2250. Paradise Crumbles While We Argue


At post 2245 Sir Eric asked me to describe my position on gay marriage, which I condemn as morally, religiously, and politically wrong but those are three different arguments for another time perhaps. When Eric asked, I was reluctant to offer my views; I consider gay marriage more a symptom than social disaster, less impactful than the political poison spread continually across our culture aka eating away the moral fabric of society.

Short History. These principles, practices, and traditions preceded that cultural decay:

  • Our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States, enabled previous Americans over a couple of centuries to morph two male-dominated religions—Christianity and Judaism—into our female-dominated Judeo-Christian culture. The superior female gender was enabled better than ever before to balance and keep the excesses of male dominance under control. The major albeit indirect influence originated and came from wives and ladies.
  • Wifely dominance peaked and faded with loss of mothers’ influence during the cultural and sexual revolutions of the 1960s. Adolescents emerged as rebels, pursued decadent lifestyles, and established societal expectations. Baby boomers took it upon themselves—in harmony with leftist activists—to change the public venue. Each new generation had to exceed the former. Willingly but without knowing, young females gave up their superior ability to balance male dominance. In the process, they also gave up their relationship expertise and empowered men to take charge of relationships for which men are ill-equipped and relationship permanence today reveals their incompetence for it.

Gay marriage is another political activist display of raising ‘victims” as if from ashes, this time the so-called demagoguery of Christianity. Many more than just the LGBT folks, politicized anti-Americans use issues such as gay marriage to keep us busy and not looking at how they destroy the American system without interference by the people. We argue among ourselves while the edifice (world power), structure (representative democracy), and foundation of the greatest nation on earth crumbles beneath our politically impotent anxiety.

Gay marriage is simply another symptom along the road to losing both our culture and sovereign nation. The process is almost complete. We’re already a communist-led, bureaucratic, regulatory, administrative state* where the dominant values, standards, and expectations are political and unfriendly to those outside the political class.

We’ve been moved from a Christian to a leftist secular nation; from a republic toward a totalitarian-capable police-state system; from state and local responsibility to federal control; from economic planning in the marketplace to central planning at federal level; from common decency to immoral focus; from rule of law to rule of man; from individualism to collectivism; from hetero sex as best for raising children to sex for adult pleasure; from two-party to one-party elections; from right granted by God to freedom determined only by central authority; from liberty for all to denial for those who object to excess government power; from personal responsibility to addiction to government gifts; from women as respectable and permanent mates to temporary pleasure playmates; from common sense judgments to political correctness; from cultural evolution by the majority to culture change by parlaying minority unrest; from morality dominated by respectable women to immorality dominated by narcissistic men; from men who respect women to men addicted to porn; from high and free spirit to depression as normal; from women who can capitalize on their relationship expertise to women who must act more like men to succeed as both playmates and in the marketplace.

Our Judeo-Christian heritage once enabled wives to directly dominate cultural values and indirectly dominate social progress. Now, we find ourselves confronted with cultural values, standards, and expectations controlled more by political imperatives such as political correctness and the death of common sense.

Compared to yesteryear, with the smaller number of wives relative to the population, the superior gender is no longer able to balance the dominant one. Women see their opportunities for happiness smashed on the rocks of men intent on conquering as many attractive women as possible and throwing the conquered aside as relationship debris. So many players, so many alpha wannabes, so few reliable men willing to devote themselves to family life, so little mutual respect one gender for the other, so little respect one man for one woman, and so much pleasure generated in response to desire for pleasure more than desire for compatibility, family responsibility, and mutual togetherness/companionship.

Living for pleasure breeds narcissism, which breeds hatred between interest groups, which helps divide neighborhoods and communities from common interest, which further empowers the political class. Our nation has turned this way for one reason crowded with individual rationalizing.

Christians stay home on election day. They find ways to rationalize away their obligation as responsible citizens. They follow their Christian conscience about the immorality of candidates, policies, and current issues. IOW, if candidates won’t live by Christian beliefs the voter has, they are not good enough to deserve the Christian’s vote. The citizen’s responsibility to vote is thus made irrelevant by the Christian conscience.

The symptoms shown above are the direct or indirect result of central planning by those who hate America. Our internal enemies are so far advanced, they ‘own’ the education system at all levels, have co-opted our elected representatives, forfeited legislative responsibility to the executive and judicial branches, and have reshaped the judiciary to favor minority over majority opinion. In turn, the U. S. and other governments are being combined with big business—such as financial and pharmaceutical—as the future for joint global governance.**

By influencing, persuading, and discouraging Christians to not vote, the Christian majority in the U.S. is reduced to a complaining bunch of do-nothings who primarily blame God by waiting for Him to save us. It’s easier to imagine the roar of lions in the coliseum than to hear support of unified Christian civic responsibility from pulpits. Left alone, we can expect Christians to continue to nullify their political influence by finding excuses to not vote. It’s shameful but just another major reason our country goes to hell in a handbasket carried by atheists, secularists, communists, leftists, Marxists, Progressives, liberals, and other opponents of traditional America and American exceptionalism.

——

*If you want to read about newly publicized, unbelievable, freedom-denying burdens foisted on Americans, read Charles Murray’s new book, “By the People.” He describes the regulatory and administrative state. It’s the domineering and bureaucratic government within the federal government, superior to state and local governments, and independent of our elected representatives and most of the judiciary.

**Historical Note. The Soviet Union’s experience taught communists two major lessons. 1) The Soviet form of communism failed because they could not overwhelm the middle class. You will note the middle class is being politically and economically reduced in size, unity, and influence in the U.S. today. 2) Central economic planning does not work. Too much blame attaches to government because planners have too little control and producers have too little authority to provide the desired results. Modern-day communists found a better way. The federal government already recruits big business as the middle man. Government central planners determine the results desired, they tell certain companies to make it so, and the companies shape their policies, production, and distribution to achieve the government goals. Example of central planning today. Requirements are for some number of potatoes, hogs, beeves, and corn to be produced next year. Too many potatoes takes away from corn production. Too many hogs eat up too much corn. Too much beef consumes too much distribution resources (fuel, etc.). The corn for ethanol needs to be doubled. And the marketplace cannot be allowed to make the decisions that balance supply and demand. So, government sets goals for the agriculture and meat processing industries and expects that something close to their plans will be the result. All problems and shortcomings thus become the fault of business and not government bureaucrats are already protected from elected representatives (see asterisk above). See how smart the communists are for dodging the bullets that made a mockery of Soviet central planning? Their game plan is proving to be flawless, two steps forward and one step back until economic control is complete and the future darkens for all of us.

25 Comments

Filed under Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, exes

25 responses to “2250. Paradise Crumbles While We Argue

  1. My Husband's Wife

    Bravo, Sir Guy! Five stars again! Another brilliant piece to share with those near and dear to me. Never has the “problem” identified so precisely that one can only think of how to create solutions to move forward.

  2. Miss Gina

    Very insightful analysis, Sir Guy.

    I believe there is a deep anger and frustration directed at those who were elected to prevent these things…those who made promises when campaigning and then did the opposite. You are so right that too many Christians have sat out elections for too long, and the process has been going on for decades. I personally believe that the supposed “good guys” that did get elected in recent years probably could have prevented much of what has happened the last four years…if they had wanted to. At the very least, they could have greatly slowed it, rather than aiding and abetting it.

    Without discounting the fact that we face many challenges, I believe there is still a bedrock of believers and lovers of the country that is not ready to give up. If a few of us will pray, we are promised a turnaround. Like My Husband’s Wife, I hope for solutions, because we have a great and merciful God who answers prayer. 🙂

    Your Highness Miss Gina,

    Not sure how, when, or from whom I got this, but I believe it.

    God expects us to solve our own problems, so prayer to benefit ourselves directly falls unwelcome on His ears. He doesn’t blame or condemn us, He just doesn’t always answer. (Not unlike a good technique of good mothering.)

    We have no excuse for not taking care of ourselves to the best of our ability; he created us with sufficient skill and talent. To not use it to the best of our ability and advantage means that we expect to depend on Him. And so we turn to Him in prayer. I don’t think He likes to work that way; we trigger His disappointment for us when we don’t use wisely what He gives us at birth. Could that be why many prayers for personal relief so often go unanswered?

    Consequently, a more effective alternative exists. We pray for others to get what they want, need, and deserve with the full belief and expectation that prayers answered for them can dissolve our problems too. IOW, we pray that God helps others first; out of which our benefits come second by not blaming others but by gaining benefits for them through our prayer.

    Guy

    • That Horse Is Dead

      Sir Guy,

      This comment reminds me of the parable of the talents. And that God gifts us all in different ways, yet expects us each to use our gifts to the fullest. I don’t think, however, that God is disappointed in his children for simply asking a request that may be self-centered. After all, he knows our humanity. I do think he can get disappointed **for** us as explained in this article well: http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2013/06/21/does-god-get-disappointed-with-us/. Perhaps, that is what you meant, but I didn’t want people who may be searching for God to feel as if asking the wrong kind of prayer could disappoint Him in any way. I don’t think He’s ever surprised or frustrated by anything that we do.

    • Miss Gina

      Sir Guy, I appreciate your thoughtful reply. My reading of the Bible gives me the understanding that we are never good enough or smart enough to solve every problem we face. I agree that God expects us to obey Him according to the light we have, which would include using what He gave us wisely. However, the repeated stories in the Bible of God miraculously taking care of his people (even when they messed up) have led me to pray for and see many miracles. Of course, holding differing opinions in peace is what America is all about. 🙂

      I’ve read some books about America’s providential history that are based on original letters, accounts, and documents. I found them fascinating. They might be of interest to folks here. Anything written by David Barton or Peter Marshall, Jr., would be well worth the time spent.

      A couple of examples to whet the appetite of anyone with a smidgeon of interest: As an older man, George Washington met an old Indian (I believe a chief) who said he had tried to shoot him with a rifle 17 times in a French and Indian War battle. Washington, then an aide to the British general in command, had taken command after all the British officers had been killed. The Indian finally gave up, declaring the Great Spirit was protecting Washington. Washington had multiple horses shot out from under him and bullet holes in his coat and hat that day, but was not hit. (He was so ill with dysentery that he had ridden to the battle in a wagon.) His mother was known as a strong Christian who prayed much for her son. Washington or a witness wrote of this event as a testimony of God’s protection.

      Another interesting story is about the War of 1812. In 1814, British forces landed near Washington, D.C., routed the defending forces, and burned the Capitol and the White House, forcing President Madison and the Congress to flee for their lives. Severe thunderstorms put out the fire and saved the rest of the city. Given the capture of the American capital city, the British had in effect won the war. Instead of setting up a new government and re-colonizing the U.S (their stated goal), they decided to take nearby Baltimore as revenge and for plunder. This city was well-prepared, but the British were the greatest naval power in the world. After an inconclusive ground battle, British ships bombed the fort that defended Baltimore harbor for 25 hours. There was no question that the British would take the fort. It was just a matter of time. Francis Scott Key and many others were up all night praying for a miracle. By extraordinarily brave effort, the defenders of the fort managed to keep the American flag flying all night. Next morning, the fort erected a huge new flag. Still, nothing was preventing the British from continuing their attack. However, for no apparent reason, the British fleet turned and fled, leaving Washington, D.C., to the Americans again. The British government immediately began negotiations to end the war, though there was a battle at New Orleans in the meantime.

      Before I began to read on this subject, I had a pretty sketchy understanding of these periods and many others in American history, even though I had lots of history in high school and college. Now I know why…they don’t fit the Marxist narrative. If anyone reading this found parts of these little stories hard to follow, then possibly he–like me–has been robbed of his heritage. Marshall’s “The Light And The Glory” is a great place to start, but it’s an addictive hobby!

      Your Highness Miss Gina,
      Amen to David Barton. He’s alive and appears regularly as consultant/advisor/commentator on Glenn Beck’s The Blaze. If you haven’t visited Beck’s TV and radio network, I recommend it. Last count I heard, he has more subscribers paying $5 or $10 a month than CNN has viewers. Growing fast because he’s informative, truthful, loaded with common sense, and not politically correct.
      Guy

      • My Husband's Wife

        Dear Miss Gina,
        I sure enjoyed reading your comment and found it quite educational as I’m trying to “deprogram” myself from the typical Marxist agenda that has infiltrated every aspect of our society. Thanks for taking the time to write such a lengthy and informative statement.

        Your Highness My Husband’s Wife,
        I recommend Glenn Beck’s TV show The Blaze each weekday (5pm ET). Brilliant, truthful, and most worth-your-while talking head on TV.
        Guy

      • jubilee

        DAVE BARTON and WALLBUILDERS also has BOOKS going back to the 1700’s. So, when people tell you that most of the founders were atheists, BARTON has proof they were NOT
        in fact, the 13 colonies/states, were formed to somewhat match Christian denominations….

        Your Highness Jubilee,

        Good points to bring up. Charles Murray’s latest book, “By the People,” details the religious and cultural differences of the early settlers in America. They came from different areas of England and primarily settled in different regions. Four very different cultures, because people in old England weren’t all that physically connected. It started the same way over here.

        • The early Yankees from East Anglia were Puritans and Congregationalist and settled the New England states.

        • Quakers from the North Midlands settled in NJ, DE, PA, and northern MD.

        • “Cavaliers” (as Murray calls them) from southern and western England were Anglican and settled the Tidewater region from MD to SC.

        • Scots-Irish from Scotland, along England’s northern border, and some stopped on the way in Northern Ireland. They were Presbyterian and Calvinist and settled the highlands of VA to GA, initially the backcountry.

        I recommend Murray’s book for all Americans. The subtitle is “Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission.” It’s a tremendous education on who, why, what, and how America has changed so much in the lifetime of even youngsters.

        Guy

  3. surfercajun

    I but wonder if anyone gets elected *by the people* now days… I honestly don’t believe it. But I keep hearing in my head… Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and what is God’s to God….

    God forbid if anyone has an opinion or otherwise on this homo stuff. It’s like you get drown out. Another person defending the poor things. It really is a mark of their religion.

    Yet another mark of a Communist state, a victim nanny country, a power to the prince of the air. It never fails to amaze me on those who are asleep. If anything else, I notice (females) are the ones that have read the Twilight series (or something like it) or watch lots TV. They never seem to watch or read something that helps them grow as a person and notice their head is always in a fantasy land of make believe and seem mostly self serving. (keeping them childish?) Any connection to that I wonder?

    • Eric

      Miss Surfercajun:
      I’ve always thought the culture was headed more like Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ than Orwell’s ‘1984’. In Huxley’s novel, the dystopian regime had banned Unhappiness to make an earthly paradise. They promoted unrestricted free sex, and the government gave away free narcotics and free entertainment TV. They even abolished work and put everyone on welfare: work became ‘community service.’ They also banned jails but ‘rehabilitated the unhappy’ at re-education camps where they were stuffed full of drugs until unable to resist. It sounds about like the kind of world the Left would enjoy.

      • surfercajun

        What you are stating reminds me between the Hunger Games and that one movie with Will Smith and his dog fighting some disease that broke out.

        I hope I can get this right. I don’t know if was something someone had written, if this was drawn from my own imagination, or from what I am seeing. But it is liken when the state would allow one day for everyone to allow their *demon* out for one night a year. Everyone was allowed to rape, kill, do as Crowley stated, “Do as thy wilt” So it is unbelievable to me that when we vote, the party does not matter. They all work for the same sickness of self destruction of this country. It took me a while to wake up, and even more less to even believe, but keeping an open mind when one begins to connect the dots, it stuns me something more sinister is going. OR as I will take a quote from The Thomas Crowning Affair…..(paraphrasing) C. Banning: “Make a bunch of noise over here so they don’t see what is going on over there Oh, that’s brilliant” No, not brilliant. This HAS been going on for some time now. If anything else, when we look to the past we see the future changing right before our eyes. Like the 1963 communist goals are enough to see what is really going on now. When mentioning these goals people look at you funny. Especially what it is recorded and being normalized now. The more I keep reading about the truths of Sir Guy, Mr. H, KQ, and others are saying I more than happily jump on the truth train and build my case from experienced people who have been there, seen it, and show the truth of it documented. When I have tried to share with my own mother she dismisses it. She would always ask me, “Is it in the bible?” I remarked,” There are parts of the bible taken out.” The conversation ends in a stale mate in which I no longer bother. Some will remain asleep no matter what is told or even shown. But that’s ok, I know where my responsibility is so I will continue to join forces and the fight. It is not fighting the right to be right, but the truth to be shown and shared. IT seems to run most people off I have battled with over the net. Truth is hate to those that hate the truth (not sure who said that, but it’s on mark) and quoting the bible comes in awfully handy when they say or think otherwise and tell me they are Christians because then I see their choice is to refuse to believe and deny their faith. It is not unfamiliar for me to hear,” You didn’t win, I am not emailing you any longer.” Win??? I was not setting out to win. I see it as gathering forces for truth. (sigh) But then perhaps I was to plant the seed and someone else will water it while God allows it to grown. :o) But of course we need to continue to pray for each other, bear each others burdens, and continued prayer for our country.

        Your Highness Surfercajun,
        You and Eric make a good team for pulling truth out of the misty clouds that clutter the political landscape. Thanks.
        Guy

      • My Husband's Wife

        I agree wholeheartedly with you both, Eric and Surfercajun! This quote has always haunted me from A Brave New Word’s preface by Huxley:
        “As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends correspondingly to increase. And the dictator will do well to encourage that freedom…it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.” — A Brave New World, Aldus Huxley.
        Forgive me if I’m redundant in writing this quote as I think I’ve mentioned it before on this site. However, even though written in 1932, it completely reflects what is currently happening in our present day life. Interestingly, Huxley was a member of the elite group of globalists, “Committee of 300.”

        Your Highness My Husband’s Wife,
        Great update, darling. Your contributions continue to expand in value.
        Guy

        • surfercajun

          THANK YOU!!! MHW!!!!

          I was going to mention Huxley but I did not want to detail my own thinking… Sometimes I trip quite violently over my own tongue…. ((sigh))

          Sir Guy,
          Your praise made me blush bright red today…… To be paired with Gentleman Eric IS quite a compliment methinks. 🙂

        • Cinnamon

          Does anyone have any thoughts on why Huxley, himself a first-rate Globalist, would so explicitly expose the Globalist agenda?

          Your Highness Cinnamon,

          The Globalist agenda includes this major strategy. Tell the people what is coming, let the protestations fade and die from lack of interest. When the timing is proper, impose the planned change as modified by political reality. Perhaps two steps forward and one step back, but the result advances the Globalist agenda.

          When finally imposed, three major conditions promote success: 1) After much noisy talk and complaining among the people, whatever the threat it seems less so in short order. 2) People quickly grow tired of the subject; they have moved on to something else, which helps minimize threats previously detected. 3) Standard operating procedure claims it to be old news, which excuses the media from participating in whatever objections ensue.

          Examples: transform America; energy bills will skyrocket; redistribute the wealth. Or, TPP will help unify the world without mentioning how big business has joined forces as major player with governments.

          It tracks historically this way. Marxists learned after WW I that Marx was wrong. The workers did not rise up to prevent their governments from waging war. Theorists concluded that to conquer a country, they had to change the culture to one more acceptable of Marxist objectives. Hence, radicals took to U.S. streets in the 1960s only to learn that violence wasn’t the answer. While kids joined them, workers did not rise up to help.

          They learned that rather than tearing down a culture, they had to superimpose a different culture on top of the existing one. So, those radicals—including terrorist bombers—put on suits and ties, joined society as if true Americans, rose in power to head the philanthropic and other institutions (money), higher education (promote ideology), secondary education (indoctrinate children) unions (money) and government (political power) and produced what we see today. Anti-Americanism on the rise with no end in sight.

          Society being what we all do and culture being why we all do it, the Globalist agenda takes advantage of the strategy conceived by four Marxist theorists in the 1920s. Nowadays, all the leftist ideologues—Marxist, communist, fascist, liberal, and others pass themselves off as Progressives—dominate the culture and advance their respective agendas in concert with each other.

          The Soviets learned that the middle class prevented success of communism, which we see being torn down in America. Globalists recognize that superpowers are anathema to both one world governance and one world government. So, we see American power being destroyed and wealth being redistributed around the world.

          Rather than conquering nations, Globalists maneuver financial and business world interests to dominate each government. IOW, redistribute and centralize world economic power in order to take over and dominate political power. Our world she is a-changing in ways we cannot yet conceive. Globalists are not only in charge, they are way ahead of anyone who can slow much less stop them.

          Guy

          • My Husband's Wife

            That’s a really good question, Cinnamon. I wonder too as it’s surreal and doesn’t seem to make sense.

            I’ve thought about it this way: Many psychopaths usually have to tell you what they are doing before they do it or while they are doing it. I believe it’s their arrogance, or that they need that sort of attention for their “brilliant” plan or idea. They also can be “visionaries” on steroids and foresee outcomes WAY down the road. They also are experts at knowing human weakness. So my thinking is that this sort of thing, even the movement, is psychopathic in nature. It’s their way of controlling. Also, I believe that repetition, telling people what they are going to do over an over, gets people used to an idea so that it seem normal and familiar. Hundreds of movies, books now. Hunger Games, anyone? Very similar concepts.

            Apparently, Huxley and Orwell would debate which of their scenarios would come to be in the future, based on psychological and scientific techniques that were currently being developed

            I’d love to hear what other people think about this!

            • Cinnamon

              MHW,

              Do you (or anyone else) know where Orwell (Eric Blair) stood on the political spectrum in comparison to Huxley? He has been one of my heroes since I read “Animal Farm,” and I always pictured him as being anti-totalitarian in every way, and a great defender of individual freedom, but this might be romantic view on my part because I have never actually researched his life.

          • Cinnamon

            Sir Guy and MHW,

            I agree this is how we have got where we are today. As I recently read elsewhere, “The defeat of the United States in ‘World War III’ will be a cultural victory and not a military one.”

            You both appear to be describing the technique of “hiding in plain site” as used by Huxley in advancing the agenda of cultural change. Carroll Quigley, from what I have read of his life (he was a mentor to Bill Clinton), also seemed to view favourably the plans which he exposed. in the non-fiction book “Tragedy and Hope.” By contrast, Robert Hugh Benson, author of the dystopian novel “Lord of the World,” had an entirely different motivation – that of sounding a warning call. I’m not sure where George Orwell stands in all of this (I don’t know enough about his biography). And the makees of the film “Solyent Green” – what were their motivations?

            It is apparent that a similar dystopian vision can be presented by individual authors have entirely different motivations from each other. I’ve studied the topic of cultural change for several years now and I still feel as if I know very, very little of how it works.

            Your Highness Cinnamon,

            You have experienced a thorough study of cultures. Very clear and relevant too. Thanks.

            This is new to me and clears my doubts about what to call it: “The defeat of the United States in ‘World War III’ will be a cultural victory and not a military one.” The author is right too. Thanks.

            Guy

            • Eric

              The first modern dystopian novel was titled ‘Caesar’s Column’ by Ignatius Donnelly and published in 1888. Donnelly was a layman-academic who fascinated with civilization’s decline (he also wrote some theories about Atlantis). It’s worth reading if you can find a copy of it. He set it in 1988 where a son of missionary parents had come to America from remote Africa and found a society dominated by a financial elite who had become an entrenched aristocracy and controlled the populace with remote-controlled spy drones and a militarized police. The opposition was something like the French sans-culottes (or the Ferguson rioters).

      • jubilee

        I had to study this book in 1974, a year right after abortion was called CHOICE.. and glad they taught it.. to show what could happen to the nation and the world if this continued
        and don’t forget
        IT WAS WRITTEN IN 1948–and FREE SEX?
        also BRAVE NEW WORLD is another strong one that should be in schools today

        Your Highness Jubilee,
        Yes, I just bought both for a re-read. Been too many years since first exposure.
        Guy

  4. Meow Meow

    You know Sir Guy I’d never thought when I was growing up that i’d agree with these views, and some of them (I really don’t see gay marriage as a realistic threat to anyone, and i am all for a cleaner, greener environment for future generations to explore along with what laws must be upheld to help it remain so) i still don’t. I am not a Christian myself, (although I am religious) but your article makes it clear how Judeo-Christian values indirectly underly the founding documents and so how even those who are not themselves Christian benefit from Christian principles! When I look around I see this is not the freedom loving country i grew up in where boys weren’t drugged for just being energetic, kids were expected to become independent and riding in the back of a pickup truck wasn’t a criminal offense! Despite a lip service to democratic values it seems to be becoming a corporatized monolithic bloc—there seems to be a wish to control not only everyone but everything—children’s play and innocent remarks, people’s ability to defend themselves, people’s right to make bad choices or not, a “dumbing down” of the cultural landscape, less definition between male/female roles, an attempt to pave everything over and leave no wild places both physically and mentally/emotionally. There are no mom and pop stores, all the music is corporately written, and the idea of a classy, educated American is almost ridiculous! Without the highs and lows of freedom and morality there is only a numbing blandness/boredom to life where people feel like cogs in a giant wheel, or simply left out. Moral questions seem to make others uncomfortable so are simply avoided. In the kids schools I’ve never seen such social control and children are picking up on this and tattling to teachers on their own friends is encouraged. Kids have dreams of becoming fashion designers and billionaires. I wouldn’t call myself conservative (well I might consider if they were more supportive of environmental issues….I grew up in a rural area and visited many natural places and over the years have seen how our environment has been degraded due to several reasons) but I’ve never felt so caught between a rock and a hard place (The government’s endless financial demands for programs and the corporation’s desire to entice every last cent from us.) When I think of democracy, this isn’t what I mean.

    Your Highness MeowMeow,

    Well said, darling.

    Now, if we could just get 100 million wives who believe as you do and they get angry enough, you all could take back our country, restore American exceptionalism, and brighten the future for all females and children.

    I’ve studied and pondered the subject since turn of the century and these are a few of my firmest conclusions.

    1. American exceptionalism arose out of wifely demands placed on husbands at both pillow and table for a higher quality life and brighter future for her and her children.

    2. Restoration of American moral values and standards is beyond the capability of both single women and men. Only wives have the character strength and common interest to recruit husbandly help to beat back the forces of evil now inflicting our country and also pass it on to younger generations.

    3. A woman’s love is far over-estimated as glue for marriage. The urge to be romanced and loved as proof of her value distorts the female mind away from living by her heart, which holds the true glue of lifetime marriage. Neither sex nor her love holds a man. The strongest bond that holds him most securely is her acceptance and dependence on his form of love: mutual loyalty and mutual likeability.

    I submit that wives who recognize and accept point 3 are much better prepared to re-conquer our American heritage in some new form that brightens rather than darkens the future for women and children.

    Guy

    • Meow Meow

      “Living by her heart” as in “living for more than the moment/her immediate desire for importance”? Like living for what we know to be truly important in the scheme of things. it seems like when women uphold the Greater good men are inspired to do and be better. God helps those who help themselves. Interesting that this aspect of glue in marriage has nothing to do with looks but is inspirational in nature!

      (BTW I am trying to apply this to my own marriage, my husband has found work for the first time in many months and is meeting with success on the job!….it is a tough blue collar job and sometimes he complains —I try not to say much about that but just show my appreciation and accept we must live on less —play good defense—-and gradually he is starting to relax and see how much I really mean it, we don’t need a lot of money just enough to get by but I value his work and what we do have together. Although, he has decided he doesn’t like “Just getting by’ and wants to make more progress at work!)

      Thank you so much for the compliment 🙂 and I love your analysis of these tumultuous times Sir Guy!

      Your Highness MeowMeow,

      Congratulations. Blue collar has a lot more going for it later in life than white collar. You sound like a helluva good wife. He married over his head, I suspect. The good men do that and wives turn them into the best husbands.

      Guy

      • SouthernBelle

        Sir Guy
        May you provide more insight, perhaps examples of “Mutual loyalty and mutual likeability.” The words themselves seem straightforward but I have a nagging sense there’s more or different interpretation of this.
        Your insight is much appreciated.

        Your Highness SouthernBelle,

        It applies to any couple. Together they develop a relationship in which they combine and define terms and smoothly integrate their interests to bond themselves together. The results are unique to them; either would give and get much differently with someone else. It’s as if two personalities match and merge perfectly into one with loyalty and likeability as the glue.

        Guy

  5. Eric

    Sir Guy;
    This article has gone viral in the Manosphere. I’d like to hear your opinion on it. It’s frightening to think that American masculinity is caught between the Manosphere and this:

    http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html

    • A.GuyMaligned

      Sir Eric,
      I initially responded and perhaps you read it. On further consideration, I removed it. I didn’t like it. So, let me off the hook on this one. Let others comment if they wish.
      Guy

      • A.GuyMaligned

        Sir Eric,

        I changed my mind again. Here’s my response to the article about husband and wife sexually active with other than their spouse.

        The article is a pitiful reflection on both sexes but not for reasons one might imagine. He cuckolds himself and passively pimps for her. She wipes her behind with masculine dignity. Mutual respect may be faked, but true respect can’t exist in an ‘open’ marriage.

        God, genetics, and hormones energize men to churn society into a froth of sexual activity. The same God but different genetics and hormones energize women as wives to tell and advise husbands what to do to provide a brighter future for the family. The values that guide husbands are formulated, supported, and insisted upon by wives. They are most effective as lobbyists at table and bed and thereby dominate the culture aka why we all do what we do in society. At least that’s the American story before Feminism.

        When there aren’t enough husbands, there aren’t enough wives to guide manly behavior toward doing the right things for a peaceful society for raising children and generating successful families. Overall, morality and religious values and standards decline in influence and single men become the dominating force. They determine, select, and shape values that guide society sans morality and religious influence.

        Thus, men subvert wifely dominance of the culture, which means that morals, religion, and other inspirations to live up to something bigger than oneself die away. Masculine self-centeredness with lack of conscience for living up to womanly expectations manifests as maltreatment of others, especially women and children.

        Feminism seduced women into masculine-style sexual freedom, which now manifests as sex for pleasure, which has reached another step toward sexual narcissism, which is exemplified by the author as both wife and he date and screw others willy-nilly. Sex for pleasure has brought down empires and American women participate out of ignorance, hope for the best, but fail to realize that only they can make a difference.

        When unmarried sex is cheap and easy, men don’t rise out of adolescence regarding females; they remain immature, disrespectful, and opportunistic for female suckers. Masculine-style sexual freedom makes wives unnecessary, which means that the superior gender loses its major source of influence over the behavior of the dominant gender. With extra-marital sex as the most popular avenue of pleasure, womanly influence with men dies even faster than wifely influence. Thus, the value of women—relative to men, that is—deteriorates each time another woman spreads her legs to a man other than husband.

        As for the guy in the story, he’s locked in the feminist dream of matriarchy, aka extreme PW to the point of too stupid to recognize it and much less escape. Watch wife dump him if she finds, recruits, and manipulates another sucker into her game.

        She doesn’t love husband; she loves only herself winning at her game. It takes a lot of self-indoctrination about feminist ideology and self-deception about the male nature for him to brag of such an unnatural life.

        Guy

        • Eric

          Sir Guy:
          I think the husband in the story represents the male nature degenerated one step beyond the immature, disrespectful, and opportunistic stage. Most male feminists I’ve encountered are just like this.

          I’ve been thinking of what you’ve written lately about sexual narcissism as a continuum of sexual anarchism. During the whole homo-marriage debate, I pointed out that society can’t re-define love or marriage without essentially nullifying the very properties in which they consist: common sense, of course, but totally over the heads of people who’ve been taught that narcissism is the highest social goal. You’re correct that whole societies have collapsed because of this.

          The article actually represents the reductio ad absurdum of femihag sexual liberation. Before there was No-Fault Divorce, the wife’s behavior would have been legal grounds for a divorce, and now their husbands praise the same behavior!

          Sir Eric,
          Your last sentence has triggered the article for tomorrow. Thanks.
          Guy

    • MLaRowe

      That article was hugely depressing. In other places Sir Guy talks about martial harmony. I don’t see how there could be in a case like that. I’m not trying to point fingers or make judgement calls but I personally need to be in a relationship that isn’t open. For me there just isn’t an option.

      I know a man whose parents had an “open” marriage in the 1970’s. It was the husband’s idea. The wife went along with it because she wanted to stay married (there were 3 children including my friend). What the man ended up doing was divorcing her and starting another family (after the whole “open” marriage lead to a divorce). There was so much pain involved. The wife never remarried and my friend still carries around a lot of grief from the whole thing.

      I don’t believe in “open” marriage. I see it again as another fad way to live while people search for truth. I also predict it’s demise although it could take another 10 years.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s