Saturday, 31 March 2018
Tuesday, 27 March 2018
Childless fathers, and our rejection of the Fatherhood of God
God the Father made the world to be filled with roles that require the exercise of fatherhood. There are to be fathers in families. There are to be fathers in the church. There are to be fathers in the state. People who will take responsibility, sacrificing their own resources and lives, in order to nurture, care for, discipline and instruct those under their care. Daddies, teachers, judges, police officers, ministers, church elders and pastors, etcetera.
We live in a time in which the Western world is in wholesale rebellion against the Fatherhood of God. It hates the very idea. "Patriarchy" (which is to say, the rule of fathers) is a swear-word in all circles that lead our society. Our society rejects the whole concept of the Father's authority, and consequently of the authority of all the little "fathers" in different walks of life.... whilst on the other hand, setting up false authorities, both too-liberal and yet also oppressive fatherhoods which do not nurture and discipline, but promote both wantonness and tyranny at the same time.
It is interesting to note now how many leading politicians in the West are (if not wanton, abandoning their responsibilities as parents) themselves childless. It is wrong to wildly extrapolate from individual cases. But it is absolutely right to observe a general trend and pattern, and notice when it is being manifested.
One of those fathers who is not a father is Emmanuel Macron. There is no wild extrapolation in saying that no man with any real experience of fatherhood and any wisdom taught by it, would have come out with this piece of bilge:
France is to make school compulsory from three years old, President Emmanuel Macron, has announced, insisting that the earlier children are in class, the higher their chances of success and integration in society.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/27/france-make-school-compulsory-age-three/
No sane man who has witnessed three, four and five year olds, and the power and blessing of a present mother and a present father in their lives, could rationally conclude that their best hope in life is to be taken away from the family, and placed in state educational institutions (much less in modern Western ones). The idea that the state should be - on pain of the full force of the law - be the parent of three-year olds, is beyond insane.
“The French Republic was invented in and through schools and it is schools that weave the fabric of our common good,” said Mr Macron, adding that last Friday’s terrorist attack by a French national of Moroccan origin proved there was no point focusing solely on “the symptoms” of a divided society.
Which, being de-weazelised, is to say that if mothers and fathers are allowed to have their children present with them, then this is a gross evil. The atheistic French revolution's goals of complete autonomy from God might be imperilled if parents are allowed to parent, instead of the state taking it over. This alleged "danger", of the strong families, has been identified and attacked by tyrants everywhere.
So, instead of the "evil" of families, the state claims the right to kidnap infants ... for kidnapping remains kidnapping even if an arbitrary number of parliamentarians approve of it and write it down on pieces of parchment, and then lies that all will be well, contrary to all human experience and all scientific study of the value of family life in the early years. To prevent the evils of Jihadist terrorism, they say, all homes must be broken up. Are Jihadists the real enemy, or are homes that remind us in some way of true Fatherhood (and true motherhood)? Look at what laws actually do, not what they are claimed to be an attempt to do. A law requiring the appropriation of all children and breaking up of homes from the age of 3 is not an attack on Jihadists, but an attack on homes, families, mothers and fathers - and on The Father.
Truly, we as a society hate the Fatherhood of the heavenly father, and we hate everything that images it. We do not recognise fatherhood, and when we do recognise it, we wish to be rid of it. Everything that speaks of the created order that came from the Father, and speaks against the all-sufficiency of man and his inventions, must be attacked; the image must be effaced.
However, not everyone welcomed the move.
Sounds promising?
Some parents’ unions who were pushing for an even earlier start to nursery, at two, expressed disappointment.
Oh.
But how does that actually work out, when you leave aside statist ideology, and the purely theoretical (and wrong) ramblings of people who do not understand or appreciate real-world fatherhood? What if we are allowed to do that for a moment?
“Our teachers have a high university level but their training, which is too intellectual, doesn’t always correspondent to the child’s needs,” said Mr Cyrulnik.
Which is to say, in absurdly mild terms, that people who are not family mothers or fathers, are not family mothers or fathers, and that they harm children when they wilfully ignore that fact.
We live in a time in which the Western world is in wholesale rebellion against the Fatherhood of God. It hates the very idea. "Patriarchy" (which is to say, the rule of fathers) is a swear-word in all circles that lead our society. Our society rejects the whole concept of the Father's authority, and consequently of the authority of all the little "fathers" in different walks of life.... whilst on the other hand, setting up false authorities, both too-liberal and yet also oppressive fatherhoods which do not nurture and discipline, but promote both wantonness and tyranny at the same time.
It is interesting to note now how many leading politicians in the West are (if not wanton, abandoning their responsibilities as parents) themselves childless. It is wrong to wildly extrapolate from individual cases. But it is absolutely right to observe a general trend and pattern, and notice when it is being manifested.
One of those fathers who is not a father is Emmanuel Macron. There is no wild extrapolation in saying that no man with any real experience of fatherhood and any wisdom taught by it, would have come out with this piece of bilge:
France is to make school compulsory from three years old, President Emmanuel Macron, has announced, insisting that the earlier children are in class, the higher their chances of success and integration in society.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/27/france-make-school-compulsory-age-three/
No sane man who has witnessed three, four and five year olds, and the power and blessing of a present mother and a present father in their lives, could rationally conclude that their best hope in life is to be taken away from the family, and placed in state educational institutions (much less in modern Western ones). The idea that the state should be - on pain of the full force of the law - be the parent of three-year olds, is beyond insane.
“The French Republic was invented in and through schools and it is schools that weave the fabric of our common good,” said Mr Macron, adding that last Friday’s terrorist attack by a French national of Moroccan origin proved there was no point focusing solely on “the symptoms” of a divided society.
Which, being de-weazelised, is to say that if mothers and fathers are allowed to have their children present with them, then this is a gross evil. The atheistic French revolution's goals of complete autonomy from God might be imperilled if parents are allowed to parent, instead of the state taking it over. This alleged "danger", of the strong families, has been identified and attacked by tyrants everywhere.
So, instead of the "evil" of families, the state claims the right to kidnap infants ... for kidnapping remains kidnapping even if an arbitrary number of parliamentarians approve of it and write it down on pieces of parchment, and then lies that all will be well, contrary to all human experience and all scientific study of the value of family life in the early years. To prevent the evils of Jihadist terrorism, they say, all homes must be broken up. Are Jihadists the real enemy, or are homes that remind us in some way of true Fatherhood (and true motherhood)? Look at what laws actually do, not what they are claimed to be an attempt to do. A law requiring the appropriation of all children and breaking up of homes from the age of 3 is not an attack on Jihadists, but an attack on homes, families, mothers and fathers - and on The Father.
Truly, we as a society hate the Fatherhood of the heavenly father, and we hate everything that images it. We do not recognise fatherhood, and when we do recognise it, we wish to be rid of it. Everything that speaks of the created order that came from the Father, and speaks against the all-sufficiency of man and his inventions, must be attacked; the image must be effaced.
However, not everyone welcomed the move.
Sounds promising?
Some parents’ unions who were pushing for an even earlier start to nursery, at two, expressed disappointment.
Oh.
But how does that actually work out, when you leave aside statist ideology, and the purely theoretical (and wrong) ramblings of people who do not understand or appreciate real-world fatherhood? What if we are allowed to do that for a moment?
“Our teachers have a high university level but their training, which is too intellectual, doesn’t always correspondent to the child’s needs,” said Mr Cyrulnik.
Which is to say, in absurdly mild terms, that people who are not family mothers or fathers, are not family mothers or fathers, and that they harm children when they wilfully ignore that fact.
Thursday, 22 March 2018
The point is corruption
"Jennifer Lawrence wasn't empowered. Jennifer Lawrence was corrupted."
https://warhornmedia.com/2018/03/22/the-point-is-corruption/
Remember: the viewers of these films are the willing accomplices in this corruption of themselves and of others.
Wednesday, 14 March 2018
Saturday, 10 March 2018
In Canada, children were taken away because their parents would not tell them that the Easter Bunny was real
In Canada, a taxpayer-funded body removed children from their foster parents, and banned those parents from any future fostering, because said parents, though happy to buy them Easter costumes and organise a chocolate egg hunt round the house, declined to tell them that the Easter Bunny was real. Yes, really.
This case illustrates well a general principle. When a society dispenses with God's laws, it will inevitably become some sort of tyranny, of one kind or another. When man lies that God is a tyrant and rebels against his rule, man soon shows who the true tyrant is. He becomes the real image of the thing he falsely accused God of being. Man's "niceness" - all those super-qualified middle-class case workers, utterly convinced that they have everybody's best interests at heart - become something to fear, to match anything out of the worst totalitarian dystopia. In what mad world does failing to lie to your children about a fictional rabbit become grounds to have those children taken away? In what mad world is it possible to do such a thing without a court hearing in front of your peers? Answer: In the world in which secular humanism is allowed time and space to consistently work its presuppositions out. The world in which, having shunted God's righteous and unchanging laws aside, we're left to face the arbitrary laws of man.
This case illustrates well a general principle. When a society dispenses with God's laws, it will inevitably become some sort of tyranny, of one kind or another. When man lies that God is a tyrant and rebels against his rule, man soon shows who the true tyrant is. He becomes the real image of the thing he falsely accused God of being. Man's "niceness" - all those super-qualified middle-class case workers, utterly convinced that they have everybody's best interests at heart - become something to fear, to match anything out of the worst totalitarian dystopia. In what mad world does failing to lie to your children about a fictional rabbit become grounds to have those children taken away? In what mad world is it possible to do such a thing without a court hearing in front of your peers? Answer: In the world in which secular humanism is allowed time and space to consistently work its presuppositions out. The world in which, having shunted God's righteous and unchanging laws aside, we're left to face the arbitrary laws of man.
Thursday, 8 March 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
