

A delicate flower like that is not meant for work!
A delicate flower like that is not meant for work!

Most of us know this term in terms of sexuality, but it can apply to anything in the heart of a woman. It’s in that vein that the overly long-winded (honestly I don’t get why is so highly esteemed) Gone With The Wind (1939) was brought up. It has a number of glaring examples of traditional feminism, mainly the idea that women just aren’t fit to work.

This aside, a whole thread in the plot of this movie makes it great for a Red Pill Movie Review. To get up to speed on the final scene’s payoff, Scarlett O’Hara meets a man by the name of Ashley Wilkes about a third of the way through, and gets taken with him. He won’t have her, but she gets stuck on him in her heart to the point that she won’t let him go through multiple marriages (including to Rhett). Mr. Wilkes eventually marries a woman named Melanie Hamilton (referred to as Mellie), who dies in the previous scene. Let’s pick upon the final scene:

RHETT Come in.
SCARLETT Rhett!

RHETT Melanie, she’s…well. God rest her. She was the only completely kind person I ever knew. Great lady. A very great lady. Though she’s dead. That makes it nice for you, doesn’t it?
SCARLETT Oh, how can you say such things. You know how I loved her really.
RHETT No, I don’t know that I do. But at least it’s to your credit that you could appreciate her at the end.
SCARLETT Of course I appreciated her. She thought of everybody except herself. Why her last words were about you.
RHETT What did she say?
SCARLETT She said, be kind to Captain Butler, he loves you so.
RHETT Did she say anything else?
SCARLETT She said, she asked me to look after Ashley too.

RHETT It’s convenient to have the first wife’s permission, isn’t it?
SCARLETT What do you mean? What are you doing?
RHETT I’m leaving you, my dear. All you need now is a divorce and your dreams of Ashley can come true.
SCARLETT No! No, you’re wrong! Terribly wrong! I don’t want a divorce. Oh Rhett, when I knew tonight, when I knew I loved you, I ran home to tell you, oh darling, darling!
RHETT Please don’t go on with this. Leave us some dignity to remember out of our marriage. Spare us this last.
SCARLETT This last? Oh Rhett, do listen to me. I must have loved you for years only I was such a stupid fool I didn’t know it. Please believe me. You must care! Mellie said you did!
RHETT I believe you. But what about Ashley Wilkes?
SCARLETT I……I never really loved Ashley.

RHETT You certainly gave a good imitation of it up to this morning. Oh, Scarlett, I tried everything. If you’d only met me halfway, even when I came back from London…
SCARLETT I was so glad to see you, I was Rhett, but, but you were so nasty!
RHETT And then when you were sick. And it was all my fault. I hoped and against hope that you’d call for me. But you didn’t.
SCARLETT I wanted you. I wanted you desperately, but I didn’t think you wanted me!

RHETT It seems we’ve been at crossed purposed, doesn’t it. But it’s no use now. As long as there was Bonnie there was a chance we might be happy. I like to think that Bonnie was you. A little girl again. Before the war and poverty had done things to you. She was so like you. And I could pet her and spoil her as I wanted to spoil you. But when she went, she took everything.
SCARLETT Oh, Rhett, Rhett, please don’t say that. I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry for everything.
RHETT My darling, you’re such a child. You think that by saying I’m sorry, all the past can be corrected. Here, take my handkerchief. Never in any crisis of your life have I known you to have a handkerchief.

SCARLETT Rhett, Rhett where are you going?
RHETT I’m going to Charleston. Back where I belong.
SCARLETT Please, please take me with you.
RHETT No. I’m through with everything here. I want peace. I want to see if somewhere if there is something left in life with charm and grace. Do you know what I’m talking about?
SCARLETT No. I only know that I love you.
RHETT That’s your misfortune.

SCARLETT Rhett! If you go, where shall I go? What shall I do?
RHETT Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.
SCARLETT I can’t let him go. I can’t. There must be some way to bring him back. Oh, I can’t think about that now. I’ll go crazy if I do, I…I’ll think about it tomorrow. I must think about it. I must think about it. What is there to do? What is there that matters?

See the red pill truth in this? Men hit a wall, too. When a man keeps encountering women who rather have career on their hearts, riding the carousel, other men, serving in ministry, or even Jesus, everything in their hearts but taking up wholeheartedly with a man and calling him her husband with her words, thoughts, and deeds, he’ll get frustrated and just move on. This is what Men Going Their Own Way represents. These women, who thought that they didn’t need men in their lives, finally realize that they do. And what will they find is the answer when they finally say “I only know that I love you” to these men?