Getting Closer

I found a very perceptive piece from David McGrogan on how the current globalist juggernaut is rooted in dependence.

He refers to Machiavelli’s book The Prince as the first solid glimpse into the very nature of the secular state, something being born at that time. His world was transitioning from Medieval feudalism, with it’s ruling kings holding their domains as personal property given by God, and moving toward an impersonal rule that was wholly rooted in this world.

The key to feudalism was the dire need of individuals to have protection from hostile powers. Some small landholder with very limited defensive resources would submit to a more powerful domain holder to avoid losses from violence. It was a bargain of sorts: Surrender some power and resources to someone who is supposed to care about your welfare, in exchange for avoiding more tragic losses from someone who hates you. The petty noble could always change his mind and choose a better offer. That was the core of what feudalism was.

The state reduces everyone to the status of peasants; there can be no nobility to own defensive means. The state has no need to negotiate feudal loyalty. But the populace could resist and waste resources, so the state had to create the same sense of fear that feudal petty nobles had. However, the state would create a far more overwhelming sense of fear, making everyone totally dependent on the state.

Anything that gives the peasants a sense of control over any portion of their destiny is forbidden by the state. But since this is part of the human psyche, the state must take control over the media, academia and arts to insure that people focus on gaining control of things that don’t matter to the state, things that cannot actually make the populace independent in any way. The key is dependency; everyone must have a sense of need for the state’s protection against threats lurking somewhere “out there”. Thus, we are each compartmentalized, dividing our attention across countless tribal identities, any number of concerns that don’t threaten the control of the state.

McGrogan goes on to point out how the primary justification for the state to exist (raison de e’tat) is extrapolated into an even stronger mandate for global government (raison du monde).

Meanwhile, any tribal identity that actually addresses our needs is condemned and vilified. This would include something like the Red Pill Men’s movement. It’s one thing to have the false chivalry torn down and women taken off the pedestal of false worship; the proximate result is that men could get better at manipulating women to sate their fleshly desires. It worked so well because it’s what women want, whether they consciously know it or not. But when some men of faith began to notice that this lore could help them find a the doorway to rediscover their biblical path of manhood and being a lot less needy of the state and society at large, it came under massive attack. Not least among the attackers were mainstream churches, which have long stood by their bargain with the state.

Biblical headship and patriarchy is a threat to the state (and churches), which in turn threatens the perception of safety everyone draws from the state.

The initial attraction of the Red Pill Men’s lore has faded, as the social context has changed so much that the PUA tricks just don’t work that well any more. The sexual market is so very tight that only a small percentage of men with real talent can pull it off, and they never needed PUA training in the first place. The forums and blogs have closed down, and very few still carry the discussion forward. What keeps these few alive? It’s no longer a question of getting some; it’s a question of being a man as God intended. The motivation has little to do with chasing tail and dominating in the bedroom. What keeps the discussion alive is what it points to: men being men as God intended in all the domains of their lives.

Nor is the answer rebelling against the state, at least not in any obvious way. It’s not about breaking down the state, but living in a different realm that the state cannot touch. The Word calls us to a higher realm. The power of biblical manhood is just how very impractical it can be. It makes no real sense; it won’t work in the flesh. You can’t do it without divine power. The entire gamut of Biblical Law rests on the community of miracles. God’s miracles come with the Covenant, and are generally unavailable without it. The covenant people don’t come together in community because it makes sense. Indeed, you end up being commanded by the Word to love people your flesh would hardly notice in the first place. There is no earthly reason for most communities, but the shared commitment of faith overcomes all of that.

If we propose the standards of Biblical Law for the world, it cannot work for them. Then again, nothing else will, either. Social and political turmoil is built into our human existence. This is a fallen world under Satan’s authority. Obeying the Law superficially will never work. You must first establish the communion between you and God, and then a community with His other children.

McGrogan recommends measures of independence from the state and from the globalist mandate. We are not seeking independence; we are moving our loyalty to Christ in a higher realm. However, neither the state nor the globalist mandate recognizes Him, nor His spiritual realm, as real. To them, it registers as an attack to seek biblical manhood. How you balance it out is between you and the Lord, but we must obey Him at all costs. This is something that justifies study in a community of faith.

As someone else has noted, we have not yet begun to resist sin far enough to shed blood, but we are getting closer.