The Father, The Tyrant and The Misguided Woman
March 2017
These days it is not uncommon to hear ambitious politicians, mainstream media prostitutes and false prophets telling us all about the need to protect and augment the "rights" of women in every conceivable environment including the family home. But just how much of the rhetoric actually makes sense?
Take the much promulgated talking point of "violence against women" for instance, and domestic violence in particular.
As we have intimated elsewhere on this website, the fundamental issue in any kind of violence is violence, not violence against any particular group. It does not help in getting to the bottom of a matter to fragment it, for example by making it a gender issue. Actually the real problem with violence is the illegitimate use of force, that is to say, the use of force as a means of securing an unjustifiable advantage, or the use of excessive or inappropriate force. The still broader problem is the tendency to cheat.
(Note that in what follows we will be using the term "illegitimate" in the broader moral sense, not the merely legal one. Note also that "violence" and "force" mean also the threat of same.)
Now even without getting into statistics that some proponents of so-called women's issues might find unsettling, the illegitimate use of force is clearly a problem for both men and women alike all over the world, not to mention boys and girls. I mean, both men and women can be victims, obviously, both inside and out the family home. And both can be perpetrators, even if that means getting someone else to act on one's behalf. The cases need not be extreme ones, yet the fundamental cheating propensity that is the seed of all its manifestations, extreme or otherwise, is always the same.
Indeed, it is only woman's tendency to greater relative physical frailty that makes her more often the victim of illegitimate use of physical force in the home than man, not any greater virtue inherent in her gender overall. Just try to understand this, it is the state of people's hearts and minds that first and foremost defines them. For example, a thief who refrains from stealing simply because he is restrained from doing so is still no less a thief in spirit. Remove the restraint and his actions quickly conform once again to his inner state, at least in so far as he can get away with it.
Older siblings often use force to cheat with their smaller brothers and sisters. And observant parents will tell you that big sisters are no less prone to this fault than their fraternal counterparts, the only difference being that sooner or later, at least as far as her little brothers are concerned, nature has a way of stepping in and turning the table on her.
Consider. Older siblings often use force to cheat with their smaller brothers and sisters. And observant parents will tell you that big sisters are no less prone to this fault than their fraternal counterparts, the only difference being that sooner or later, at least as far as her little brothers are concerned, nature has a way of stepping in and turning the table on her. Otherwise budding young despots of both sexes can be quite happy to continue with their micro-tyrannies unless and until checked by a superior force.
Is such a checking force also necessarily illegitimate?
Of course not. Nobody in their right mind believes that the use of force is always illegitimate. Regrettable yes, but not necessarily illegitimate or immoral. Actually, in some circumstances, when all other possibilities have been exhausted, the use of force can be justified when applied with suitable restraint and at the minimum level required to effect a justifiable result. This is an ineluctable truth, indeed, it is the reason invariably proffered by governments for the existence of state security forces and related expenditure.
In contrast to that however, much of domestic violence has its roots not in the maintenance of proper order, but (presuming we are not dealing with an irredeemable brute) in man's frustration about the conditions of his own enslavement; enslavement to money, to sin, to lies, to false doctrine and to injustice. He lacks the guidance, and thus the will and moral courage, to address the issue where it really lies, that is, in his understanding of reality and his relationship to it, and prefers instead to take it out on those with whom he feels he can do so with relative impunity and without any unwanted disturbance to the value system that is the basis of his enslavement and to which, truth be told, he is fatally attached. Family members can be perceived as part and parcel of the conditions of his plight, which doesn't help, especially if same members exacerbate the situation by being less than sympathetic. Other factors stemming from spiritual deficit, like substance abuse, serve also to fuel violence.
Slave masters are well aware of the tendency in captured men to transfer their frustration inappropriately. In fact they exploit it for their own purposes by diverting attention away from helpful targets towards some suitable straw man or scape goat that can act as a repository for pent up envy and resentment. Ironically some of the men that are deliberately misrepresented in this way so as to serve as convenient targets for misplaced ill-feelings are often precisely the ones who do have the moral courage and good sense to break free from the shackles of sin and error. These men are effectively persecuted for the sins of others. (That is the meaning of the Christian cross, the price a man pays in this world for being an example of freedom to others, a price he is prepared to pay rather than relinquish his treasure.) Thus the tyrant kills two birds with one stone, diverting attention from the real issue and the real enemy while at the same time providing obstacles for those who might pose a threat to the carefully crafted illusions with which control is maintained. He also finds an outlet for his own envious hatred of free men. After all, he too is a slave.
Consider. If those who are most vocal about the issue of domestic violence were truly and intelligently concerned about the welfare of our womenfolk then they would concern themselves with the establishment of social values and mores conducive to sound leadership in family homes, which means proper Christian instruction. That is to say, Gospel instruction, not the counterfeit version based on the doctrines of men, but the kind that sets a man free and makes a real father out of him into the bargain. Instead what we observe is an underlying and relentless movement to replace Father altogether, or at least to make him more or less redundant by various means of psychological castration.
Indeed, there are far too many who would falsely co-opt the issue of domestic violence, among other problems, for use as a vulgar and deceptive means to power, with rhetoric about the rights or welfare of women serving only as a suitably altruistic-sounding cover. Extreme cases of illegitimate use of force in homes are used as emotionally provocative arguments for fundamental changes to who gets recourse to the use of any kind of force in homes, legitimate or otherwise. This is important to understand since the implications of such arguments are rarely fully appreciated by the unwitting public, as many of their chief proponents know only too well.
Traditionally, the decisive authority in a home rested with the father of the house, according to the dictates of natural order, that is to say, God's order. And traditionally the law of the land regarding family, including the laws of divorce, reflected God's order, not disorder concocted by wolves in sheep's clothing. Furthermore God's order requires that a father have qualities like the heavenly Father, noble qualities like justice, wisdom and honour; psychological independence, kindness yet firmness, and objectivity. And also humility, which does not mean false modesty or hypocrisy, but simply the ability to accept the limitations of one's knowledge and position when one ought to so that learning and good works can be facilitated. For noble character we have no better example than the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed to us in His Gospel.
We should perhaps note here that it is not tradition per se that makes anything right, but consistency with God's order. True nobility is ultimately a question of character not blood, though one's breeding and instruction may have a noble effect on character without guaranteeing it. Conservatism for its own sake has no value. To seek to preserve folly is also folly, just as it is folly to consider any kind of change for better or worse "progress" or "progressive". Both conservatism and progressivism are time based notions. The truth about human consciousness and relationship has nothing to do with time.
True nobility is ultimately a question of character not blood .... Conservatism for its own sake has no value. To seek to preserve folly is also folly, just as it is folly to consider any kind of change for better or worse "progress" or "progressive". Both conservatism and progressivism are time based notions. The truth about human consciousness and relationship has nothing to do with time.
In a Christian household a father shares his authority with his wife, whom he cherishes, since they are but one flesh and act accordingly. And in following (with discernment and intelligence) the truth movement of Holy Spirit and the teachings of Jesus about true masculine character, the father avails himself of protection against the subtle deceptions and psychological/psycho-sexual manipulations that are so often the resort of would-be tyrants of both sexes who find themselves unable to count on physical force to get their way.
It is important to know one's enemy. The Tyrant uses violence, sophistry, seduction, blackmail, extortion, bribery, fraud, trickery, false testimony, monopoly, bullying and intimidation, clandestine taxation through inflation, manipulation of currency, marketplace and lexicon, and demagogic diversion to secure his position and those of his agents. At the macro level these agents form a network of lackeys held together by fear, deception and perceived mutual dependence. Contrary to popular misconception the Tyrant does not necessarily seek out the limelight or centre stage in political affairs, a role left better to his agents for the most part, but prefers to remain backstage so to speak, in the shadows, or behind some suitably altruistic mask, wherefrom he can continually adapt his means of coercion to the ability of the masses to see through their misleading appearances. Today we observe a much more psychological, linguistic and subtly deceptive approach to population control and subversion, while the means of violent coercion (which includes financial coercion) have been driven largely under cover, relying on technologies, systems and techniques that enable it to go largely undetected, all the more so in a world that has been made blind to the ultimately spiritual nature of reality and governance.
In fact the alternative, like charity and most other virtues, has its roots in the family home. After all, the only worthy leader of a nation is a father of the nation, that is, the man who loves his people precisely because they are his own, and who is wise and strong enough to lead them for their own good. Such a man would lay down his life for his people if necessary. He is not concerned with merely appearing to do good and competing with other phonies and lackeys on that basis, but with working constructively with others of like capacity and spirit to arrive at policies that truly serve the best interests of his people, mind, body and spirit. Needless to say, he is a rare soul and Heaven sent. He does not conspire with Jewish warmongers or needlessly put his people into tens of billions of pounds of debt to an antichrist superstate. He does what is right and trusts to Providence for the result, even if it does not seem immediately favourable, popular or advantageous to do so. Any other kind of leader is an usurper, an exploiter, a destroyer and a tyrant, or the agent of one, no matter the guise or the democratic pretensions.
Make no mistake, there can be no question of simply doing away altogether with the authority of decisive force at either the micro or macro levels, despite anarchic fantasies to the contrary. Some form of government is needed if for no other reason than to ensure that the post is not filled by monopolistic tyrants equally disposed to operating in the public or the private sector. For example, if I own or otherwise control or influence the operation of a public service or utility then I can control or at least impose on you for my own purposes to the extent that you need the use of my service and there is no viable alternative. It helps also if I don't particularly need your business. The effect is an especially pernicious one when information channels are monopolised by special interest groups, as is now the case with both the mainstream media and key internet services. (For example, Youtube videos and comment sections are now heavily censored, controlled and shilled on key issues, and numbers are doctored.) The question then for those committed to reality is not if we will be governed, but by whom and in what manner.
Unfortunately the great dichotomy between Father and Tyrant is one known to both the noble and wicked alike. Hence the continual war against the Father, and against racial, cultural and spiritual homogeneity, particularly in Christian nations where such fundamental bastions of nationhood are most troublesome and dangerous to the ambitions of megalomaniacs.
The only worthy leader of a nation is a father of the nation, that is, the man who loves his people precisely because they are his own, and who is wise and strong enough to lead them for their own good. He is not concerned with merely appearing to do good and competing with other phonies and lackeys on that basis, but with working constructively with others of like capacity and spirit to arrive at policies that truly serve the best interests of his people, mind, body and spirit.
A critical part of this warfare in recent decades has been the encroachments of an increasingly secular and Godless State on the leadership role in family affairs. This is no mere happenstance. Indeed, for those who would seek to use the State for such a purpose and who have at least until recently controlled much of the means of cultural conditioning and mind control in key nations, the strategy has been a simple one.
Man and Woman are degraded, essentially by the de-christianisation of their values and community. This leads to, among other undesirable outcomes, increased strife in family homes, which in turn provides the pretext for third parties to step in, in one benevolent-seeming guise or another, to usurp the family leadership role for their own foul purposes. In this they have had the co-operation of innately corrupt social "sciences" like psychiatry, the mainstream media of course, the well-paid and suitably indoctrinated psychologists passing themselves off as impartial, disinterested and presumably wise "counsellors" to audiences made captive by law, politics and taxes, and also, critically, the necessary insiders - misguided and unscrupulous women in family homes all too accessible by means of appeals to their own desire for power.
Indeed woman has always been susceptible to manipulation in this way, particularly when she is lacking in wisdom and, perhaps also, when she has, for one reason or another, lacked for the guidance and love of a real father. It is a vicious circle. The childish, quasi-canine compulsion to artificially wrest authority from man that does not rightly and naturally belong to her has been the undoing of many a woman and those that truly love her and would protect her, from time immemorial. The Tempter is always the same, as is his purpose. Those not familiar with the story of Adam and Eve should perhaps read (or re-read) it now, for it is as pertinent to the human condition as it ever was.
To "eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" as referred to in biblical Genesis means simply to replace uncomplicated observation of Reality (God's natural order) as the basis of our understanding of ourselves and relationship, with our own concocted illusions. That is, we assume "knowledge" of what is or isn't of value, or acceptable, according to the whims of our subjective self image (both individual and collective), without reference or deference to our actual condition which for one reason or another we find inconvenient to our sense of personal power. In doing so we "clothe" ourselves in self image and false ideology and, incredibly, become ashamed of reality.
This "shame" can take many forms. When we are teenagers it might manifest as desire to be accepted by fashionable or popular peers, when we are older as conformity to politically correct modes of conduct and discourse. In any case an artificially constructed system of reward and punishment (sexual, political, financial and so on) serves to falsely affirm the seeming validity of our choices. Nevertheless what is actually required by such conformity is a departure from reality, and thus from the deep psychological soundness, bliss and contentment of innocence. And also, critically, attachment and conformity to an artificial value system (reward and punishment) that enables the Tyrant to move in and take over. It is then that toil begins ....
To "eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" as referred to in biblical Genesis means simply to replace uncomplicated observation of Reality (God's natural order) as the basis of our understanding of ourselves and relationship, with our own concocted illusions. That is, we assume "knowledge" of what is and isn't of value, or acceptable, according to the whims of our subjective self image (both individual and collective), without reference or deference to our actual condition which for one reason or another we find inconvenient to our sense of personal power. In so doing we "clothe" ourselves in self image and, incredibly, become ashamed of reality.
There is however a path back to innocence and freedom.
There is toil that further binds us and toil that sets us free. The latter is the sacrifice of understanding. By understanding the way we are deceived we free ourselves forever of its power to bind us.
For example, just try to understand what is really going on with the issue of domestic violence. It is instructive in more ways than one as it serves as a template for the effect of fragmentation of issues in general.
The problem of illegitimate use of force, which is the real issue, is not addressed at all. It simply takes another guise. After all, what difference does it make if it is, for example, the father of the house that is using force inappropriately or if it is legal or government agents that are doing so in the name of somebody else? In fact the former situation is preferable because at least there is the possibility that despite any errors a father may be guilty of, or failings he may have, he ultimately loves his family. There is also the possibility that he may be redeemed, corrected or perfected. Indeed, sometimes the roughest of stones can turn out to be the shiniest of diamonds for those who persevere in relationship and in Christ.
On the other hand there is no possibility of love with the mere hirelings of the State or the legal system. Please understand it is not that the State has no role to play in society, only that to love is beyond the scope of the possible function of any proxy institution. Therefore, if we must be subject to somebody's mistakes might they not as well be those of our own flesh and blood (according to Divine order and therefore Divine oversight)? The question arises even when the State is acting properly and modestly as an arm of the people of God, let alone when the State is a secular one. Or do we believe that the agents of the State do not make mistakes? Or that they are unquestionably qualified to judge what is and what isn't a mistake in a family home? Or that their motives are always pure ones? Or more to the point, that the motives of those who would use State violence to their own advantage are always pure ones?
The truth is that, though not ideal, it is still better to be subject to the errors of those that love us (presuming that they really are errors) than to be subject to the politically correct policies of those for whom we can never be much more than a statistic or a specimen. Because allowing clumsy hirelings of the State to meddle and interfere with what there is of holiness in homes, and to trample on the fragile nuances of trust between family members that defines it, is the surest way to destroy homes and therefore also family, a catastrophe causing not only material wounds which are relatively quick to heal, but the much more deeply rooted, crippling and slow to heal spiritual and psychological wounds affecting both parents and children that experience family breakdown and breach of sacred trust.
This is precisely what we have seen and are still seeing in English speaking countries and those European countries that would blindly imitate them. Marriage and Family and family homes are falling apart, much of it in the name of so-called women's rights or so-called sexual "liberation".
But while it may seem attractive to some women (and presumably not ironic) to have male agents of the State fight their battles for them, effectively using the violence of men against men to gain the upper hand for themselves (precisely the sort of violence-means-power paradigm they are apt to complain about in the first place), one wonders if any of them truly appreciate the full ramifications of such an inversion and travesty of God's order to the welfare of our children and society as a whole, not to mention our happiness. Or if they are capable of understanding that there are far worse things that can befall both a woman and society than domestic violence, as many who have been inter-generationally subject to politically correct, but essentially inhuman cultural conditioning are slowly finding out, a little late for their own thoroughly messed up generations.
While it may seem attractive to some women (and presumably not ironic) to have male agents of the State fight their battles for them, effectively using the violence of men against men to gain the upper hand for themselves (precisely the sort of violence-means-power paradigm they are apt to complain about in the first place), one wonders if any of them truly appreciate the full ramifications of such an inversion and travesty of God's order to the welfare of our children and society as a whole, not to mention our happiness.
Fact is, the so-called rights of women (like those of homosexuals) have long been a favourite cause célèbre of unscrupulous men who understand all too well that giving authority to foolish women and degenerates over men by means of (State) violence, technology and psychological trickery is the surest way to secure power for themselves. After all, a woman unprotected by a Christian father, husband, brother or other male adviser (whom she heeds) is much easier to manipulate and intimidate than a man (or at least a real one). Actually this is due not so much to her relative physical frailty, as is commonly believed, but to her relative incapacity for objectivity and the depth of faith, moral courage and quality of insight and introspection that derives from it.
The trouble is that those who are not naturally endowed with such a capacity have no idea what it is, or that it even exists beyond mere abstraction. It simply isn't in them to perceive. They can, at best, only guess at what it is and believe fallaciously that they know. Critically therefore, they have no real idea what it is they lack or how such a lack renders them incapable of contributing in certain arenas in a way that is truly helpful. Of course this in itself is not necessarily problematic. The problem arises when delusion about one's capacity is coupled with an irrational desire to be assigned tasks for which one is not actually qualified. As would be expected there is little consideration in any of these aspirants for the objective consequences of such an arrangement. The basis of their ambitions is a chiefly subjective one since that is all they are capable of. They are like obstinate children who insist on doing something they are not qualified to do while incapable of understanding why they cannot and should not. What is a father to do? If all else fails, he must step in forcefully before someone gets hurt.
The problem is further compounded when, far from being discouraged, said delusion about capacity is actually bolstered by a consensus of pretenders (in government, academia, the media, the workplace and so on) who have far too much influence and power for anyone's real good, and who have themselves been chosen for their roles on much the same spurious grounds with which they now encourage and employ others. Needless to say the result for nations is as chaotic as it is costly. It is also dangerously debilitating and destabilising, as important functions and key responsibilities are placed increasingly in the hands of those without proper competence, fidelity or character. Of course these are ideal conditions for tyrants.
A woman, especially an eloquent one, can exhibit a superficial semblance of objectivity that, in itself, may seem to the undiscerning to be indicative of a deeper (non-adversarial) source, but it is in fact never innate or proper to her like it is in a Godly man (even a completely inarticulate or illiterate one), despite the apparent requirement in politically correct circles to indulge childish fantasies to the contrary and to the detriment of all. Nor does it need to be, a woman has her own particular qualities that render her suitable for her own God-given role, which is a crucial one. (The war against Mother is a whole other story, God help us.) The difference between a Christian woman and an apostate one is that the latter takes her essentially subjective mind beyond the family home where it is appropriate and helpful, to spheres of influence where it is neither.
As for the degenerate and the faithless, the quintessential stooges of the Enemy, they have forfeited or closed off access to their birthright, presuming they were ever in possession of it in the first place. They can however be suitably trained or otherwise equipped with the political rhetoric, sophistry and black arts with which they impress simpletons and harass the innocent.
Objectivity and Justice are inseparable notions, obviously. There is no such thing as subjective Justice by definition, since Justice, like Science, rests on the principle of equal application to both the particular and the universal. As such, Justice is the foundation of sound leadership and social order and the chief reason that men of faith ought always to occupy positions of leadership in society, including most importantly and fundamentally that of Father in the family home. That does not mean, of course, that he should be a bully or that he should lord it over his wife and children or fail to allow them input into family affairs, but only that he reserves the right to ultimately decide what is best for his own.
Objectivity and Justice are inseparable notions, obviously. There is no such thing as subjective Justice by definition, since Justice, like Science, rests on the principle of equal application to both the particular and the universal. As such, Justice is the foundation of sound leadership and social order and the chief reason that men of faith ought always to occupy positions of leadership in society, including most importantly and fundamentally that of Father in the family home.
Of course there may be extreme cases in which a family member has fallen to the point where it is appropriate for agents of the State (acting on behalf of the people of God) to intervene, but the guiding principle in all cases should be to keep any such intrusions to the absolute minimum. In fact this ought to be the guiding principle for government in any case, for both families and individuals, since it reflects the Divine order in which free will is respected and intervention minimized. Actually, when all is said and done the question is a spiritual one since the need for government is inversely proportional to our capacity to get along righteously without it, and thus tends to zero the nearer we draw in spirit to Christ. Of course, the converse is also true, even unto hell.
This means that in the family home, at least as far as the rest of us can reasonably afford him his natural birthright, only the father of the house (and by extension his wife) should have recourse to the use of decisive force (or its delegation to others) for the maintenance of proper order. And, crucially, that father should be a man of true Christian faith and understanding. A Godless man is after all little better than an animal, and often much worse, while a Godless woman is a disgrace to her people.
The alternative is to hand the rights of the Father over to a secular State and the social engineers and so-called experts that make up its essentially atheistic priesthood. The choice is ours. But before we decide, it may be as well to understand what is actually going on, lest we be deceived by yet another of the devil's pious masks, this time the cynical and vile guise of concern for woman and family.
 Further Reading
"Psychiatry: Science or Fraud?"
"Darwin on Trial: Secular Materialism Under the Microscope"
"The Money Trap: Do I Need to be a Slave to Money?"
(Applying the Scientific Method to the Question of Liberty)
"The Sex Deception: A Young Man's Guide"