The reactionary cancer smothering the liberal heart of New York

26 Aug

We have previously discussed the Orthodox Jews, and their slow takeover of American Jewry by outbreeding the more liberal Reform Jews. Orthodox Jews hew more closely to biblical commands, keeping kosher, marrying young and without premarital sex, and resting on the Sabbath. One of the remarkable features of hospitals in New York is the “sabbath elevator,” an elevator that is programmed to make stops at every floor automatically, so that Orthodox Jews do not have to press a button to call it, thus, somewhere, “making a fire” on the Sabbath, which is forbidden to them; its presence and increase shows the growing numbers of the group.

But the Orthodox are considered fringe left-wing radicals by the ultra-orthodox, a group that includes Hasidic Jews. The New York Times recently ran an article on their influence in New York politics, an influence and a strategy we admire and hope to encourage reactionary Christians to adopt.

First, how did they come about?

The sparse remnants of Hasidic sects in Hungary, Poland and the Soviet Union were almost decimated by Hitler’s slaughter of the European Jews and arrived in New York after World War II in tiny numbers, barely enough to fill a sect’s single small yeshiva or room-size synagogue. But families have an average of six, seven and eight children, helping the sects replenish. … The latest population survey by the UJA-Federation of New York counted roughly 330,000 ultra-Orthodox Jews, or 30 percent of the city’s 1.1 million Jews, a figure that melds Hasidim with others who are as scrupulously observant but do not revere a particular grand rabbi. Today Hasidim dominate neighborhoods like south Williamsburg and Borough Park, and support scores of schools, synagogues and kosher stores. Rising numbers have also brought increasing tensions with government authorities.

This is extraordinary. Assuming 8 children are born by age 30, then the question arises: has enough time elapsed since 1945 to birth 330,000 Jews from a small number?  Assuming 70 years since arrival, an original band of Hasidic Jews of, say, 3000 has shown a compounded population increase of 7% per year. If they keep up the same rate of growth, in 70 years there will be 37 million of them. Still, at some point we’ll be up to our ears in Amish, too.

Do these guys follow common cultural trends? Well…

the city has battled with ultra-Orthodox Jewish representatives over the health risks in metzitzah b’peh, a technique for orally suctioning a circumcision wound.

Yuck. Glad Papists consider that sort of thing a sin. But that is their religious tradition. Anything else to shock the conscience of the over-sexualized, liberal West?

Two years ago, when the city transferred a female lifeguard at Williamsburg’s Metropolitan Pool to a beach and replaced her with a man, Hasidic women stopped going and felt cheated.

“It’s the only exercise I get,” said Rose Herschkowitz, a Satmar Hasid who swam with her 85-year-old mother.

They turned to their local councilman, Stephen Levin, explaining that wearing bathing suits under the eyes of a male lifeguard would violate the tradition of modestly clothing themselves before men who are not their husbands. Mr. Levin agreed that it was “a reasonable accommodation.” But parks officials did not see it that way, arguing that explicitly assigning lifeguards by gender could violate the First Amendment’s establishment of religion clause, not to mention union seniority rules.

Feminine modesty? Women only to be seen by their husbands? Egad. Troglodytes. How else do they defy Caesar?

Hasidim were somewhat more successful in the tussle over matzo bakeries. After inspectors told a Satmar bakery that it could not use well water without a permit since reservoir water was “available,” the Hasidim marshaled their lawyers. The lawyers, with Talmudic hairsplitting, argued that the reservoir water was not technically “available” to the Hasidim because it had been treated with chemicals like chlorine and so violated religious requirements for matzo baking. The conflict was resolved when the bakery installed carbon filters that allowed the well water to meet state chemical and bacteriological standards.

But that’s not radically going in the face of post-civil-rights America. Surely they could do more?

Sometimes a city ruling seems beside the point. A city-franchised company that operates the B110 bus that ferries people between Williamsburg and Borough Park no longer enforces the Hasidic custom that men and women sit apart in social situations. But since virtually all the riders traveling that route are Hasidic, the men and women choose to do so on their own and do not complain about segregation. …On a public bus service that plies a route between the Hasidic neighborhoods of Williamsburg and Borough Park, Brooklyn, men sit up front and women in the back, hewing to the practice of avoiding casual mingling of the sexes, even after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg condemned the arrangement.

Holy crap! They actually got the liberal city of New York, for a while, to enforce a rule that women had to sit at the back of the bus: segregation. Again, not something you’d see in a restored patriarchal Christian society, but amazing that this happened recently in the capital of liberal America. Why do the ultra-orthodox have such influence?

The remarkable rise in the population and the influence of Hasidim and other ultra-Orthodox Jews has provoked repeated conflicts over revered practices, forcing the city into a balancing act between not treading over constitutional lines by appearing to favor a particular religious group and providing an accommodation no more injurious than suspending parking rules for religious holidays.

A politically astute new generation of ultra-Orthodox leaders has become savvy at navigating the halls of government, while the grand rabbis of Hasidic sects wield electoral power like few religious leaders can, turning followers into cohesive voting blocs. “No one can deliver votes like a rebbe can,” said Samuel Heilman, a professor of sociology at the City University of New York, who has written extensively about ultra-Orthodox Jews.

That power was evident most recently in last September’s primary for Democratic district leader in the area covering Williamsburg and Greenpoint. Two factions of Satmar Hasidim turned out at the polls in astonishing numbers for such a relatively obscure post, yielding a turnout of 11,000 votes, among the city’s largest. Many members of both factions admitted they did not know whom they were voting for but had been instructed to do so by their rabbis or yeshiva officials. The dominant Satmar faction made the difference in vaulting a candidate to the leadership.

As a result, the image New Yorkers and the city’s power brokers have of Hasidim has changed. “They are no longer an obscure group — they’re not just quaint,” Professor Heilman said.

There are lessons for Reactionary Christians here.

1) If you want to win the cultural war, you need soldiers, and that means babies. Lots of them, birthed young, with subsequent generations following in the same path. Are the four most fertile years of a young woman’s life best spent in college?

2) You need to minimize population losses, especially by your women. That means having a number of restrictions on their behavior; insisting on hair covering and that the beauty of the wife is exclusively for the husband seems to both encourage group solidarity, and give women what they want: a master whose approval they need, and whose exclusive prize they are.

3) Having bizarre rituals that set the group apart help insure that a person raised in that group will be at a disadvantage outside it, discouraging young women especially from divorce theft, as it will require self-excommunication.

4) Concentration for political purposes is important. Politicians follow votes, even though pastors cannot tell people how to vote from the pulpit for fear of losing tax-exempt status. But what the Ultra-Orthodox do is particularly notable: rather than worry about national politics where their votes are diluted in a sea of others, they care and focus on local politics, and get results for it; in a large sense, they follow the Papist policy of subsidiarity.  Long before they reach 37 million, they will vote in a local government that matches their ethics; it will NOT be liberal.


Posted by on August 26, 2013 in America, The Tribe


59 responses to “The reactionary cancer smothering the liberal heart of New York

  1. oogenhand

    August 26, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    But…they have a nasty trick. Some of their offspring become “Antifa”, and make it impossible for YOU to follow reactionary rules. Think of the Jew that funds Femen against both Muslims and Christians.

  2. electricangel

    August 26, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    Ultra Orthodox don’t pile up excess wealth like Reform Jews do. Eight kids cost a lot of money.

    There are a lot of them on public assistance, which will weaken the host society and eventually limit their growth:

    You know what else they possess? Staggering quantities of public assistance. Take the overwhelmingly Hasidic Kiryas Joel, the poorest place in America. As the Times reported last year, “half of [its] residents receive food stamps, and one third receive Medicaid benefits and rely on federal vouchers to help pay their housing costs.” And boy, do they have children: The median household in Kiryas Joel has six people, and the median age is twelve. Many of its men learn Torah full-time instead of working, and the community’s low high-school graduation rate would be even lower if its religious schools had real academic standards. These kids are hardly being “socialized to the world of work.” And it’s not just Kiryas Joel: back in 1996, at the heart of “welfare reform,” a full third of Williamsburg’s Hasidim received public assistance.

    The Amish actually need their kids to work the farms, so their model is more sustainable. Since the Amish population doubles every 21 years, their effective growth rate is a little over 3% per annum, by the rule of 72. Still, in 100 years at 3.3% growth, they’ll be over 5 million in 100 years.

  3. Peter Blood

    August 26, 2013 at 1:27 pm

    Orthodox Jews are Pharisees. Talmudism is Pharaseeism.

  4. oogenhand

    August 26, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Ad 2): That is why a rule that allows non-Jewish men to marry Jewish women, but not the other way around would be so bloody effective against Pharisaism.

    There is a very nasty trick to wreck Pharisaic birthrates. Constantly compare abortion to the Holocaust, or even say it is far worse.

  5. The Man Who Was . . .

    August 26, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    Some of their offspring become “Antifa”, and make it impossible for YOU to follow reactionary rules.

    Very few these days.

  6. The Man Who Was . . .

    August 26, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    Extreme growth rates like you see here probably aren’t sustainable for too long. Still, the differential between the religious and the non-religious looks like it will be significant for the foreseeable future.

  7. electricangel

    August 26, 2013 at 2:03 pm


    That is why a rule that allows non-Jewish men to marry Jewish women, but not the other way around would be so bloody effective against Pharisaism

    Anecdotally, I can think of only one Christian/Jewish couple where the children were NOT raised Jewish. If Reform women are going to have only one child per woman (that’s about their birthrate), then the only way for Reform Judaism to survive is for Reform men to find non-Jewish women to bear their children, and raise them as Jews. The ultra orthodox keep their women in line, and in tribe. Any other group that wants to survive culturally must do so also.

  8. Cranberry

    August 26, 2013 at 2:06 pm

    Hasidism seems like a relative luxury, EA, as you point out with the welfare comment. Eventually they will have to do some sort of work outside of their communities, or become pastoralists/agriculturalists to self-sustain.

    Alte once pondered whether or not Catholics could, or even should, try to exclude ourselves from regular society. I’m not sure that is necessary to the degree the Hasidim do it, but becoming more monolith has advantages, as you say. The Church seems unwilling to enforce any code of modesty or behavior in its congregants, judging from what I see on Sundays. If you don’t feel called to veil yourself in church and find dresses too formal, can we at least wear long, loose pants and pretty blouses, rather than tank tops with bra straps and tattoos showing, skin-tight cut-off shorts and flip-flops? That would be a great start. Men need not wear baggie cargo shorts and ripped t-shirts, either.

    The threat of excommunication means little since there is another church around the corner who will accept for who you are. My sister, upon finding out she could not be a godmother to one of our children (she is no longer a practicing Catholic), said “well of COURSE the priest said no, it’s just a way to force me to go back to mass, nevermind that I’m her aunt and I love her, oh no, that’s not good enough.”

    Recently going through Baptism class with my husband (I’m a Catholic-Come-Home and am having my civil marriage convalidated and children baptized), I saw some hope. The Deacon and his wife were adamant about the fact that I had to have a practicing Catholic as a godparent, and at least a baptized Christian as the Christian witness. My husband had no idea of the seriousness given to the role of godparent – it impressed him, and he feels a bit..conflicted? don’t know the right word…about standing as Christian witness for his niece. It’s nice to know that Cannon Law is being applied in at least some situations and some parishes (our last parish was very lax in its policies, eg: my husband gave a monetary donation to the church and they let him be godfather).

    There is quite a large Catholic presence in my town and the neighboring town, but I don’t know what kind of solidarity they have. I try to patronize Christian/Catholic owned businesses as much as possible. I know more can be done, especially w/r/t voting and getting Catholics into local politics. But too many are in the world and of it at the same time. The standards of Catholic behavior are diluted or interpreted away to meaninglessness, so it’s tough to imagine having any effect when the group is always moving in different directions over hurt feelings or disputes.

  9. oogenhand

    August 26, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    The best solution: not become unequally yoked, but declare:

    “One Judaism: Reform, Conservative, Orthodox? One God: Father, Son and Holy Ghost! Hell is eternal…”

    It is the philosophical problem of the One and the Many.

  10. The Man Who Was . . .

    August 26, 2013 at 2:39 pm

    BTW, IIRC, Romney won the white vote in NYC. I presume Orthodox Jewry of various stripes had a lot to do with that.

  11. electricangel

    August 26, 2013 at 4:57 pm


    We discussed E Michael Jones’ book in the post on American Genocide. IT seems like the Catholic Parish as it existed in Philadelphia before the modern Kulturkampf was closest to the ideal of a separated church group in, but not of, the society. What caused that model to fail was active opposition by political powers, and the draw of assimilation on the Irish, especially; modern influences like TV, rock, and cultural Marxism finished it off.

    But the quest for community, as Nisbet would say, does not go away. Kanazawa talks about the Savannah principle: anyone who was shunned by the group on the Savannah was left to fend for himself against the lions, hyenas, etc. He was dead, and his genes would not carry on.

    This explains the fear of social ostracism, especially amongst women, who would be less able to fight off a lion than single men could. So the challenge becomes to create a community that offers work and meaning, even to those members who cannot earn an economic wage in this society (pretty much anyone with an IQ south of about 95), and one that attracts people and converts to it. More importantly, anyone who divorces or violates community norms ultimately faces excommunication; if done correctly, the Savannah principle should maintain the people in accord with the morality of the group.

  12. electricangel

    August 26, 2013 at 4:59 pm


    I would think NY State, but in the city? Romney apparently took 52% of the white vote in the state, but upstate is FAR more conservative than the city.

  13. Cranberry

    August 26, 2013 at 7:44 pm

    I recall that discussion. TPTB did not allow a Catholic monolith to survive, and the Catholics who left were too willing to leave it up to others to continue the culture.

    I don’t see too many incentives the Church can offer people to stay. Excommunication is not a big deal. As you say, the Savannah principle can work, if done correctly. I just don’t see anyone subject to being out-grouped feeling too bad about it long run, as there are plenty of alternative communities to join.

    Now if those alternatives shunned outsiders, perhaps that negative reinforcement would be enough to prevent someone from being OK with excommunication, and then you’d have better overall behavior.

  14. Will S.

    August 26, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    I’m not very good at this, but I’ve modified an already-modified WWII propaganda poster:

  15. Peter Blood

    August 27, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    If my wife were to be “not in the mood” I would tell her to lean back and think of The Reaction!

  16. Will S.

    August 28, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    What Christians Can Learn From Orthodox Jews

    By Rod Dreher • August 28, 2013, 9:08 AM

  17. electricangel

    August 30, 2013 at 4:23 pm


    Ah, yes. It’s almost an intriguing word if you rearrange the letters.


    I don’t see too many incentives the Church can offer people to stay. Excommunication is not a big deal.

    The Church was once an entire social system. The hospitals, universities, orphanages, old and sick home were entirely run on Church charity back in the Middle Ages. One reason for the “Reformation” was all that wealth that the Church owned that could be seized by emporal powers for their own aggrandizement; Belloc’s How the Reformation Happened mentions the fact that 1/5 to 1/3rd of the land in Europe was owned by the Church (he also mentions how corrupted it became, and how understandable a lot of the Reformers’ attitudes were.) To be excommunicated in THAT society meant to lose all the social services the Church provided.

    Will and I are gradually writing the briefs for a model of Christian (or Catholic) Amish society. We have the following facts, from previous posts:
    Children are expensive, and in current society bring no economic return.
    Social Security systems further depress childbearing.
    “Cash and prizes” for divorcing women provide another economic acid to dissolve the bonds of matrimony.
    Tax policy favors singles and unmarried parents over married couples in a LOT of cases.
    Inflation has undermined the salaries and tax benefits of children and nonworking spouses.

    A Church that wants to have growing numbers needs to make certain that its flock can survive in the material world, too. We’ll do a bit more outlining of the problem, and then a series of posts on the solution, which will REQUIRE some sort of religious organization to make it work.

  18. Cosiar

    September 15, 2013 at 12:49 am

    Excellent article, it is very hard to create the kind of cohesiveness these groups have. Damn near impossible to do so with people who culturally American, or Anglo or even Western European, in anyway I imagine.

  19. Melonhead

    September 24, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    Unless something very unexpected happens, there will be over a billion Amish in North America in the latter-half of the 22nd Century. A society of slightly-inbred superstitious pacifist farmers (don’t get me wrong, I love the Amish) will have the political power to control the US’s nuclear arsenal, military, and business might. Government forms will be printed in English and Pennsylvanische Deutsch instead of English and Spanish as there will be far more Yoders than Gonzaleses.

    It is my opinion that there needs to be a counterweight to the Amish in order to continue to enjoy the technological, scientific, and artistic benefits of Western Civilization. I think that the Catholic Church, which for a long time was “Western Civilization”, would serve as a wonderful basis for this counterweight. The counterweight needs babies; so, women need to be interested in marrying early and caring for the children at home. Luckily, most women are naturally inclined to this if given a “green light” (think of the principle of preselection…) that this is an okay life path. (Furthermore, why the unrealistic emphasis on abstinence in recent decades instead of young marriage as a workable and natural outlet for sexual urges?) The young men need to seem as high value resource providers; so, why not organize a group to apprentice young men to be various types of craftsmen (including high-tech / high-knowledge crafts), who would be able to manage a small home-based business (so that they can actually help shepard their family), and could reasonably invest surplus wealth in real estate or dividend producing stocks (a la via a family holding company (like Walton Enterprises LLC) so that the accumulated wealth stays together and continues to appreciate after the parent’s pass-on – providing for the material needs of future generations? Eventually, each new family’s holding company could be assigned shares in older holding companies that the couple has inherited, and then have new businesses and investments added to it. The more babies there are, the greater the wealth of future generations and the easier old-age the parents have. There could also be a young woman’s organization that trains them how to wives, mothers, homemakers, companions, and thrifty helpmeets. Both organizations could be subsets of a larger society and several times a year have the youngsters meet in supervised gatherings to sort-out romantic pairings and perform charitable works. As the couple ages, the larger society can function as a social network, business network, and general community resource. This society would function as a means to preserve our Western heritage and would recognize (whereas the Amish would disagree) that technology progress and art (even military technology – see Bellum iustum) can be used to relieve suffering and bring us closer to God.

    Also, please note that such a society would help both men and women achieve their natural Darwinistic and Biblically-ordained goals of accumulating resources, children, and a good spouse, as I have been recorded discussing previously and elsewhere at length.

  20. Will S.

    September 24, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    Best thing about Anabaptists? They’re Germans who are FOR peace, unlike others, traditionally, till we finally beat that out of them in two wars. 🙂

    I presume Melonhead is joking, but an America filled with Amish as the main minority would be awesome; more quilts and sausages! 😉

  21. electricangel

    September 24, 2013 at 9:13 pm


    I presume he’s not joking. Of course, what he outlined in his whole comment is almost exactly my program! Well done, sir. Do you know anything about the Mondragon group? It combines a model much like you advocate with Catholic social teaching. Let me know if you want to discuss.


    You’ll find the French made MUCH more trouble in Yurrup, starting with William the Bastard invading Anglo-Saxon lands, proceeding through Cardinal Richelieu undermining Catholic interests to serve France in the 30 years’ war, Louis XIV’s rapacious land grabs, including Strasbourg, and let’s not forget the moral monster Napoleon. The Germans started late, got good REAL fast, and will go back to another 1000 years of slumber.

  22. Will S.

    September 24, 2013 at 9:21 pm

    Oh, of course, EA; always have been troublesome, damn French. 🙂

    But Germans have been more trouble in recent decades, until we knocked that out of them most recently. 🙂

  23. Will S.

    September 24, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    OT, but funny spam attempted to post here, some company promoting penis pumps, but this is hilarious:

    Today, I went to the beachfront with my kids. I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She put the shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is totally off topic but I had to tell someone!

  24. Melonhead

    September 25, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    I am not joking. Like everyone else, there are good and bad things about the Amish.

    Electricangel, I would enjoy discussing this further. But, as this is a closely guarded nom de plume for me and that I don’t really know you, would you be willing to communicate via Bitmessage ( My address is: BM-Gti6SZGbNS9TF7X3hwD3CucWENuxXe2P.

  25. electricangel

    September 25, 2013 at 2:56 pm


    I’ve not used bitmessage. Might do to expand my knowledge of things. I could, with your permission, email you at the address you used to leave a comments.

    Actually, skip that: I’ll bitmessage you tomorrow AM.

  26. electricangel

    September 25, 2013 at 3:06 pm


    But Germans have been more trouble in recent decades, until we knocked that out of them most recently.

    It really was the case in WWI that Western Civ put a gun to its head and blew its brains out. Sometimes it seems like trying to rebuild on that model is reanimating a corpse, a task only accomplished by Jesus. We might perhaps decide to use the corpse as an input source of food for the next civilization (sorry, civilisation).

    The British REALLY blew it with the Germans. Properly allied, the Brits could have ruled the waves while the Germans served as their armed forces on land. Instead, they wasted their empire, wasting the Mitteleuropean lands. Europeans exerted outward population pressure on the rest of the world until WWI, and the collapse really began after WW2.

    Western Civ is a product of Western Christianity, which is an amalgamation of Jewish theology, Greek philosophy, and German military prowess. All three of those legs are required to make it work, and the utter collapse of the West has a lot to do with the horror that Germans must feel about the actions of their forebears in WW2. Until we restore that sense of military valor, our efforts to re-elevate Jewish theology and Greek philosophy will come to naught.

  27. Will S.

    September 25, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    @ EA: Actually, I would not have minded at all if WWI had gone the other way; at least, Germany conquering mainland Europe, while leaving Britain alone. Would have meant no end to age of monarchies; probably no Soviet Union, and without the harsh Treaty of Versailles and the Nazis, no WWII, Holocaust, and instead, economic prosperity in post-WWI Europe; who knows, maybe by now, with their science and engineering talents, the German Empire might have put a man on Mars, established permanent space stations. Hey, one can dream. 🙂

  28. Jesse Powell TWRA

    October 18, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    Ultra-Orthodox Judaism is a religious revival that started around 1955. It is not an ancient tradition, though it may be based on bringing back ancient tradition. In 1955 Ultra-Orthodox Jews were not significantly different from other Jews; 1955 is when the fertility rate started to rise among the Ultra-Orthodox which is why I am labeling the start of the Ultra-Orthodox revival as that year.

    1955 is the start of religious revival among Jews – rising fertility starting among the Ultra-Orthodox.

    1970 is the start of religious revival among Protestant Christians – the rising number of mega-churches

    1990 is the start of religious revival among Catholic Christians – the rising number of Traditional Latin Masses

    2015, I estimate, will be the start of cultural revival and support for patriarchy among atheists / secular people

    Here’s the evidence that Ultra-Orthodox Judaism is a modern post-World War II religious revival:

    An Orthodox Challenge
    August 22, 2012

    “When Israel became independent, its haredi minority was a shattered remnant. Secular Zionists convincingly claimed that their strategy for Jewish survival had won. According to Menachem Friedman, the Israeli sociologist, many haredim expected their community to wither away “within the foreseeable future.”

    Friedman’s description of Israel at its founding includes another dimension, stunning in its contrast to today: in 1948, the ultra-Orthodox had the same employment rate as other Israeli Jews. On average, they had the same number of children and married at the same age.”

    “So more than ever before, Israel ’s haredim realised the ideal of living apart from modernity. They created a monastic community without celibacy, a pietist society without laypeople. Between 1952 and 1981, the average marriage age for Israeli haredi men dropped from 27.5 to 21.5. On average, women married by their 20th birthday and quickly began having children. Men continued to study for a decade or more after marrying. When they left kollel, they looked for Torah positions such as teaching or working in the state rabbinate. The exodus of the young generation ceased; the cultural gap between the haredi community and Israeli society was too wide to leap. Instead, young people looked down on their parents as insufficiently pious and aimed at being more punctilious in observing Jewish law.”

    “Again, numbers tell the story. In 1979, 21 per cent of ultra-Orthodox men aged between 35 and 54 were not employed. That was twice the proportion among other Jews. But things got much worse. By 2008, two-thirds of haredi men in that age bracket were not working for a living. Full-time religious study had become the most common occupation of ultra-Orthodox men in Israel .”

    By the way, my website is Secular Patriarchy. Maybe it’s worthy of a link?

    Secular Patriarchy

  29. electricangel

    October 18, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    For that comment, Jesse, from which I learned quite a bit, I think we’ll add you to the blogroll. I’d love to see secular patriarchy return, but I doubt the spiritual revival in the unobservant necessary to do so.

  30. Jesse Powell TWRA

    October 18, 2013 at 7:27 pm

    Thanks. My assumption is that Christian Patriarchy based revival (mostly Protestant) will be the primary driving force for cultural restoration in the United States. As far as myself however, being atheist, I’m trying to do my bit in the secular sphere. That is the reason for the TWRA (Traditional Women’s Rights Activist) group I am a part of and the leader of (the other member calls herself The Radical One, she founded the group originally). I’ve done some researching on the issue of religious revival of various sorts, that’s why I was able to make my contribution here to this thread. I got alerted to this site by the Adventures in Keeping House blog that I follow and have done a guest post for (she recently added this site to her blogroll).

    Again, thanks for the link.

  31. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    We actually just added her, too.

    I’ve seen your comments at The Thinking Housewife from time to time.

  32. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 9:01 pm

    So which category do we fit under? (I presume Christian patriarchy, of course.) Not seeing a link to us at your blog.

  33. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 9:16 pm

    Which I find interesting, seeing as we’ve linked you already, and you’ve even thanked us for doing so, yet didn’t think to reciprocate at the same time.

    Curious, that.

  34. Jesse Powell TWRA

    October 18, 2013 at 9:30 pm

    Yes, I was at The Thinking Housewife before. I am now focusing on the TWRA group I’m part of. I’m not that familiar with this blog but I think I’d put it under Christian MRA; similar to Dalrock and Sunshine Mary. I’m sorry but I do not have a Christian MRA section on my blogroll.

    You may remove my blog from your blogroll if you wish; no hard feelings.

  35. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 9:31 pm

    No, I just was wondering. We’re not MRAs, nor PUAs.

  36. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 9:31 pm

    We’d fit best under Christian Patriarchy, IMO.

  37. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 9:33 pm

    It’s up to you if you wish to add us, obviously; I just thought you might have considered it first, since you asked us to add you.

    If you don’t wish to add us, though, for whatever reason, why indeed would we add you.

    Your call.


  38. Jesse Powell TWRA

    October 18, 2013 at 9:44 pm

    I was thinking since your blogroll is very comprehensive that you might think my blog would be an interesting resource for your readers. I will admit though in terms of who I link to the subject matter of your blog is outside of what I am recommending and so therefore I cannot offer a reciprocal link. If for this reason you want to remove the link to my site that is your right.

  39. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 9:50 pm

    We are Christians, and while we have linked interesting friendly non-Christian sites, few of them are decidedly secularist (in terms of promoting that worldview deliberately and decidedly, as you are), and moreover, most of them are ones that think as well enough of us that they link us back, too. None of this ‘Can you please link me? Oh sorry; I can’t link you back.’ bullshit. Chivalry, indeed… The nerve! Think how that comes across next time you approach someone. Hypocritical effrontery.

    Duly removed.

    Good luck trying to promote moral absolute imperatives and belief in a superior power amongst your fellow secularists. You’re on a fool’s errand, frankly. Can’t see why you’re bothering.

    But I won’t be reading, in any case.

  40. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 9:57 pm

    (Oh, BTW, it’s true that not everyone who has linked to us have we linked back, but then, we don’t ask others to link us, though if we had done so, we would have, as a common courtesy, linked reciprocally. Common courtesy, man! A principle of good manners, and chivalry, you know.)

  41. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 10:24 pm

    We have this saying from our Scriptures, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12), which secularists like yourself have rendered as ‘the Golden Rule’, ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.’ But of course, there being no god for you, no need for you to apply it to the letter of the law, there actually being no absolute law for your ilk, of course, and no god to enforce any law’s dictates (evolution is a most convenient god).

  42. Jesse Powell TWRA

    October 18, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    As far as my blog, everyone I am linking to I linked to unilaterally regardless of whether they link back or not. In general nobody is linking back to me in return. I link to who I link to on the basis of who I wish to promote and as a benefit to my readers. I limit the number of links on my blog in order to prioritize who I wish to emphasize. I actually did have a Chrisitan MRA section on my blogroll but I deleted it after Dalrock went on a tirade against Mark Driscoll and other big names in Christian Patriarchy. I found that unacceptable since I supported those Dalorck was attacking. So maybe before I could have offered a reciprocal link but not now. I do see this blog as Christian MRA, not Christian Patriarchy.

    I decided to approach this blog asking for a link because I had a good contribution to offer regarding the Ultra-Orthdox Jews and I thought my blog might appear new, different and interesting and perhaps most importantly because your blogroll was so long I figured the purpose was to offer a comprehensive selection of good blogs to read for your reading audience.

    I assumed a quid pro quo was not required.

    Obviously I was wrong about that; I apologize for any offense I caused. I just thought I might be able to promote myself a bit, that’s all.

    You may notice in my original comment I asked “Maybe it’s [my blog] worthy of a link?” My thinking was that you might deem my blog worthy of your blogroll on it’s own merits; that my blog in its own right would be of interest to your readers and therefore “worthy.” In other words that my blog would add to your site independently in it’s own right without extra “sweetners” such as me linking back in return. I add to the interest level of your blogroll and in return some traffic get’s directed my way; that’s how I thought things could be mutually beneficial with you linking to my blog.

    Sorry I misunderstood things. Again, no hard feelings.

  43. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 10:55 pm

    Well, it’s not so much that it’s required, just seems to me to be a common courtesy. You ask someone if they can do something of a certain nature for you, why would you not likewise be willing to do the same back for them.

    We indeed do have a widely ‘diverse’ blogroll in many regards, and perhaps had you been equally willing to consider us as we were you, we could have kept you linked. Not just a matter of merits, but common courtesy, ask us to scratch your back, be kind enough to scratch ours, too, even if we don’t ask – regardless of whether we meet all your ideological particulars (again, not everyone we link do we agree with in all things, certainly not – but there is some level of mutual respect, at least, generally speaking).

    You mis-classify us, and for that matter Dalrock and SSM, since none of us, far as I know, self-identify as MRA (we certainly don’t; I doubt Dalrock would either, and as a woman, SSM has made it clear she isn’t part of the manosphere, though her foci overlap often with it). Just because we don’t fit your conception of what Christian Patriarchy is or ought to be (and I don’t get why as a secularist, such matters interest you, but anyway), doesn’t mean we’re not, since in our very fricking blog name, we reference that we are patriarchal reactionaries. And we’re Christians. That’s what we are. Not MRAs. Not PUAs. Manosphere yes, and orthosphere / tradosphere, too, though not all of them would have us because we’re Red Pill and not Blue Pill, though. Oh well! We still link some, anyway, because we want to, whether or not linked back – but then, we never were asked to, nor have we asked anyone.

    Anyway, no hard feelings, either; you’re certainly still welcome, if you wish, to participate in any discussions here – see our rules for commenting at the top, under the ‘About’ tab.

    All the best.


  44. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 11:04 pm

    Our commenting rules are there, as are an explanation of possible punishments that may be meted out to offenders against them.

    So far you haven’t, you’ve just been gauche in your behaviour, lack of understanding of the spirit of give-and-take, reciprocity, but not in your comments themselves. As you get older, hopefully you’ll mature, son. 🙂


  45. electricangel

    October 18, 2013 at 11:17 pm

    Stupid Yahoo mail change made me miss this whole brouhaha. I saw one comment, but there were 15. Ah, well.

    Jesse, one need not be a believer to make use of things written in the nature of man. Will S. talks about reciprocity, and that’s one of the 6 major methods of building influence. I would heartily recommend you click through this PowerPoint of the book Yes! It’s co-authored by Cialdini, whose Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion is written from a secular atheist point of view. That having been said, it appears you used the Ben Franklin tactic, but our own Will S was not persuaded.

  46. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 11:37 pm

    Slide 11 in that is particularly wise, indeed.

  47. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 11:38 pm

    And 14.

  48. Jesse Powell TWRA

    October 18, 2013 at 11:53 pm

    That’s a mighty good Power Point presentation, I recommend it. I had never heard of the “Ben Franklin tactic” before. I guess I was using the “it’s worth a try” rule. Not much to lose but much to gain. I figure any publicity is good publicity for my obscure little blog that nobody knows about. Still, I want to stick to my principles regarding who I’m linking to so when challenged I had nothing to offer and therefore had to give up my little victory.

    Alas, another day another opportunity. Still hope people have learned a little something from my post about the Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Really the story of the Ultra-Orthodox Jews is amazing; it’s the best story out there in terms of cultural revival in the Western World. It’s a model of success, proof that revival is possible. The success of the Ultra-Orthodox Jews gives me a great deal of hope for the future.

  49. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 11:53 pm

    Oh, Jesse, and not taking people’s self-definitions into account in defining them, is arrogant and condescending. For instance, I wouldn’t mis-classify anyone who calls himself a PUA as an MRA, nor anyone who calls himself an MRA, a PUA; I will allow people to define themselves, generally – unless they demonstrate that they have stretched a definition beyond all usefulness (e.g. someone who calls himself a Christian, but says Mohammed is a true prophet – that’s not a Christian, that’s a Muslim). To NOT consider us, or Dalrock, or SSM as Christian Patriarchy proponents, when that is indeed what we all consider ourselves, even if some Orthosphere / tradosphere types who ALSO consider themselves Christian Patriarchy proponents (as I would more generously than they themselves, consider themselves fellow ones, even despite our different POVs) might not wish to classify us with them, is arrogant, and unfair. Of course, you can do what you like at your blog, but think about how stupid you look, when you come crawling to us for a favour, without showing the same generosity of spirit you expect us to display towards you, back to us. You come across as an arrogant little snot. I’m sure you didn’t mean to; it’s just that you are young and foolish. You’ll smarten up as you get older, if you’re willing to take your lumps and listen to your elders – including ones as harsh as me. Or you can go off in a snit and reject all we have to say, because you think I’m not being fair, or am too harsh, or are hurtful. But then you’ll never learn anything, ya punk. 🙂

  50. Will S.

    October 18, 2013 at 11:59 pm

    Your comment about the ultra-Orthodox Jews was interesting, and such salient observations of that nature are always welcome here, should you have similar things to contribute to future convos.


  51. electricangel

    October 19, 2013 at 12:06 am

    Slide 20 is the one about Ben Franklin. It’s taken from this story in the life of Ben Franklin. In a nutshell: Franklin asks someone who hates him if he will do him the favour of lending him a book. The man does so. Later, to justify WHY he had loaned a book to someone he hated, he decided that he really didn’t hate Franklin.

    It’s the same tactic that panhandlers used to use on the street in NYC, and it’s a compliance tactic that women use ALL the TIME (“can you hold my purse for a minute?”). The beggars would ask you for something innocuous, like the time. Once you had looked at your watch, you now felt obligated to go along with their next request for a quarter, or whatever.

    It works on tourists; New Yorkers are the least likely Americans to get scammed. We’re battle-hardened.

  52. Will S.

    October 19, 2013 at 12:12 am

    Interesting. But for some reason, I’m also immune to that particular Madison Avenue tactic. 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s