Leftism and liberalism are sociopathic ways to talk about real and obvious truths

What it says on the tin.

One of my favorite bloggers is Zippy Catholic, who is fond of saying that many problems of liberalism can be explained as sociopathic manifestations of reality pushing through.  That is, liberalism may be ideologically confused and contradictory, especially the form known as leftism, but all this means is that it treats normal things sociopathically.

We can see this with leftism and its extremist views on race, sex, family and so forth.  Clan and kin matter, who you are and where you come from matter, but leftists are sociopathic about this obvious set of truths.  They say clan and kin don’t matter while making very sure to save some job slots for their own children, spouses and fellow travelers.  Racial and even ethnic groups where everyone’s the same skin color are different in behavior and preferred hobbies and forms of government and civilization (towns, villages, etc.)  Again, an obvious truth, but leftists go all sociopathic on it by pretending those differences are trivial while demanding everyone behave like specific subcultures of white ethnic leftists in a handful of Anglo-descended nations (aka, the sociopathy of the SWPL).

We can also see this with women and politics. Women pursue politics as a response to the ways that industrialization and mass society scale larger and larger, peeling away the roles they would otherwise have.  Liberalism sociopathically encourages women to pursue political solutions to their social problems, while stripping more and more traditional roles and protections away from them.

I think this is a key major point in having a normal society and a properly ordered hestia, understanding that sociopathic (anti-social, perverse, distorted) descriptions of real things are still describing real things that should be preserved.  We should care about clan and kin.  We should want women to be productive and happy in their home-focused spheres, with exceptional women being treated as just that.  We should want men to be able to lead and support their families and have masculine spheres for the men (including but not limited to holy spheres, as not all are called to such lives) who are not married.  The American conservative “colorblind” “patriotic” thing is frail and unnatural and doesn’t cut to the heart of why people are so alone and disordered.  Some of the wacky hijinks of the leftists do, though, under all the rhetorical tricks and misdirection.

 

Advertisements

1599 Geneva Bible Prayers, Morning Prayer part two

 

Part two…

And because thou hast commanded us to pray one for another, we do not only make request (O Lord) for our selves, and for them that thou hast already called to the true understanding of thy heavenly will, but for all people and nations of the world, who as they know by thy wonderful works, that thou art God over all, so they may be instructed by thy holy spirit, to believe in thee, their only Savior and Redeemer, but forasmuch as they cannot believe, except they hear, nor cannot hear but by preaching, and none can preach, except he be sent: therefore (O Lord) raise up faithful distributers of thy mysteries, who setting apart all worldly respects, may both in their life and doctrine only seek thy glory. Continually confound Satan, Antichrist, with all hirelings, whom thou hast already cast off into a reprobate sense, that they may not by sects, schisms, heresies, and errors, disquiet thy little flock. And because, O Lord, we be fallen into the latter days and dangerous times, wherein ignorance hath gotten the upper hand, and Satan by his Ministers seeks by all means to quench the light of thy Gospel: we beseech thee to maintain thy cause against those ravening Wolves and strengthen all thy servants, whom they keep in prison and bondage. Let not thy long suffering be an occasion, either to increase their tyranny, or to discourage thy children: neither yet let our sins and wickedness, be an hindrance to thy mercies, but with speed (O Lord) consider their great misery. For thy people Israel many times by their sin provoked thine anger and thou punishedst them by thy just judgement, yet though their sins were never so grievous, if thy once returned from their iniquity, thou receivedst them to mercy. We therefore most wretched sinners bewail our manifold sins, and earnestly repent us of our former wickedness, and ungodly behavior towards thee: and whereas we cannot of our selves purchase thy pardon, yet we humbly beseech thee for Jesus Christs’ sake, to shew thy mercy upon us, and receive us again to thy favor: Grant us dear Father these our requests, and all other things necessary for us, and thy whole Church, according to thy promise in Jesus Christ our Lord. In whose name we beseech thee, as he hath taught us, saying: Our Father which art in heaven, etc.

 

1599 Geneva Bible Prayers, Morning Prayer part one

A long time ago T.W.O. wanted to type or write up the prayers in the 1599 facsimile of the Geneva Bible that he brought into the marriage, can’t recall which.  In any case, that is a small thing I can use this blog for.  The script is difficult to read, and the texts aren’t online as far as I’ve found.  So I think this can be a nice occasional thing to post.

Something to remember is that Geneva Bibles were very DIY.  You went to the printer and received specifically what you requested.  So you could have a “Bible” that was only the Old Testament and a Psalter, as an example.  This lack of standardization is an interesting and curiously modern feature.  It also means what I copy in modern English is not necessarily from every 1599 facsimile available.

After the Sternhold-Hopkins Psalter in the facsimile we own, there follows a short list of prayers with this title: “A form of prayer to be said in private houses every Morning and Evening.”

This is part of the first one (asterisks are my best guess, the text is not always sharp enough to make out easily):

Morning Prayer

Almighty God and most merciful father, we do not present our selves here before thy Majesty, trusting in our own merits or worthiness, but in thy, manifold mercies, which [hath promised]* to hear our prayers and grant our requests, which we shall make to thee in the name of thy beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who also hath commanded us to assemble our selves together in his name, with full assurance, that he will not only be amongst us, but also be our mediator and adjudicate to thy Majesty, that we may obtain all things which shall seem expedient to thy blessed will, for our necessities. Therefore we beseech thee sweet Father, to turn thy loving countenance towards us, and impute not unto us our manifold sins and offenses, whereby we most justly deserve thy wrath and sharp punishment, but rather receive us to thy mercy, for Jesus Christ’s sake, accepting his death and passion as a just recompense for all our offenses, in whom only thou art pleased, and through whom thou canst not be offended with us. And seeing that of thy great mercy we have quietly passed this night: Grant (O heavenly Father) that we may bestow this day wholly in thy service, so that all our thoughts, words, and deeds, may redound to the glory of thy name and good example of all men, who seeing our good works, may glorify thee our heavenly Father. And for as much as of thy mere favor and love, thou hast not only created us to thine own similitude and likeness, but also hast chosen us to be heirs with thy dear son Jesus Christ, of that immortal kingdom, which thou preparedst for us before the beginning of the world: we beseech thee to increase our faith and knowledge, and to lighten our hearts with thy holy spirit, that we may in the meantime live in godly conversation and integrity of life, knowing that Idolaters, adulterers, covetous men, contentious persons, drunkards, gluttons and suchlike, shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Part Two of this prayer another day, translating on the fly into modern English is hard!

Dear conservatives, women are not having large families except on the internet per their (fictional?) husbands.

 

Because I am a data fan, I looked into the census data on fertility, especially for white non-Hispanic women, who make up most of your typical pool of conservatives in America.  And what I found is that the data supports my contention that women are simply not having more than four children and most are not having more than three, and this includes women in their 40s, who can be classified as biologically “done” whether they sped the process along with medical interventions or not.  This would include the overwhelming majority of conservative women too.

Either conservative men need to admit how utterly tiny the group is that they are classifying as “conservative” or “traditional” and that this group is simply too small to outbreed anyone via natural increase (the daughters are not replicating their mothers’ fecundity, according to the data as the cohorts move through time) or they need to shut up about how it’s not hard to have seven or ten kids, they know lots of women who do.  It’s called clustering.  It isn’t surprising if all the people with nine kids hang out together at Latin mass or Particular Baptist churches, but statistically speaking, they can’t be doing so at very many such places because there just aren’t enough of them to represent like that.

As of 2014, about 1%, or one women in a hundred is having five or more children, among the white non-Hispanic women aged 15-44.  Among the women who could still pop out a surprise baby or two (women in their 30s and early 40s), the percentage is three women per hundred.  There is nothing wrong with having three or four instead of the mass media-advocated “perfect two”, but out in conservative media, a distinct effort is being made to promote families of 7 kids or more as both normal and common and only marginally more difficult/expensive to raise than smaller families.  There is an assist from conservative men online with mysteriously high amounts of free time and mysteriously high levels of unemployment and underemployment chatting at great length about how easy it is for their wives.

The percentages I’m talking about have remained under five percent for over twenty years now.  In 1970, about one woman (all races) in five had five or more kids.  By 1985 it was less than one woman in ten, and by 1990 it was around one woman in twenty.  And those numbers are for all races of women, the white non-Hispanic numbers were slightly lower at every stage, with the current numbers for all races being about 2% having five or more children.

Babies are great, kids are great, but the function of female humanity is not solely to reproduce until menopause and even if it was, they sure aren’t supposed to do it alone in a tract house in a faceless suburban housing development with no way to get to anything except by car.

One of the biggest pieces of a practical Benedict Option would be some honesty from conservatives, male and female alike, about where exactly people are with the kid-having and why they have given up on large families despite most of the people having kids being people who greatly desire and want children.

ETA 8/10/15: I found an example of the conservative online deceptiveness with the note at the end of this sadly funny post about how silly women are for not having zillions of children with some unemployed Latin Mass LARPer.  I’ll paste the note below if you don’t want to slog through the linked post:

US Census shows 42% of women of childbearing age currently have no children. 22% have two, 17% one, 12% three, and 7% four or more. That means only 1/5 of women today have yet to dodge the ignominy of the Darwin Award. Interestingly, nearly all of the traditional women I know (who eschew divorce, natch) are in that final 7%. Having won the genetic lottery, why go feral? Domesticated animals rarely leave the warm farm if the farmer is feeding and breeding them well.

Setting aside the wonderful way this conservative man refers to Christian wives and mothers, what this guy is doing is combining data that is separated out by the Census.  I combined the data for women having more than five children because the category “7+” is measured in fractions of a percent for nearly all age groups and ethnic groups among women.  And having five or six are combined by the Census people to get that data consistently over 1% for most ages and ethnic groups of women.  The guy, by flinging around “seven percent of women have more than four kids in their lifetimes”, is combining categories in a way designed to over report how frequently women have larger numbers of children.  Four is only being included because without that group, the real math is the following:

All women, 5 or 6 children: 1.6%

All women, 7 or more children: 3/10% (three tenths of a percent).  This of course rounds up to the 2% of all women I am using.

Five percent of all women having exactly four children is very different than what this guy is trying to imply.  It also means that plenty of “traditional” wives and mothers are faithful and behave normally without having large numbers of children.  Not quite what this guy was going for, but the reality on the ground.  Women who are committed to Christ first honor their duties and obligations regardless of whether they have any children, three, five or fifteen.

Liberal feminists and the Manosphere have something in common– maternal misogyny

They get there via different paths, but they end up in the same place, piling on mothers for the crime of wanting to live in an actual community that supports them in the difficult work of raising children.  And if those mothers stay home, well, then the real flames and knives come out from cat lady hordes and the manosphere’s whiny guys demanding a 12 step system to guarantee them a virgin-harlot wife.

https://greatbooksforfeminists.wordpress.com/

This person covers the intersection better than I could, though!

I was partially wrong about conservatives and cheap food.

After more seriously perusing the data, families and especially the kind that are conservative-tending (more than two kids, SAHM, Christian) really are up against it food wise and food isn’t quite as cheap in America as it sometimes seems.  When you have three or five or seven kids slamming into puberty within a year or two of each other, you can suddenly be looking at hundreds a month even if you do skip the meat and try to live on ramen alone.  My mistake was forgetting how little the vast majority of this country earns and I apologize for being so callous. Twenty percent of 40k/yr is nearly 700/month out of gross income.  That is a huge amount to spend when gas costs can be 50/week or more.

So there’s a context for the obsession with cost-reduction in the old food budget and it’s that because I’m surrounded by people with 2-5 kids who make above median income as their norm, I tend to forget in my day to day that this is not the norm for so many others.

Also, low protein diets (which is what much of the frugal/cheap stuff you see online comes out to) make people lethargic and listless, even if there is enough protein to avoid the very bad nutritional deficiency ailment kwashiorkior.  Another unstated assumption in the expectation that a SAHM can wrangle the kids while cooking and cleaning and homeschooling (heh!) all day.  I guess so, if they’re only getting the minimum to avoid the very worst of nutrient deficiencies.  Although how they’d learn all that well is another question entirely and one that is as ever ignored because it wouldn’t fit the narrative that all homeschooled children are above average.