Shortly after episode 24 dropped, Ron Dodson suggested a follow up to the discussion J. Burden and I had about millennial men, especially how "the system" forces men to take on feminine behaviours.
The advent of the Nuclear Bomb has perhaps done more than anything else to precipitate this dependency on feminine proxy force tactics. To some extent, the unprecedented horror of the two world wars alone gave the move toward matriarchal control a big boost with or without the bomb, but I think without them, war between men would have reasserted itself with just some pragmatic changes. Rethinking how we sign treaties to avoid escalation to the same extent could have been such a solution.
But nukes? We CANNOT have such a war, we simply can’t, and I honestly believe that God won’t allow it. So, unfortunately, a feminine element in conflict is here to stay.
Yet everything said in this podcast is at the same time absolutely true. A new balance has to somehow be reached, because matriarchal absolutism is unsustainable and driving men and civilization slowly insane which could cause a nuclear war ANYWAY.
Otherwise, the only way out of this trap would be to negotiate to phase out nukes for kinetic harpoons. These have the same short term destructive force as a nuke, but no radiation or fallout.
I suggest that the threat of nukes is overplayed. We can largely undermine their effectiveness at times of war by not structuring our culture such that we huddle in cities like bug men. A political will to do so is systemically and simultaneously pro-White and anti-semitic though, so of course we are told to be more afraid of the bomb than the death of our civilization through the feminization of society.
I think this coincides well with understanding what masculine Christianity looks/looked like.
Up until World War I, though clearly declining in the 19th century, masculine Christian societies operated with the confidence of conquerors. Christianity was a motivator for European societies to expand across the globe and assert their religious dominance over foreign lands and peoples. This reality is often dismissed or overlooked because, certainly in all of my life time, it has been defended against as a caricature of Christianity from the Left to be debunked through apologetics.
Yet, this is a case of the Left being more right. Their nightmare of a dominating Christian society which demands exterior allegiance its signs and practices, even with a population which does so without total sincerity and understanding, is closer to the historical reality than the liberal model of religion relegated to a matter of private conscience. Not only is the historical reality, but is very much the strategy of the Left and its 'Woke religion' in its various forms even today.
One expression which could appeal to men, unlike a circle-sitting bible study, would express this mode of conquering the world for Christ. That could involve such expressions as organizing against the construction and for the demolition of heathen temples, which are increasingly spreading throughout North America. The competitive aspect is largely curtailed by the legal reality right now, but masculine competition is fundamentally about the assertion of one's will against another's to the point of its submission.
This was excellent. You are the only voice currently highlighting these things:
-Del noche’s living tradition as authority
-ideology and systematic theology as feminine/managerialism
I think these 2 things are essential to understand what we do next, and I am eager for your extended thoughts on them…particularly the systematic theology point, because even the best conservative Christians do NOT get this…. Yet.
Favorite content maker by a long shot because you’re seeing something most don’t get yet. Ideas in my head I could never articulate have come to life a little, thanks for what you do.
Looking forward to hearing more. The question on how to show fellow Christians the issue with systematic theology is something I would really like to start sharing with friends/family/church, but I need to understand the idea a little more fully
The question at the end, what does masculine Christianity look like, is being masterfully discussed on the CMASC podcast. The men on it are schooled in Aristotelian ethics and the church doctrine. Highly recommend a listen, they’ll get you thinking. Will Knowland and Tim Gordon would make great guests.
1. Glad to see people are coming to the conclusion that ideology is a dead end. Only outcomes matter. Stay focused on the desired outcome.
2. The reason the system we are under is feminine is because the nature of the people who rule us is feminine. It occurred to me that perhaps they need to be dealt with as such.
This was a fascinating discussion that I will be pondering for days to come. I learned so much from the three of you about how managerialism flows eventually towards the feminine aspect. Because these systems always tend toward expansion, they begin to feminize society as a whole and disenfranchise the masculine aspect. At the same time, managerial systems drift towards unaccountability and therefore widespread societal disfunction.
I find women's power to be genuinely frightening. I will oversimplify in order to draw out certain distinctions. Men can break the body. Women can break the soul. Men battle in the light of day. Women rearrange the terrain in non-obvious ways to create pitfalls, stumbling blocks and you to embody and enact displays that you did not intend.
The domain of women's power is reputational, status enhancing / diminishing, and social awarding or withholding. The physical ground is generally indoors (much like our modern life).
The levers of this power are signaling. Beyond verbal signaling is the ability to create very subtle signals based in physiology. These signals have broad transmission mechanisms, some of which register on the surface of the woman's body, while others emerge from unseen places. The origins of these seem mysterious. Biochemical? Pheromones? Mood contagion? I don't know.
Listening to the three of you, I wanted to find some tactical advantages for you.
I came up with an idea in response to what Kruptos called direct versus indirect confrontation.
Unfortunately, this idea is not helpful for children like the boys at school that you talked about. It requires self-mastery
So, you have to move the conflict to the battlefield that advantages you (direct confrontation). How do you do that? Basically, through calm, engaged questions.
I'll start with the personal and move up the escalation ladder.
Let's say there's a woman who is important to you and she is engaging you in indirect conflict. She is signaling you that something is wrong and it's your job to read her mind. Here's the trick- you DO N'OT ask a question yet. Take a good look at her and name that emotion. Trust your gut, and make a statement of neutral caliber and tone. "I see that you are ___________ (frustrated, worried, pensive, displeased etc)." Major bonus points for guessing the emotion correctly. You're halfway there! There is a risk of being wildly off base in your guess, in which case, demerit points will apply. You could also go with a general, non-accusatory "I can tell that something has come between us just now". You also need a propitious moment. Suggest another time, if necessary. Next comes the simple, non-accusatory questions. With each question you are creating space and drawing her out. She will not be able to resist your calm, engaged, non-accusatory questions. Finally, she will be exposed and possibly (if her answers included yelling or crying) emotionally spent. She is now on your terrain.
Next. The business environment. Across from you is someone from HR who has told you that a complaint has been raised against you and that you are not being informed of the identity of your accuser. Naturally, you will spring to defend your honor and to educate this person on the perverse injustice of being denied a chance to meaningfully address the indictment. But, let's stop and think about this. The point here is to punish you and force you to bend to the primacy of the policy. There is no victory over you if you remain unaware of a policy violation. Maintain complete denial. You have nothing but good relationships with colleagues and underlings and you can't imagine for the life of you what this could possibly be about. The HR person might even begin to doubt the accuser.
Next is the nuclear weapon in the women's arsenal. Rudyard Lynch of Whatifalthist calls it GRS - gossiping, rallying and shaming. This is the stuff of cancel culture. How to fight that is above my pay grade. We can see that if a critical mass of the expelled is achieved, power reconstitutes around the exiles. The only thing I know for sure is the one thing NOT to do - placate. Here are two examples- Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
D.J.Trump did not placate. He managed to stay alive. The managerial system accelerated GRS to the point of psychosis. They are exhausted by the battle, exposed to the people and discredited. I think, too, we are on the verge of a complex systems collapse. But, Trump will likely give the system a new lease on life after the purges.
Vladimir Putin placated. He had his work cut out for him domestically when he took the helm of power in 1997, two years before NATO's eastern expansion into former Soviet block countries. I think another thing that was at play in his calculations was a strong preference towards being a part of a larger Europe, rather than to throw in with China. The Regime is even now moving to penetrate Russia itself to complicate Trump's plan to stop the bloodshed in Ukraine.
Sorry for the long comment. I hope there was something useful in it.
The advent of the Nuclear Bomb has perhaps done more than anything else to precipitate this dependency on feminine proxy force tactics. To some extent, the unprecedented horror of the two world wars alone gave the move toward matriarchal control a big boost with or without the bomb, but I think without them, war between men would have reasserted itself with just some pragmatic changes. Rethinking how we sign treaties to avoid escalation to the same extent could have been such a solution.
But nukes? We CANNOT have such a war, we simply can’t, and I honestly believe that God won’t allow it. So, unfortunately, a feminine element in conflict is here to stay.
This is an excellent point. Others have observed this same effect of nuclear weapons.
Yet everything said in this podcast is at the same time absolutely true. A new balance has to somehow be reached, because matriarchal absolutism is unsustainable and driving men and civilization slowly insane which could cause a nuclear war ANYWAY.
Otherwise, the only way out of this trap would be to negotiate to phase out nukes for kinetic harpoons. These have the same short term destructive force as a nuke, but no radiation or fallout.
Thanks. And challenge will be in the doing of it.
I suggest that the threat of nukes is overplayed. We can largely undermine their effectiveness at times of war by not structuring our culture such that we huddle in cities like bug men. A political will to do so is systemically and simultaneously pro-White and anti-semitic though, so of course we are told to be more afraid of the bomb than the death of our civilization through the feminization of society.
I think this coincides well with understanding what masculine Christianity looks/looked like.
Up until World War I, though clearly declining in the 19th century, masculine Christian societies operated with the confidence of conquerors. Christianity was a motivator for European societies to expand across the globe and assert their religious dominance over foreign lands and peoples. This reality is often dismissed or overlooked because, certainly in all of my life time, it has been defended against as a caricature of Christianity from the Left to be debunked through apologetics.
Yet, this is a case of the Left being more right. Their nightmare of a dominating Christian society which demands exterior allegiance its signs and practices, even with a population which does so without total sincerity and understanding, is closer to the historical reality than the liberal model of religion relegated to a matter of private conscience. Not only is the historical reality, but is very much the strategy of the Left and its 'Woke religion' in its various forms even today.
One expression which could appeal to men, unlike a circle-sitting bible study, would express this mode of conquering the world for Christ. That could involve such expressions as organizing against the construction and for the demolition of heathen temples, which are increasingly spreading throughout North America. The competitive aspect is largely curtailed by the legal reality right now, but masculine competition is fundamentally about the assertion of one's will against another's to the point of its submission.
Yes, very much so.
Yet doesn't John Knox argue feminine leadership is more violent in "The first blast of the trumpet..."?
I am not familiar enough with Knox to say one way or the other.
This was excellent. You are the only voice currently highlighting these things:
-Del noche’s living tradition as authority
-ideology and systematic theology as feminine/managerialism
I think these 2 things are essential to understand what we do next, and I am eager for your extended thoughts on them…particularly the systematic theology point, because even the best conservative Christians do NOT get this…. Yet.
Favorite content maker by a long shot because you’re seeing something most don’t get yet. Ideas in my head I could never articulate have come to life a little, thanks for what you do.
Thanks! What to do next is the thing we are all working out now on the fly. The answers are coming.
Looking forward to hearing more. The question on how to show fellow Christians the issue with systematic theology is something I would really like to start sharing with friends/family/church, but I need to understand the idea a little more fully
The question at the end, what does masculine Christianity look like, is being masterfully discussed on the CMASC podcast. The men on it are schooled in Aristotelian ethics and the church doctrine. Highly recommend a listen, they’ll get you thinking. Will Knowland and Tim Gordon would make great guests.
Thanks for the recommendation.
Excellent discussion. Two things come to mind:
1. Glad to see people are coming to the conclusion that ideology is a dead end. Only outcomes matter. Stay focused on the desired outcome.
2. The reason the system we are under is feminine is because the nature of the people who rule us is feminine. It occurred to me that perhaps they need to be dealt with as such.
Men who have betrayed other men for money and/or power. Or worse, just to get along.
But this is even worse: https://x.com/timotheeology/status/1597012252410142720?s=46
This was a fascinating discussion that I will be pondering for days to come. I learned so much from the three of you about how managerialism flows eventually towards the feminine aspect. Because these systems always tend toward expansion, they begin to feminize society as a whole and disenfranchise the masculine aspect. At the same time, managerial systems drift towards unaccountability and therefore widespread societal disfunction.
I find women's power to be genuinely frightening. I will oversimplify in order to draw out certain distinctions. Men can break the body. Women can break the soul. Men battle in the light of day. Women rearrange the terrain in non-obvious ways to create pitfalls, stumbling blocks and you to embody and enact displays that you did not intend.
The domain of women's power is reputational, status enhancing / diminishing, and social awarding or withholding. The physical ground is generally indoors (much like our modern life).
The levers of this power are signaling. Beyond verbal signaling is the ability to create very subtle signals based in physiology. These signals have broad transmission mechanisms, some of which register on the surface of the woman's body, while others emerge from unseen places. The origins of these seem mysterious. Biochemical? Pheromones? Mood contagion? I don't know.
Listening to the three of you, I wanted to find some tactical advantages for you.
I came up with an idea in response to what Kruptos called direct versus indirect confrontation.
Unfortunately, this idea is not helpful for children like the boys at school that you talked about. It requires self-mastery
So, you have to move the conflict to the battlefield that advantages you (direct confrontation). How do you do that? Basically, through calm, engaged questions.
I'll start with the personal and move up the escalation ladder.
Let's say there's a woman who is important to you and she is engaging you in indirect conflict. She is signaling you that something is wrong and it's your job to read her mind. Here's the trick- you DO N'OT ask a question yet. Take a good look at her and name that emotion. Trust your gut, and make a statement of neutral caliber and tone. "I see that you are ___________ (frustrated, worried, pensive, displeased etc)." Major bonus points for guessing the emotion correctly. You're halfway there! There is a risk of being wildly off base in your guess, in which case, demerit points will apply. You could also go with a general, non-accusatory "I can tell that something has come between us just now". You also need a propitious moment. Suggest another time, if necessary. Next comes the simple, non-accusatory questions. With each question you are creating space and drawing her out. She will not be able to resist your calm, engaged, non-accusatory questions. Finally, she will be exposed and possibly (if her answers included yelling or crying) emotionally spent. She is now on your terrain.
Next. The business environment. Across from you is someone from HR who has told you that a complaint has been raised against you and that you are not being informed of the identity of your accuser. Naturally, you will spring to defend your honor and to educate this person on the perverse injustice of being denied a chance to meaningfully address the indictment. But, let's stop and think about this. The point here is to punish you and force you to bend to the primacy of the policy. There is no victory over you if you remain unaware of a policy violation. Maintain complete denial. You have nothing but good relationships with colleagues and underlings and you can't imagine for the life of you what this could possibly be about. The HR person might even begin to doubt the accuser.
Next is the nuclear weapon in the women's arsenal. Rudyard Lynch of Whatifalthist calls it GRS - gossiping, rallying and shaming. This is the stuff of cancel culture. How to fight that is above my pay grade. We can see that if a critical mass of the expelled is achieved, power reconstitutes around the exiles. The only thing I know for sure is the one thing NOT to do - placate. Here are two examples- Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
D.J.Trump did not placate. He managed to stay alive. The managerial system accelerated GRS to the point of psychosis. They are exhausted by the battle, exposed to the people and discredited. I think, too, we are on the verge of a complex systems collapse. But, Trump will likely give the system a new lease on life after the purges.
Vladimir Putin placated. He had his work cut out for him domestically when he took the helm of power in 1997, two years before NATO's eastern expansion into former Soviet block countries. I think another thing that was at play in his calculations was a strong preference towards being a part of a larger Europe, rather than to throw in with China. The Regime is even now moving to penetrate Russia itself to complicate Trump's plan to stop the bloodshed in Ukraine.
Sorry for the long comment. I hope there was something useful in it.
Thanks! So glad you found it helpful!