The Persistence of Names

Hrolf, whose name means wolf, believed in fairness. So did his boat crew. That’s why they were stroking their axes and glaring at the crews of Sven the long bearded and Ivar blood-hair. The plunder of the smoking monastery sat in a small pile between the three groups of men, and each seemed convinced that the others meant to cheat them. No one wanted to make the first move though, as that meant losing valuable men and no sane man wants to take to the sea in a half-crewed boat.

At length Hrolf spoke, “Sven will divide the spoil and put in in three bags. Ivar and I will choose a bag. Since Sven does not know which bag we will choose, he will divide it equally.”

Ambitious Goths were often named Theodoric, which means ruler of the people, and Theodoric was no exception. He watched the Roman army file slowly past the trees where his men were concealed with undisguised contempt. “The Romans drown in laws and schemes,” he thought, “their generals are politicians. But out here, we judge men on merit. We prove ourselves in battle and the best men rise.” He blew his horn and his steppe-warriors launched themselves at the unsuspecting Romans.

Centuries have passed. The name Hrolf became Rolf and eventually Rawls, who wrote about using a veil of ignorance to distribute goods fairly. Theodoric became Dietrich and then Thiel, who preaches meritocracy and funds enterprising men who disrupt the established order with the latest technology.

The Norse-Germanic peoples were not civilized before the arrival of Christianity, but knowledge of God’s law allowed us to impersonate civilized men with exceptional results. But now that most Norse-Germanic people are either unbelievers or antinomian, we’re seeing the instincts of the breed come back to the fore. Breeding tells in humans, just as it does in animals.

What are those instincts? A crude egalitarianism and sense of fairness that allowed hundreds of boat crews to form a great heathen army to plunder Wessex. A fondness for making laws combined with a discomfort at the use of the civil power to punish lawbreakers. A contempt for established social order and a willingness to upset it for a handful of coin.

Why is Sweden the rape capital of Europe? Why does England bristle with both security cameras and crime? Why are ancient communities being flooded with foreigners? What do you expect from Barbarians who have rejected the only civilizing force they have ever known.

The Practical Conservative – Now With 35% More Oppression

I was sitting there, minding my own business when my wife, your hostess here at The Practical Conservative, said to me, “White Oppressor, we need to help people make more babies on the Internet.”

Amusing misunderstandings ensued, but eventually it became clear that she was talking about advocating pro-natalist policies.  This seems like a noble goal, so here I am.  Multiply and replenish the earth y’all.

Reality overtakes fiction, conservative thriller edition

T.W.O and I were working on a trilogy of conservative thrillers planned for release sometime next year.  But they were overtaken by events.  Most of the plot points we painstakingly outlined and developed over a yearish as things that would happen, like, this year happened during the election season instead, rendering the entire enterprise pointless.

We posited a narrow Trump loss radicalizing conservatives into doing something very like wikileaks.  But then wikileaks did it instead.  And also of course Trump won by a landslide.  We also posited various megachurch figures, fictionalized, deciding to go after that audience of alt-right young men starved for father figures.

We even posited what James O’Keefe III does with getting attractive young people to infiltrate left-wing and Democrat groups.

We could probably publish some variation of the original work, but there’d be little point.  It would just seem like a knockoff of current events.  Too bad for us!  Sometimes history is faster on the draw than imagination.

I must sing my joy

T.W.O. works hard to provide a roof and food for us, for our livestock and poultry, and for our household employees.  He even finds the time to lift big and post gains, when not indulging in other bagatelles.

I often feel frustrated, but it’s only because I have to complete the progression from planning 36 hours per day of work to planning merely ten.

I write about problems online because I have the resources, support and love to talk about them and occasionally make it to discussing possible solutions and strategies for coping when solutions aren’t possible or feasible.

I do what women have always done when they have that privilege.  And I rejoice in the fact that I get to be one of those women when my ancestors (of both Nordic and Negro sides, quiet as that’s kept) were often the women providing the means for other women to do so.

A lesson in false humility: Christians are allergic to healthy lifestyles

Another Christian falling prey to the idea that lifestyle-identity is great when it’s also idolatry. Going to a gym is not the only possible healthy lifestyle and the entire concept of healthy lifestyle is consumerist, not Christian. Living a life where physical activity is just part of life is the historical human norm and wealth means most people now have to spend money to live that way. But sneering at them for not adopting that particular mode of consumption (which in the case of this blogger happens to be self-serving “I work in the fitness industry”) is not exactly Christian or loving.

Instead of “working in the fitness industry” helping people near him do more physical activity in their daily lives without going to a gym would be another option. Mostly people have real obstacles to getting more physical activity, like working very long hours and/or care of others and living where it’s very difficult to do much physical stuff outside or inside. This is particularly the case with Christians, who are more likely to be caring for little kids or old people, including the men.

Anyway I reblogged this because it’s an increasingly common knife jabbed in the ribcage of Christians by (usually single, childless, responsibility-free) men. I hope to do a bit more of a post later, we’ll see.

Christianity and masculinity

The idolatry of chasing the perfect body. (h/t Coastal)

As many of you know, I work in the fitness industry. So articles like this amuse me as a Christian. Amuse me a lot. Let’s deconstruct this, shall we?


There is a certain accomplishment in achieving your fitness goals. You’ve been working hard on that fitness program and are finally seeing the fruits of your labor. You also may start to get some attention from others who are also noticing your fitness progress. And you like it. A lot.

In our world of constant social media updates, we often view fitness-related images with arms and legs bared. Skintight clothing. Muscles bulging.

It makes sense to a degree: People are proud of their hard work. With all arguments for modesty set aside, I think that it is crucial to consider, from a biblical perspective, why we post or share these…

View original post 1,232 more words

Warrior babes: Must men lie even about what we find sexually attractive?

Moderate disagreement here on the idea that men don’t want physically robust wives. I don’t know that this fainting dame thing should be taken so far by anyone into traditional living. The sturdy, stocky, physically strong woman is a common enough wife-type throughout history and the idea that those husbands really weren’t sexually attracted to their strong, muscular wives who could toss hay bales and catch stray calves solo is weird.

Men want women who are less masculine than they are, that much is true. But the cute physically frail woman is a luxury good and not exactly a traditionally desired wife-type for the average man.

Warrior-woman, no, that’s taking things too far, men mostly aren’t interested in their own personal shieldmaiden. But the delicate blossom who can’t lift more than a teacup is not exactly what a lot of men want either.

Throne and Altar

Many years back, I came across a show on the TV guide channel called something like “The top ten sexiest women in sci fi”, and I decided to watch it to gain some insight on early twenty-first century cultural…oh hell, you know why I was watching it.  Anyway, “science fiction” was defined broadly to include a bunch of science fiction, fantasy, and superhero TV shows.  (In case you’re wondering, yes, ogling women is a bad thing.  Do as I say, not as I did.)

View original post 542 more words