I was considering doing another FKB linkfest today, and had gathered some links to share, but another of us volunteered to do so, and that should be up later today, I presume – this being Wednesday, the usual day.
But I thought I’d share a couple funny links I’d found, which would have been part of one if I’d prepared one for today.
And some funny pictures.
Why do kids raised on farms have less allergies? (HT: Ray Sawhill)
The leading theory behind the uptick in childhood allergies, says Andy Nish, a physician with a private practice in Gainesville, Ga., is the hygiene hypothesis. Paradoxically, the theory goes, we’re too clean.
“It looks like with our modern conditions and cleanliness that we have fewer and fewer germs to fight off,” Nish says. Our immune systems protect us by learning to fight off foreign invaders, whether they’re harmless or not. We can’t train our defenses if we don’t get exposed. And if you’re allergic to one thing, you’re likely allergic to a number of things.
[...]
Studies show children who live on farms have low rates of allergies. Dr. Mark Holbreich, an allergist in Indianapolis and a fellow of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, calls it “the farm effect.”
Holbreich recently did a study, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, which found very low rates of allergies among Amish children living on farms in Indiana. He says the reason may be because the children get exposed very early on to dirty environments, and to a variety of dust and germs. Even young kids are often in the barn, working with animals, and drinking raw milk.
“We think there’s something about milk,” Holbreich says. “That’s key, along with exposure to large animals, particularly cows.”
So maybe pasteurization isn’t the end-all, be-all, after all… Sadly, even Holbreich can’t stomach the implications of his own studies, as in the next breath, he “cautions against drinking raw milk or serving it to your child. It contains too many dangerous, disease-causing bacteria”, despite his own findings. What cognitive dissonance he must suffer…
This isn’t the first such study to find raw milk prevents allergies, either…
So why does the government continue to persecute raw milk enthusiasts? Why do politicians continue to oppose lifting the bans?
And why can’t the type of ‘conservatives’ who rightly sneer at the totalitarian instincts of vegetarians and vegans, stop lumping them in with others pursuing different alternative diets, such as raw milk, paleo, and organic food enthusiasts, and support an end to the tyrannical, anti-freedom ban on raw milk?
Wintery Knight has a great post about an unfortunate development amongst young people in evangelical circles, today. Unfortunate, because it basically amounts to surrender and capitulation, and going along with the zeitgeist…
And Laura Grace Robins has an excellent post about one St. Louis church’s appalling enabling of young evangelical women’s princess fantasies… As if Disney wasn’t bad enough on its own; now churches are promoting such a mentality.
When will the vast majority of evangelicals wake up? Alas, they seem content to retreat from the real world, into a dream-world of fairy-tales and fantasies…
Police in Moscow are searching the homes of several opposition leaders on the eve of a planned anti-government rally, Russian officials say.
Anti-corruption blogger Alexei Navalny, Sergei Udaltsov and Ilya Yashin are among those targeted by police.
[...]
Alexei Navalny described Monday’s police raid as “awesome” in a message on Twitter, saying “they almost carved up the door (this is actually true)”.
He said police removed computer disks containing photos of his children, along with items of clothing, including a sweatshirt with an opposition slogan.
Moscow Echo radio said police also targeted the home of Ksenia Sobchak – a famous television presenter who joined the protest movement after the December parliamentary elections, which the opposition said were rigged in favour of pro-Putin candidates.
Putin may be a better, and more manly leader than others, but he’s still got the old KGB autocratic instincts, alas…
Much as, being a paleoconservative, I like Chronicles Magazine, one wonders whether their, esp. Srdja Trifkovic’s, championing of him, is due to their, i.e. Trifkovic’s, not caring about Putin’s autocratic tendencies, as blogger Slumlord (The Social Pathologist) has suggested is the case with Trifkovic and the Serbian and Bosnian-Serb regimes (see here, here, here, and what sparked Slumlord’s series of posts: his reaction to a post of ours). Frankly, I find it a bit disturbing; IMO, paleoconservatives should be consistently championing real freedom as a pan-Western ideal, and not being uncritical of authoritarian impulses on the part of Eastern European leaders, just because we may like their policies, or think well of them otherwise as leaders.
If paleoconservatives don’t do that, then frankly, we’re little different from the U.S. government during the Cold War, ostensibly opposing the Soviet Union because of their being a Communist country, spreading their totalitarian ideology to other countries, whilst propping up various anti-communist dictatorships around the world (particularly in Third-World countries, from Pinochet to Marcos, to the apartheid regime in South Africa (not a dictatorship, but also not a free country), and many others), ignoring their totalitarianism / authoritarianism, just because they were anti-communist. Or propping up Saddam Hussein, just because they were opposed to the Khomeini regime in Iran. Or today, supporting similarly totalitarian / dictatorial regimes in Algeria and Pakistan and elsewhere, just because they’re anti-Islamic-radicalist/terrorist. Realpolitik, when it means supporting totalitarian regimes on the one hand, while ostensibly standing against totalitarianism in all forms, on the other, is immoral and hypocritical, frankly; I don’t see how Christians, esp. traditionalist conservatives, can get behind it, and still be consistent in their worldview. (Growing up during the Cold War, I never liked the hypocrisy inherent in the realpolitik of American foreign policy then, and I don’t like it in today’s post-Cold-War-era, either – nor do I think paleoconservatives should be, in their own, different contexts, recapitulating it.)
The Church is Israel, that is, the Chosen People of God.
Another video from the Jerry Johnson and the Reformed brethren who made the video featured in my last post. A bit of a blast against dispensationalism, and viewing Israel as special.
(If anyone has liked these last two videos, they can visit NiceneCouncil’s YouTube channel here, or their own site here.)
I received a link to this video in my email this afternoon. It’s from a Reformed ministry, NiceneCouncil.com, but I think any traditionalist Christian in the manosphere and tradosphere can appreciate it, regardless of tradition.
Although Jerry Johnson doesn’t dwell much on it, he interestingly, and provocatively, ties the death of love as it had been traditionally understood, to the rise of chivalry, particularly in terms of romantic literature, with ‘knights in shining armour’ fighting to ‘win the heart of a lady’, and/or to rescue a ‘damsel in distress’.
A good lecture, well worth the eight minutes of your time needed to view it, IMO.
Red-winged blackbird in a tree; Belleville, Ontario.
Marc Barnes: Naked Men
Booch Paradise: What is Churchianity?; How the church has been feminized
Bruce Charlton: There is no such thing as amoral; What to do about corrupt institutions
Mark Shea: Disconnect; Tormented rationalizations for lying…; This is not some dystopian future…; Remember
Catholic Complementarian: Just A Housewife
Christian Men’s Defense Network: If I Wanted to Destroy Christian Marriage
CL: Save the Girlz!
Thomas Fleming: The Wizard’s Medal
Tom Piatak: Barack Obama, Culture Warrior
Chris: Kingdom or Cult of God?
Ferd: Farewell and Thank You
Keoni Galt: The Tyranny of Usury
Simon Grey: Book Review: The Age of Onanism by Ferdinand Bardamu
OneSTDV: Fatherhood: Gay Edition
Oz Conservative: What Economic Man misses; There will always be a good – but what will it be?
The Counter-Feminist: General Advice to Women
The Elusive Wapiti: Man == Child Molester; Right Conduct
The Incendiary Insight: Chivalry: Romantic When Women Want it, Creepy When They Don’t
Wintery Knight: Why is it so hard for a working man to provide for a family these days?; How the presence and quality of fathers affects belief in God; What does the word happiness mean on the Christian worldview?
Bloody Shovel: Progressive parenting; On Babies; Game is eternal and universal; Why Christians lose; Constantinople’s suicide; Where did all the Christians go?
Alte: The Job Hustle
Dusk in Autumn: Songs about friends who’ll be there for you
Apocalypse Cometh: The importance of the Manosphere; Videoing the police; The threat at home; The state is evil
Hidden Leaves: Musical Interlude – Hard Time Killing Floor Blues edition
Matt Forney: Cooking for Single Men (Guest Post by Matt Forney) – Honey Mustard Chicken Breasts
Chef in Jeans: Cooking for Single Men – Meat on a Stick
Danny from 504: BBQ Pulled Pork and Fresh Coleslaw Sammiches
Cookie: Cooking for Single Men – Pork Tenderloin w/ Cranberry Sauce [paleo]
All the liberal media celebrating the Arab Spring last year because it was bringing democracy to the Arab World were, as in most things left of, say, Ronald Reagan, utterly wrong. Democracy is NOT going to come to that part of the world, and it should never have come to THIS part of the world. Remember, God ordained the KINGDOM of Heaven, not the Republic. Right is right, and there’s no voting about it. As Gary North writes, stealing is wrong, even when done by majority vote.
But the bigger reason to worry about democracy is what it will bring to power in the region. Iraq was 15% Christian under Saddam Hussein (and significantly higher in the past), but once the controlling government was removed, it was open season on Christians, a community that went back to the time of Christ. The same is likely to happen in Egypt, where the Coptic Christians still speak the ancient Egyptian language, and still made up about 10% of the population. The group taking over is the Muslim Brotherhood; this is the same organization that killed Anwar Sadat, and it has an interesting history.
The chief theologian for the group was a man named Sayyid Qutb. Qutb has a fascinating past for a man who became a founder of a movement that opposes secular governments in every Muslim country, and seeks to impose nothing but Islamic law over the whole world (in other words, he’s our kind of megalomaniac, of a sort.) As recounted in one of the few doctoral theses that have risen to national prominence (I first read about it in the NY Times), Qutb was
born in 1906 in the province of Asyut, which is located in southern Egypt. … From his years as a young child until the age of 27, he experienced a rigorous education. Qutb’s evident desire for knowledge continued throughout his life. He began his elementary education in a religious school located in his hometown village. By the age of 10, he had already committed the entire text of the Qur’an to memory.
In other words, he could quote the Prophet Mohammed as well as our own Will S. can Solomon (except that Muslims revere Solomon and can quote him pretty well, too.). The story continues:
After his graduation from Dar al-Ulum in 1933, Qutb began his teaching career and eventually became involved in Egypt’s Ministry of Education. The Ministry sent him abroad to the United States to research Western methods of teaching. He spent a total of two years in the United States from 1948 to 1950.
In other words, Qutb was in the US right about the time that the Silent Generation was getting sent off to fight (and draw) the Korean War. What did he see, and did it have any effect upon him? Well,
many scholars believe that it was during his trip to the United States that Qutb became convinced of the West’s spiritual and moral bankruptcy. In “The America I Have Seen,” a personal account of his experiences in United States, Qutb expresses his admiration for the great economic and scientific achievements of America, yet he is deeply dismayed that such prosperity could exist in a society that remained “abysmally primitive in the world of the senses, feelings, and behavior.”
.But, really, Sayyid, don’t spare our feelings. Tell us what you mean!
Qutb’s fundamental criticism of all systems of life which he views as non-Islamic is that they are “jahiliyyah.” jahiliyyah is ignorance of divine guidance. jahiliyyah encapsulates Qutb’s entire critique of the West, the Soviet Union, Nasser’s government, and any government which does not follow God’s divine guidance.
Really, is there much in that that a Patriactionary could argue with, if we substitute a more suitable religion for Islam? As Papist Peter Kreeft writes, “Do you know what Muslims call us? They call us ‘The Great Satan.’ And do you know what I call them? I call them right.”
What caused Qutb to flip out, though? What was it that drove him over the edge? Only one thing _I_ know can drive a man to drink, or suicide, or to seek martyrdom for his cause in an Egyptian prison: the American feminist-female. As an extended quote reveals:
Qutb harshly criticizes the Western family. Although the rotting of Western morality did not begin with the family, Qutb believes the family has been infected with the disease of jahiliyyah. Because “the family system and the relationship between the sexes determine the whole character of society,” Qutb views the jahiliyyah of the Western family as indicative of the sickness of the larger society. According to Qutb, the purpose of the family is to raise children in an environment that will pass Islamic moral values to the next generation. However, the West has degraded the role of the family. The root cause of this degradation is in the way that women are treated in the West. Qutb claims that Western relationships revolve around lust, passion, and impulse. Women have disregarded their duty to rear children and have become objects of sexual pleasure. In the essay “The America I Have Seen,” Qutb describes the way women act in the United States:
“The American girl is well acquainted with her body’s seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs and she knows all this and does not hide it…[EA: Sounds like someone had some unrequited love in Colorado!] Then she adds to all this the fetching laugh, the naked looks, and the bold moves, and she does not ignore this for one moment or forget it!” 48
In this description it is clear that Qutb is disgusted that the female not only leaves her body uncovered, but that she also actively uses it as a weapon. By using their bodies in this manner, women are prone to be treated by men as sexual objects rather than dignified child-bearers. While Qutb has harsh words against the American woman’s seductiveness, he also criticizes the way that American men use their muscular build to woo women. He cites an article in a magazine which surveyed different women, coming to the conclusion that the majority were attracted to men with “ox muscles.” [EA: Interestingly, an Ox is a castrated bull. A prediction of all the infertile sex offered by PUAs to carousel-riders?] Such public discussion of sensuality is an example of what Qutb argues is the “sexual primitiveness” of the West.49Because both sexes view their relationship in such an overwhelmingly sexual manner, Qutb finds that the Western family is in disarray. The gender roles have become muddled and women no longer fulfill their obligation to be dedicated mothers on both the physical and spiritual levels. Instead, he argues, women have dedicated themselves to work. They view dedicated motherhood as squandering their talents and abilities. Qutb points to this concept as a manifestation of the backward materialist values of Western society, where “material production is regarded as more important, more valuable and more honorable than the development of human character.”50 When all these factors are meshed together, Qutb believes that it is no surprise that the high rates of divorce and illegitimate children are considered mainstream and acceptable in the West. …
Also, when writing Milestones, Qutb identified the gaining acceptance of homosexuality as another example of the animalistic sexual permissiveness that typifies Western society. Due to this permissiveness, Qutb asserts that the Western family has become impotent as a positive moral force. …
In today’s Western world, Qutb would likely point to postmodernism and cultural relativism as signs that Western society will collapse from within. However, Qutb saw signs of such developments in the writings of Westerners during his lifetime. In Islam: The Religion of the Future, he calls them “voices of alarm…warning mankind of its catastrophic end under the white man’s faithless civilization.”
(all bolding by ElectricAngel, to highlight manosphere concepts from a man writing over 40 years ago; he was executed in 1966.)
I would urge anyone with an interest in Christian/Jewish interaction, or Catholic/Protestant discourse, to read this essay and get what this Muslim outsider’s perspective is. I look forward to the day when I can read Qutb directly. For now, for all you who are opposed to Islam, know this: if this man is their guiding theologian, they’re more right than the West, and a LOT bigger challenge than you think. Qutb’s critique is on target with what we believe: either we take back the West in reactionary, monarchical Patriarchalism, or these guys will supply a simulacrum of it.
Just a short ‘programming note’, to let readers know that our ranks have thinned somewhat in the last few days, with the sudden resignations of both 7man and Svar, respectively, from Patriactionary, who have left to pursue other interests. We are saddened by their decisions to leave us, but we understand, and we thank them both for their contributions to Patriactionary, and we wish them all the best in their future endeavours.
Since their decisions to leave were made by each of them, respectively, we kindly ask that you direct any inquiries regarding their respective decisions to them, and not to us, thank you.
N.B. Although they are no longer listed as authors, all of 7man’s and Svar’s respective posts will remain intact here; they have not been, and will not be, deleted. They can be found collected at the following two links:
http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/author/7man/
http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/author/awakeiron/
It should also be possible to search for their posts using the search field, in the sidebar on the right side.
“Down with the mancave!”, argue Peacemaker and Jack Donovan (HT: Ferd).
Peacemaker:
Man caves are bullshit. The concept is ass-backwards and the word’s popularity subtly exposes how low men are on the totem pole. It implies the rest of the house belongs to the wife, as if he’s sequestered to some dank dark region. She has “the house,” he has his “man cave.”
[...]
What other time in our lives have we been relegated to a small corner of the house? When we were in trouble as children. A domineering parent (in many cases, a mother) punishes us through ignoring us. “Go to your room!” It’s the same scenario, only we willingly submit.
[...]
Abandon the man cave. Train your woman. Reclaim your house and position.
Jack Donovan:
The modern “man-cave” is probably the result of two main phenomena. As men did less physical work together outside the home, middle class suburban men had to try and find some way to maintain their masculine identity. Intuitive marketers tapped into this and advertised all kinds of “manly hobbies” in mid-Century men’s magazines, responding to this sense of loss. Then women demanded access to every space that men had reserved for themselves, and…well…men caved.Over and over again. We should make that a folk etymology for mancave.
Mancave – “The room men got to keep after they caved and caved and caved.”
I see their point, but at the same time, as Donovan admits:
Men have always had spaces to gather with other men. It’s likely that in prehistory, men spent at least as much time with each other as they did with women. In high society, men have long had men’s only clubs to recreate this experience on some level.
Just so. Donovan also mentioned “the idea of the assigned male space as a “redoubt,” or, ”a place of retreat”“, which of course it is.
I am a single man, and so my living space has always been my own. I understand and appreciate that this changes when one is married, necessarily. Most space will be shared space, and so, in my opinion, ought to be space where both husband and wife can feel ‘at home’ and comfortable in; art and decor around the house ought to reflect the tastes of both of them, IMO. I have seen homes where the women decorate all the rooms of the house to their personal tastes, and it’s over-feminine; it’s clear who wears the pants in such families, and alas, it’s not the men… On the other hand, if a man loves a woman, he will appreciate her femininity, which will include a feminine decorative style, which she will wish to give expression to. So he should tolerate some degree of that; just not let her overdo it.
Even under such an ideal circumstance, I think it’s reasonable to expect that a man will want some time to himself, and a space to do so; maybe a workbench to do projects on, etc. Just as a woman might want a sewing room, to give her time and space to herself, to work on things like sewing, knitting, etc. I don’t see anything wrong with either. And if a husband and wife might have different tastes in T.V. and music, why not have some separate living rooms for them to separately indulge their different tastes, as they see fit? Husbands and wives don’t need to spend every moment at home together…
So, my feelings are mixed. I hate the idea that, with the rise of the ‘mancave’, that women have effectively banished men to one part of their house as solely their own; on the other hand, surely husbands and wives alike need their personal spaces, to have time to themselves, to do their own things.
Hidden Leaves Riding with the King Happolati’s Miscellany
