… could be to serve as a warning to others.
As Devon Stack learned when he stepped outside his comfort zone to document the wreckage left in the wake of a wasted life.
As with all of Stack’s videos, this one is worth every second of your time:
I’ve seen the MGTOW debate flaring up again in my circles lately. In my estimation, both sides have sober and thoughtful arguments that are honestly directed toward attaining the good–or at least avoiding evil.
On the one hand, we must extend sympathy to young men whose odds of financial and emotional ruin at the hands of feral women in the family courts rest on a coin toss.
On the other hand, Western civilization now stands in a state of war. It is always a culture’s hale young men who are called upon to defend against the barbarian at the gate.
In this case, the barbarians are already inside the gates, and many of them are our own women.
 |
| #DigTheMoat |
Relevant to this issue, the female preference for the Death Cult isn’t as pronounced among married women.
Yes, young men are being asked to jump on a grenade that has a 50/50 chance of being live. Young men have been asked–and expected–to do the same throughout history. Society calls upon men to sacrifice our fortunes and lives because, biologically speaking, we are the expendable sex.
Complaining about that fact won’t change it. That’s why, however pure their intentions, MGTOWs will always be viewed as whiners by society at large.
Now, there’s a big factor in the marriage vs. MGTOW debate that everybody misses. They miss it because it’s a spiritual dimension, and as late Moderns we’ve been conditioned to regard spiritual matters as tertiary concerns at best.
That overlooked dimension is the matter of a man’s vocation to a particular state in life. If your’re working from a default view of man as a bald ape produced by blind chemical processes, marriage doesn’t make much sense. Simply spreading your genes around has never been easier, and you can do it without fear of shame while maintaining your personal autonomy.
And to counter the point implied by the title of Stack’s post, nobody would remember Carl even if he did get married. Having kids just extends the countdown to the day you’re forgotten.
Without looking it up or asking a relative, name your great-grandfather. OK, your great-great grandfather. Your great-great-great grandfather?
Da Vinci never had children. Newton never had children. Christ never had children.
Clearly, that’s hyperbolic, but you get the point. There are other, and sometimes better, ways to establish a legacy than having children.
But again, focusing on worldly benefit misses the point. God has a plan of salvation for every human being, and He wills that each of us adheres to a specific state in life as a part of that plan.
God intends for the vast majority of people to marry, so much so that marriage can be considered the normative state.
A few people are called to the religious life.
Some men are called to the priesthood.
And that’s pretty much it.
At the end of the day, MGTOWs are making the same, “Muh stuff,” argument that dissident atheists make. They want the freedom to enjoy their preferred creature comforts without fear of barbarians pillaging their stuff–via taxes and social decay for the atheist and divorce rape for the MGTOW.
The first question everybody should ask, and the only one that will help you beat the Death Cult, is “What is God’s will for my life?”
If you’re like the vast majority of people, He wants you to get married.
Now, is it possible that God may will someone who’s not under religious vows or holy orders to abstain from marrying. Sure. It’s rare, but it could certainly happen.
One big sign that God may not want you to marry is that you simply have no desire to marry. I’m not talking about cads who just want the milk without paying for the cow. I’m talking about the rare breed of men who aren’t interested in fornication–or any form of sexual immorality, and can get along just fine without female company. Our licit desires and dispositions are good indicators of God’s will for us because He uses them to lead us onto the path He’s set. You might ask, “Why don’t these guys just go be priests?” The reason is that if a man isn’t properly disposed to be a temporal father, he’s not disposed to be a spiritual father.
Rare cases aside, most MGTOWs do have sex drives but have sworn off marriage to avoid getting raked over the coals in divorce court. In the spiritual context, it’s not hard to see that this movement is largely a result of the vocations crisis following Vatican II. A lot of MGTOWs are probably guys with frustrated vocations to the priesthood or religious life.
The point is, you’re never going to find fulfillment by exclusively pursuing your material self-interest. True fulfillment only comes from sacrificing yourself for others.
Meanwhile, a key part of my literary legacy is still on sale for 99 cents!
This is the central issue to many things like MGTOW, the red pill, and mindset movements. It's all viewed specifically through a secular, material lens so that the insights and answers they come to find are only half of the solution. For example, female hypergamy is a real thing, but it only speaks to the fleshly condition of women. There's a whole other realm of the soul that's ignored, often which provides more concrete solutions than the wizardly hand-waving of manipulation over female minds. Until such things are recognize, a lot of these communities are gonna hit a circular wall maze with no exit, if they haven't already.
You're most astute. And yes, they already have. The Manosphere guys are either burning out, fading away, or reaching the next level through faith like Roosh.
Telos is key.
Indubitably.
A couple of thoughts. I do not know my great-great grandfathers name, but I know where my great, great, great, great grandfather was from. And I know all of them existed. I know stories about greats and great-greats; little family legends of their lives and loves. In a small town, one also often knows these little bits of folklore about OTHER greats and great-greats, or where they worked, what they built, etc.
But one also knows their descendants. In a stable community, my great great grandchild might not know my name, but might be good friends with the great-great grandchild of my good friend. And far more of our character is somehow in our genes than we think; a time traveller might very likely know us from our ancestors.
So as well as the spiritual and vocational aspect there's also the fact that family is a physical reality. It isn't just memories. My son will have the crooked smile of a man he doesn't clearly remember, and so on.
It's probably my atomized Amerimutt perspective showing. I'll take more care not to assume my experience is universal.
I think it depends on the families of origin. I can name my great-grandfather on my mother's father's side, but none of that generation on my father's side. I know where my people on my mother's side came from and a bit of where they came through, at least enough to know where I could go to pay my respects at century-old graves.
My memory of my great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers exactly corresponds to who got through the American immigration office and when. I know things about my Ukrainian, Italian and German ancestors who didn't, but heck if I can remember their names.
I think men in the past, even in the early modern period, knew their ancestors better. They didn’t have all of the technological distractions that we have, so family history and stories were used more as both entertainment and as part of one’s patrimony owed to him by his family.
Communists hate history, especially ancestral history. Keeps people tethered to their families rather than atomized ex nihilo worshipers of the State.
I think you're right. There's a lot about my family that I just won't know but for the work my great-great-grandfather did tracing his lineage and recording his research and experiences. I'm also very grateful that folks spend time photographing the graves of complete strangers, so I can back-trace the family that way as well.
Additional thought: "Carls" situation before the end is as bad, in fact probably worse, than it would be even after a BAD divorce… but he has no kids.
You go MGTOW, and it all gets just as bad as the worst possible case- except you don't have family. No kids, no grandkids. I've seen ugly, UGLY divorces with vindictive women. And after a while, the kids get their legal rights, and they LEAVE HER and live with dad.
I can tell you straight up, if I had to go back in time and go through that hell to have my kids exist? I'd do it. I'd be messed up. Broken. But it would be worth it, because the other option is just as bad IN EVERY DETAIL, except without those kids.
MGTOW is the most Satanic lie, because after all you sacrifice, it STILL doesn't pay out, not even in the small, selfish, petty way it promises.
MGTOW is the Devil convincing you to saw your balls off to show how smart you are.
That's a salient observation in light of some MGTOWs' advice that divorced men should deliberately live in penury so as to minimize child support payments.
One more nobody Asked Wreckage:
I have always been far, far too egotistical for something like MGTOW. I have quite intense insecurities and anxieties, yea, even unto a borderline anxiety disorder, but alongside those denigrating voices in my head is one that is totally convinced that of COURSE having tasted the Wreck she'll never go… uh… beck. Stupid, but a gene-line survival trait.
Disagree that most MGTOWs are religious or secular priests untapped. Though since many are nothing but anon names and voices on the internet, I only disagree by personal impression…the worse metric. My take is that ost of these men should be married and raising Godly children, while most of what could have been good priests are married and likely don’t attend Church anymore, because Clown Mass. And now with a pope who openly worshippers idols…
I think there's a lot of sense in the argument that because His Holiness Benedict XVI did not resign the papacy completely, he did not resign it correctly, and therefore did not actually resign it at all. Since there can only be one Pope at a time, Benedict XVI's status as the one and only living Holy Father precludes Cardinal Bergoglio from being Pope now, and indeed from ever having been Pope at all. The person calling himself "Francis" is an anti-pope and a hireling, rather than a true vicar of the Good Shepherd.
MGTOWs' fundamental error is their refusal to deal with reality as it is. If we want to make an impact on the world, we have to face the truth–often hard truths.
The fact is that Benedict abdicated, and Francis is his duly elected successor. We don't have to like his public statements, his personal politics, or him personally, but we'd do well to avoid cope-posting.
A cursory glance at Church history shows that Francis is far from the worst occupant of Peter's throne we've had.
I used to subscribe to this position, but now I'm not sure I can agree.
Barnhardt's argument seems very persuasive to me: by the law a resignation is invalid if based on substantial error, or if initiated due to an unjustly inflicted fear.
Given that the position of "Pope Emeritus" isn't real (she goes into detail as to what Benedict implied he saw the powers and role of this fictional position to be), it seems very likely this was a substantial error. Likewise, there's good reason to believe there was unjustly inflicted political pressure for him to resign. Either of these premises being true would render a resignation invalid, and, at least to me, it seems they both are.
“A cursory glance at Church history shows that Francis is far from the worst occupant of Peter's throne we've had.”
A year ago I would have agreed. Now, I think he has earned the title of worst Pope in history, and he’ll likely keep taking that title to new lows until he converts or dies.
Agree though on the duly elected part. If I have any beef with Vat I, it’s the Ultramontanist-sequel sense about Papal conclaves (and papal documents). The Pope is not elected by the Holy Ghost, he’s elected by fallible, sinful men wearing red.
I seee no good argument thst Francis is not the validly elected pope, including Barnhardt's, which strikes me as most do – as wishful thinking.
But a cursory glance through church histoty does not show us that Francis is far from the worst pope.
Contrary to you, I wish more people would talk publicly about what an unmitigated disaster he is. We are in close to a worst case scenario. Idolotry is being committed in St. Peter's.
John XII kept a harem of concubines in the Vatican Palace.
Alexander VI used the Church as a pawn in his family's political games.
Honorius I may have been an Arian.
It's confounding that the same people who rightly decry the corrupt media's attacks on Trump as fake news rush to swallow their equally skewed reporting on Francis.
I’d take hetero fornication, familial nepotism and closeted heresy over an out and proud Modernist who surrounds himself with poop sex predators, commits material heresy, engages in syncretic ecumenism and attempts to thwart doctrine and praxis. Hence why I pray he converts like that one pope did…Marcellus? The name escapes me at the moment.
And your corrupt news example does not register with me, as NCR is the Catholic CNN equivalent, not Life Site, Card. Viganò, Bsp Schneider, etc.
By all means, keep praying for him. I do every night.
But until he solemnly defines a teaching that contradicts Catholic dogma, I'm gonna trust Jesus and honor His command not to fear.
For those who think it's just wishful thinking, where does barnhardt err? Genuine question, I don't see where she's gone wrong. Bearing in mind that neither popular recognition nor a vote by the Cardinals is sufficient to make one a Pope while the throne of Peter is occupied.
And to Brian, if that did come to pass, would you see him ceasing to be the Pope in that instant, or as that confirming he wasn't Pope all along?
Asking all this in honest good faith, maybe I just don't have a firm enough grasp of canon law. There have been antipopes before, even supported by Saints for a time.
Neither. If a validly elected pope solemnly defined objective error ex cathedra in his capacity as the successor of Peter, it would prove the Church a freakishly long-lived yet simply human institution, Christ's death in vain, and all truth a lie.
But that will not and cannot happen because truth is true, God raised Christ from the dead, and the pope is His vicar on earth, against whom the gates of the netherworld shall never prevail.
I understand not wanting this thread to run for eternity, but yet I still have to ask, why reject Barnhardt's position out of hand? If she were correct then an anti-pope unlawfully attempting to codify error would be entirely consistent with Christ's promise to his Church, his true Vicar being Benedict XVI.
She just posted this, to me it seems fairly clear Benedict envisioned a fundamental change to the nature of the papacy in his resignation to his position as not-the-pope-but-still-kind-of-the-pope. Given that the nature of the papacy is inviolable this seems like clear error: https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/12/05/hey-remember-when-ganswein-doubled-down-on-his-20-may-2016-speech-a-week-later/
I'll have to research this and get back to you.
Brian, Durandel said it best. Francis is an open modernist heretic. An idiolotroud Mass was just said in St. Peter's. Do you really think we're just swallowig this hook, line, sinker.
As foe Barnhardt, I follow canon lawyer Ed Peters. He has been over the arguments against the validity of Francis's ascension and found them worthless. It would be nice if our real Pope was Benedict but things are worse off than that.
("This" being "the media's lies", as in, I'm looking at whst id actually being said and done, not media reporting.)
Every other alleged enormity breathlessly attributed to Francis turned out to be sound and fury ginned up by sensationalist reporting.
>Endorsing homosexuality: Fake news.
>Teaching radical environmentalism: Fake news.
>Changing the Lord's Prayer; Fake news.
etc. etc.
But, past performance is no guarantee of future performance, so I'll look into the current round of charges.
To be honest, though, the refrain of "idolatry _within St. Peter's_" sets off my cynical manipulation alarm. Idolatry is either taking place or not. That it may have happened in St. Peter's is theologically insignificant rhetoric.
But the fact that it happened *in the Vatican* obviously makes a difference. Baptist preachers are heretics, but it's a much, much, much bigger scandal if that baptist preacher is claiming to be a Catholic Priest, to use an analogy. I'm sure people inadvertently commit idolotry without realizing it all over the country, but settuimg up an idol to a pagan goddess on the altar of St. Peter's Basilica while a Mass is being said is so horrifying that John C. Wright recently linked to exorcists begging Catholics engage in prayer and fasting while we plead for mercy. I must confess to not realizing how you don't see the bigger picture here. This is worst case scenario bad; be concerned.
Frankly? The more Iclook upnfor kyself, the more appalled I become, not less, and I hope most Catholics would agree. You included. That Francis is
…notndoing precisely the exact same awfulcthings the mainstream media claims just means the awful things he is doing aren't veing noticed as readily.
Prayer and fasting is the right course of action. Shouting to the internet that the sky is falling is not. Our Lord affirms the former as effectual. The latter is ineffectual at best, gives scandal more than anything else, and hints at an inordinate desire to control what is not within one's purview.
As for why I don't see this as a worst-case scenario, the reason is because it's not. Francis solemnly defining error ex cathedra would be. Setting up an idol on the altar of a Catholic Church is grave idolatry and scandal, but as you suggested it sadly happens every day around the world and has for a long time. Robespierre desecrated Notre Dame's altar with a statue to the goddess of reason. The Church is still here.
The bigger picture is that recent generations of Catholics have been spoiled by a succession of brilliant and holy popes. Guys like JP II, B16, and even John the Good are anomalies in Church history. Add in the American penchant for rabble-rousing, and you get people who should know better playing amateur internet doomsayer.
It's effeminate, it's uncharitable–especially to the legions of young people who are turning to the Church for shelter from the horrors of Clown World–and it's counterproductive.
Francis was sent as a warning to Catholics that we need to clean up our act. The way to stop the clown masses, heresy, and idolatry is to pray, fast, and write to your bishop–or even Francis himself. Complaining online is just onanistic
As for why I don't see this as a worst-case scenario, the reason is because it's not. Francis solemnly defining error ex cathedra would be.
But your "worst case" literally CAN'T happen. As far as things go that *can* happen, yeah, this is pretty close to the worst case scenario.
Robespierre desecrated Notre Dame's altar with a statue to the goddess of reason. The Church is still here.
The Church isn't going anywhere, and Francis is still doing massive harm to the Church every day. Both things can be true. Both are true. If Francis has the same effect on the Church the enlightenment had on Europe – good analogy! We should be extremely concerned.
The modern Church is actively helping in a big way to usher in the horrors of the clown world. No, Christ did not say "onanistically complain online". So don't. But don't gaslight either. We can't even start to solve the issue if we don't acknowledge the extent of it
I did write to Francis, and I suggest you do as well.
Bellomy, could you link to somewhere Peters goes in depth on this? I looked up his blog, but could only find an article mainly addressing supposed issues with the conclave; as to the validity of the resignation, all there was was a link to a first things post which basically said "there aren't two popes, the papacy is indivisible". But of course it is, that's the crux of the argument, if he intended to in some way subdivide the roles or responsibilities of the papacy, then he was in grave error.
And according to Benedict's very close confidant, as well as earlier writings which very much imply he had ideas along these lines, that's what he intended. Again, maybe these circumstances paint a false picture, but that still leaves the problem of resigning due to "unjustly inflicted fear" which seems extremely likely given what we know about not only the politics of the Vatican but just global politics in general.
She very well may be wrong, but I just haven't seen a persuasive refutation of her argument.
I've read Benedict's public statements, if he meant something privately initially he hasn't even slightly publicly. This smells very, very much like laypeople really really wanting something to be true and reading into it what they want to.
But no. We're in much bigger trouble than that.
Thank you for that point. God is perfect in His sovereign providence, as He is in His Love, so stipulating for a moment that the Roman Catholic understanding of the Primacy of Peter, the Apostolic Succession, and the Infallibility of the Church are all correct, and stipulating further than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is no longer Pope Benedict XVI, God must be working in a particularly mysterious way through Pope Francis. God promised us that "He works all things together for the good of those who love Him", but not that it would make sense while that work was in progress.
As a Protestant, I've always understood the Rock on which Christ built His Church to be the confession that Peter made, and not Peter himself, but I am willing to discover I've been wrong about the Primacy of Peter and the Apostolic Succession, as I am willing to reconsider Sola Scriptura, the validity of the Magisterium, and much else I've taken for granted up until now. I've already moved to a church which observes Holy Communion as a Sacrament, rather than an ordinance, which is a major shift for a Baptist coming out of the Reformed tradition.
Praise God for the grace of conversion! All glory to His Name!
My suggestion to help you untangle these ecclesiological conundrums is not to consider that some of your information is false, but to consider that information through a new interpretive key.
A central tenet of Catholic theology is "et, et", i.e. both/and. You'll find many Catholic-Protestant disputes arise from the latter proposing binaries while the former can accommodate a degree of tension. We are dealing with supernatural Mysteries, after all.
On the matter of, "Was Peter or his confession the Rock on which Christ built His Church?" the Catholic answer is "yes".
It was Peter who made the divinely inspired confession which Christ Himself ratified. Note that the question was asked of all the apostles, and Peter answered rightly on their behalf with divine assurance of truth.
The Catholic Church acknowledges Peter's capacity to speak authoritatively and without error when addressing a matter of faith and/or morals as head of the apostolic college. We further affirm that this was not a peculiar power exclusive to Peter's person, but a power inherent in his office which his successors also may exercise.
In this light, there are actually four Rocks, each revealed by one of the four senses of Scripture:
>Literal: Peter is Rock after Christ changes his name.
>Allegorical: Peter's confession is the Rock, in that it confirms the faith gifted to him by the Father for the purpose of leading the Church.
>Moral: Peter's divinely instituted office as head of the Apostolic college and vicar of Christ is the Rock, as attested to by its first incumbent's faith.
>Anagogical: Peter is the Rock against which the gates of hell will not prevail because he holds the keys to the gates of Heaven.
God's purpose in choosing Pope Francis was probably, as at least one bishop has suggested, to show the Church militant on Earth how weak our faith has become.
The Bible shows consistently that God's people tend to get the leaders we deserve.
Glory to God in the Highest.
Thank you very much. I'm going to have to ruminate on that a while.
Baaaa. Baaaa.
Purely out of curiosity, are there lines of succession from the other Apostles, or is the Petrine Office unique in this regard?
The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the successor of St. Andrew. The Coptic Pope of Alexandria is the successor of St. Mark, who, while not one of the Twelve, was an Evangelist and the personal scribe of St. Peter.
Oh, and the Pope of Rome is also the successor of St. Paul.
I feel like a man who's lived his entire life on a second floor veranda, looking around the corner and seeing the rest of the veranda and then a flight of stairs down to the ground floor. Or perhaps I am like a man who's been living on the roof of a church, within sight of the steeple and the Cross, who has looked over the battlements to discover that the roof he calls home is in fact on top of a great Gothic Cathedral.
Stirring metaphors, both!