A Trinity of Accomplishment
The production of all things requires three components: the Will, the producing vehicle, and the medium. The Will comes from the masculine principle, the producing comes from the feminine principle, and the medium is substance or matter.
Principles are absolute and complete; they do not contain shadings or degrees. Two and two always totals four, never almost four or roughly four. The acceleration of a falling body due to gravity is 32ft/sec/sec all of the time. A stationary body stays immovable unless a force is applied to it—Always.
In the Universal Principle of Gender there is no such condition of mostly feminine or mostly masculine. The principle at work is purely masculine or purely feminine ?? all of the time. Among humans the degree of pure principle used depends upon the mental and spiritual development of the individual.
Some illustrations of the principle of Gender at work and the resultant manifestation follow:
Masculine Assertive Feminine Receptive Manifestation
anode cathode electricity
sun moon light at night
north pole south pole magnetism
sperm ovum child
farmer earth fruits and vegetables
bull cow milk
force stillness movement
mind law order
goals work accomplishment
In all of the illustrations the acceptance, receptivity, and compliance of the feminine Gender are total and without equivocation. The moon has no choice in reflecting the light of the sun. The ovum has no choice as to which sperm impregnates it. The earth has no choice as to the plants it will grow.
The power of the masculine Gender is also total and unequivocal. The seeds were planted in the earth, the Sun shown on the moon, force was applied to the stationery object. There was no degree of application ?? just application.
The Gender principle is also at work within each person, and each person has access to all the attributes of both Genders. However, the nature of our bodies determines which attributes enable it to best function in harmony.
The body containing the receptive ovum, the nurturing breasts, and the smaller more delicate stature draws unto it the feminine Gender attributes. The body that is broad at the shoulders and more muscular, and that generates what will impregnate the ovum, will draw unto it the masculine Gender attributes. Even though each body has access to all the Gender attributes, those that assist and promote the harmony of the particular body will prevail. A Haitian woman said to me many years ago, “I have the body of a woman, I hope that I have the mind and psyche of one to go along with it.”
To say that the “only” difference between a man and a woman are the organs of sex is akin to saying that the “only” difference between a giraffe and a rabbit is the size of the neck. The difference in the neck size affects the thinking, psyche and activities of these animals. It affects where they eat, how they eat, how they defend themselves, and the color of their skin. Their entire lives are different because of the difference in the size of their necks.
The difference in neck size is not nearly as different as the difference in Gender attributes. As Emmanuel Cellar, former congressman from Brooklyn said many years ago, “There is less difference between a chestnut horse and a horse chestnut, than between a man and a woman.” Congressman Cellar was stating in colloquial terms the Universal Principle of Gender.
We have been taught that the amoeba, that one celled form of life, reproduces itself, a fact that seemingly negates the principle of Gender. At the time that I wrote my book 15 years-ago a notation in a magazine stated that scientists have “discovered” what appears to be Gender in the amoeba. Of course there is Gender in the production of the amoeba. Nothing is produced in our universe without the influence of Gender. It cannot be otherwise.
The masculine Gender wills and the feminine Gender produces. Nothing begins until the masculine Gender Wills it, and nothing is accomplished until the feminine Gender produces it. Working in harmony together through the medium of substance, they create and produce all that is. It can be called a trinity of accomplishment.
Possibly related posts...
I'm also the Chief of Men's Action to Rebuild Society, an organization that not only addresses the issues confronting you, but takes action to resolve these issues. | More from Elder George
Stumble It!
There is such thing as justice and equity, both will be applied at the judgment bar, though we will all be begging for the latter. The masterfulness, and I’d call it the true manliness (“behold the man”) of the Christ and his father is that they are able to extend mercy without robbing justice. I don’t believe in this train analogy; it sounds too much like determinism; and that it’s okay not to be merciful, when mercy is what is necessary, and what makes us human rather than beast, loving, rather than self-centered. Where we all trains capriciously heading in our own direction would anything be accomplished other than creating the sort of society that ushered in the flood? Where every man followed his own imagination and there was a continue scene of bloodshed?
I think the magnificent man is the man who can do both, who can put all things in balance, who extend mercy without robbing justice. Isn’t that what the atonement is. There is a declared by the father of us all, an eternal law, which if violated brings justice, so goes the law of the Harvest, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that he shall also reap.” That law stand, or as Paul asked, “shall mercy rob Justice.” And Christ doesn’t rob it. What he does is tell the creditor, I have the ability to pay for all these infractions, violations, etc.; here’s the cash so to speak, the terms have been met, set the debtee free. To us, then he sets new terms to so enjoy what he has done for us by taking upon him all of our sins, infirmities, etc. in a process we can’t now comprehend, which simply is faith, repentance, baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end in this state of growing grace to grace, of continually repenting, of striving to obtain the heart and mind of Christ; etc., of becoming loving and merciful like them.
Thus Christ did not overthrow the law, he fullfilled it; he is the complete man; one who could throw the money changers out of the temple, and yet mercifully plead for them, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” For somehow, he was able to see into their hearts and minds, especially in Gethsamanee and in that finishing up event on the cross, where he took upon himself everything (one at a time, or all at once, I know not) so that he could be a true advocate, filled not with just sympathy but empathy.
Is this not strength too? Isn’t the test of manhood not to be as the deterministic beasts, but something bigger, better, nobler? Something, for instance, when it sees two laws in conflict, tries to choose the higher of the two. One when it sees a feminist or anyone else living in sin, who chooses to hate the sin, but love the sinner; who thus makes allowance for the weaknesses of men, but not for the sin itself, and where justice is necessary, he applies it with tough love.
And I return again to the change that occurs in men as they grow older, less testosterone, and women, more … Why is that? And I’m asking from the standpoint of faith … of a divine plan. Why is that?
I’m even willing to say … if we had been more tolerant of people (not sin) early on; a much higher percentage of us; then all the feministic, minority, class warfare propaganda would have been less convincing, embraced by far fewer, and something kept on the fringes, if kept at all.
Oh, for the good ole’ days of Byzantine Patriarchy.
No, for the good ol’ days when men knew so strongly that they were men, that they never stooped below a certain level.
Gender balance and gender equality always speaks of making allowances for the weak. But every man who speaks of making allowances for other people, fully expects allowances to be made for him as well! Problem is that the allowances that one person gets away with, will never be as large as the allowances that everyone else claims on him.
Only a strong man, who makes no allowances for neither himself nor anyone else, has the power to tell someone when they’re misbehaving. His integrity alows him to say, “Real men don’t behave that way!” or “A Lady would never stoop to such a level!”
But once you stoop to that level, you lose all of your credibility. And once you lose all of your credibility, you’ll be one of those individuals who ask others to make allowances.
Oh, for the good ol’ days where men were strong enough to neither demand nor extend allowances.
sc567 — It’s not only that Elder applies the Tao to everything, but that he cautions men that they simply must lead with their masculine energy.
The way I see it, every person is like a train. All trains have a series of central cars, an engine in the front which pulls it forward, and a caboose which just sits there. However, most people don’t realize that the caboose is also an engine, but that it lays dormant. (Trains can’t make U-turns, so when a train goes east, it’s east-facing engine does all the work, while the west-facing caboose lies dormant. Then, on the return trip, what was once the caboose is now the engine that pulls the train westward.)
Every person is like a train, because they have a masculine engine pointing one way, and a feminine engine pointing the other. In men, their masculine engine is stronger than their feminine one. While in women, their feminine engine is stronger.
Strong men have made peace with their masculine engine, and are content to let it be the driving force in their lives. No, they aren’t perfect. But they at least have a lot of energy and force with which to accomplish things.
Weak men, however, try to let both engines pull the train at once! They believe so strongly in gender equality and gender balance, that they literally allow themselves to be pulled in two directions. They waste energy. They make less progress. And they get annoyed at the strength and progress made by those who have their engines working best.
That’s why they always ask people to accomodate feminine concerns in everything. Men simply aren’t allowed to talk about men in a way that expresses one engine running the train without interference. But, by accomodating feminine concerns at the expense of pulling smoothly in one direction. nothing can get accomplished.
Mike: EG wrote: “Democracy is the cause of radical feminism. Feminism does not exist anywhere else.”
I’m going to have to agree to some extent with EG on that point. I’m looking back to Plato’s “Republic” on this one, and DeToqueville’s “Democracy in America.” In both of these examples it had to do with the extremes Democracy can go in to, one of them being that phase when there arises a false concept of what equality is, an equality of ends rather than of before the law … when the democratic concept turns socialistic … that is.
That’s why it’s so very useful for us to correct people when they say the American Founders gave us a democracy (something the revisionists came up with), when they in fact called democracy “the worst of all forms of government, and the republic which they gave us, in fact guaranteed “a republican form of government” even on the state levels. In this context the Senate, elected by the state legislatures, was supposed to act as a vital check on democracy and its “leveling” schemes, that were this body ever to be elected directly by the people rather than by the states “immediately schemes for the redistribution of the wealth would arise,” and well, as we have seen, a redistribution of nature’s call.
In both Plato’s and DeToqueville’s work they explain that one of the dangers of this phase is that all respect for authority, for law, for morality is undermined as man becomes more and more obsessed with himself.
DeToqueville explains farther that the very mobility of the democratic society adds to this problem … and then puts focus on the point that democracy deteriorates to the point where the family is destroyed, and belief in God undermined, and because man will have no God but himself, and no higher allegiances, but for himself (and I use man in the collective sense of mankind) that the state, or power-hungry men, takes advantage of this weakness, and in comes tyranny.
Here’s where DeToqueville’s insight becomes vital. He warns, therefore, for a free state to survive, as it becomes more democratic, it must become more religious, for only then where there be glue enough, reverence enough, for people, families, and organizations to uphold the law, uphold the Golden Rule, uphold marriage and so forth.
If this is what EG means, I agree with him. But if he speaks of only the democratic concept, which I believe is natural to man, that of government by consent (though under a complicated Republic as God gave us through the American Founders, with devisions of powers vertically and horizontally, and checks and balances, and limitations of powers, and a bill of rights, and most importantly a restriction of the state against making laws that interfere with freedom of religion, press, and assembly, ( I would say no). I would say it was not free government that did it, but our negligence of the principles we began with, and the intervention of power-hungry men who exploited that negligence.
Or I would add, as Lincoln did, that in our unbroken chain of success we somehow came to believe that we did it ourselves; we have forgotten God, and so we now feel His wrath.
Lincoln was speaking from the perspective that was once believed in this country, that God punishes men for their unrepented of sins in the next life, but nations, which will not continue to exist in the next life, must be punished now. And so the Law of the Harvest as applied to nations stands before us in full force.
I personally believe, as to feminism, there are other forces at play as well, aside from the political (power) ones, and the results of unchecked democracy on morals. I happen to believe that their liberation was divinely appointed and that it was to begin in this nation. I am not talking about in the sense that we see in feminism (that is a diabolical corruption). And that’s what I mean. Every true principle if taken to a hobby horse, or devils extreme can become distorted, misguided, its own worst enemy, the bane of a people. We see it all around us on any other principle, but particularly on this idea of equality, and its companion toleration. What was good can become evil with the slightest alteration.
I remember a prominent Marxist scholar observing that fascism was only free enterprise mixed with force, and so said he, it was its natural, more advanced stage. But this was a lie. Because free enterprise, mixed with the power of the state, or that is, for instance that situation that occurs when capitalists apply to the state for special privileges and protections against their competitors, and succeed at this in altering the law, this is no longer free enterprise.
The line is not blurry, but distinct between fascism and free enterprise, and it only needs to be well understood, and vigilantly guarded, and the line is never crossed, or if ever (such as in protectionism against a foreign enemy) it is made clear that it is only an exception and temporary, but that the general law of “let it be” remains in force.
free enterprise is free enterprise, and fascism is fascism (but one of the states or forms of socialism).
Feminism is the corruption of a true principle, that a woman like man is a precious child of God, and a free agent before Him as well, and ought to be treated as such. But put force into the formula, favoritism, protectionism … some other little alteration, and that which is true becomes ugly, and destructive.
Thus Jefferson would inform us, “a nation which expects to remain ignorant and free expects what never was and never will be.” We need to turn up the heat on educating men and women in true principles, starting in the home, and where possible with precision, and always accompanied by religion and morality (this would be Jeffersonian) as a basic part of that eduction (remember this, “to educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society”) … in this free society … or we can’t win … because our great opponent is doing so … without rest … day and night … and it ain’t in our favor.
At least that’s my op-ed for today.
EG wrote,
Oh, for the good ole’ days of Byzantine Patriarchy.
Briefly, it could be said that Elder George applies the Tao (as in yin/yang) to the male/female relationship and their roles in society, but also to politics and economics (in the book, see a table of contents on http://www.mensaction.net).
Yang/masculine stands for (among others) ’seeding’, in all its symbolic/conceptual meanings (think of leading, abstract thinking),
yin/feminine stands for (among others) ‘providing the egg’, nurturing, producing, being receptive.
The basics are actually very simple when switching on ones allegorical/symbolic/conceptual understanding (the ‘right brain’?).
In harmony, the masculine predominates (but is not exclusive!) in the males, the feminine in the females.
steve..I take what i see here on MND. for face value…E.G’s message is “foreign” to most who grew up in the feminist indoctrination years..post 1950.
julie E.G. is an old man who wouldn’t waste his time researching someones last name..Joyanna like alot of other women under pressure make false accussations, and true to the current form of missplaced chivalry, men went on a lyncheing campaign!!..
Thats the power we have given women in American society!!
100 years ago..It was the black man..now it’s been broadened to all men/fathers/boys…
Scotkirk #76. Hello kindred spirit.
I still haven’t read the book … nor the articles … but this discussion is heavy. 1960’s 70’s, otherwise meaning “deep man,” or something like that. I suppose I need to read EG. Too busy reading Dickens’ “Bleak House,” Emerson (an essay a day keeps lazy thinking away), Constance Hale’s “Sin and Syntax,” and scriptures, news, alerts, and Newsweek … on how to survive a heart attack with the aid of doctor induced hypothermia. Who is EG anyway? I’m serious. Great chat. But I know nothing! I guess I’m blessed with a happy marriage, and no confusion of roles … until I visit a college campus and see what my tax dollars are doing.
Which takes me back to the Eastern Mysticism model of religion and why colleges love them and hate the Christians, you know, no commandments, no fixed God given rights which are superior to the state … combined with an over-reverence for one’s elders (nothing wrong with reverence for ones elders in and of itself), a perfect choice for bullies and tyrants.
Is there a “God is no respecter of persons” law, and “thou shalt have no other God’s before me” commandment? Which translated into “no kings” in America, no all powerful state. Or how about a “Whom shall I fear, God or man?”
I guess that’s kind of the problem. This Eastern approach to religion is legal to promote in the schools, funded on the college campuses, and in at Hollywood … while the other is relegated to outlaw, and Neanderthal Man status … and really which one is more manly? Which has produced liberty?
Nothing against their right to promote their perspective, it just rubs me wrong when it starts being embraced as wow, and could it be because the vacuum is now being filled … the vacuum some of their brethren helped create here?
I’m not taking a stand on something I haven’t read, though I can hear what some of the objectors are saying, and perhaps why they feel protective … because all the protectionism and promotion is for the religious faith of nations accustomed to, and accepting of slavery and tyranny on a grand scale. And there giving us solutions of the sex role crisis … you know, while they accept a one child policy in some of their countries, killing the girls because they want the family name to carry on. The practice is widespread … is their example better?
I have to ask this question: Could it be that it was tyrannical elements within their culture that promoted this mixing up of the sexes … and that they’ve been too week in their faith of right and wrong to oppose it?
I still know nothing … just joining in. Really, so what’s EG’s point? And what is his orientation?
Donnie boy, you are just as irresponsible as SK and MMX in that regard.
Donnie boy, your posts show that you don’t know anything about me at all. You haven’t got a clue where I am coming from so why do you make things up?
When you make false and baseless statements about other people it tells them nothing about the person you are slandering. It does say a lot about you however. None of it is flattering to you.
Hello EG,
Its me Julie from New Zealand. I guess I had more learning to do before I understood where you are coming from fully. I think you are a cool guy. I wish more men were like you.
So, I know that you were prepared to help us over here and that I turned you down because we are a single parent organisation yet we are not ready for you. Not yet, but in time. Please stay FOCUSED.
I have been watching from afar now and then and I think the women who fights you is not aware of the pain that is inflicted from feminism or how important men are. I couldn’t care less if you made a silly little lie or not or if you somehow wasted your time to find out her last name. That is so unimportant to reality it is meager crap. I don’t think you have time for that no more than I do.
I want you to know that we have a movement for men. And that our ordinary men and women support your way of thinking. Men are so important to society and yet our Government and policy makers and all the arseholes whether men or women that have positions in society don’t care.
In NZ 92% of Family Court cases are applications from women.
Stay strong. Our men in society who care are doing just as you. Us women in the same society have to give them the opportunity to be who they are. No ropes to hang themselves from, no pills to overdose themselves with nor gas in their cars to die nor bridges to jump off nor anythings else.
Keep going, EG, You are a good man. And heroes is what we need. Never stop beinga hero. Women love men men like you.
i’ve got it! i am not as educated as some so it takes me longer to figure things out. infidel reminds me of rpr. infidel reminds me of me………when i was 20 years old. all sides of all issues need to be presented. thats a given. its just that i wouldn’t want infidel in my foxhole, thats all.
infidel reminds me of guys we all know who want to be respected by other men, all the while pandering to women so they can get the perks that go along with being “one of the girls”. you know what i am referring to. infidel defers to the women as soon as she walks into the room. he always asks the right questions ( about the kids, the new hairstyle, the up comming vacation ), on and on and on as long as it strokes her ego, he goes along with it. infidel would never react to anti-male comments by women ( unless to support ), for fear it would interfere with his agenda. i’ll stop now. i could go on but whats the use.
Infidel..something smells fishy here with youre posts!!!
why don’t you ever have anything of substance to say???
infidel — “People are criticizing the articles he posted on this site. Get it? If the articles are garbage why should anyone waste his time reading the book?”
For the same reason it’s stupid to leave a baseball game after the first inning!
Article = small, very small piece of the overall message. If you don’t understand it, then the next logical move is…
Book = all of Elder’s major artciles, chronolized as best as possible, so you can understand the message.
That’s why The Objectors are so annoyed! They think it’s possible to use their discomfort / misunderstanding / annoyance with Elder’s articles against people who have read his book.
No matter how many ways your try to spin it, infidel, you haven’t read the book, so you cannot understand the message. All of your counterpoints can be expressed as, “He only thinks that because he hasn’t read the book.”
And since your position is a very very insecure one, you have to play it as loudly, boisterously, and histrioncially as possible: very much how an amateur poker player, with absolutely nothing, makes a tremendous show of his “strength” – so he can disguise his “weakness”.
Elder’s major message is that there is a best, masculine way to do things. If you haven’t done these things, then (1) you cannot possibly lead others, and (2) you cannot be respected by anyone.
Would an exemplary man read a book, so that he could understand it deeply, before he formed his opinion? Or would he race to find the smallest fault in a single article, magnify it until that’s all he can see, and claim he’s found the magic weakness?
Elder wants all men to know what emeplary men do, so that (1) you can become one yourself, and (2) you can justly and righteously hold all the men you encounter to that exemplary man standard.
SK, you are lying again. I do not have a gyno-centric world view. I guess your arguments are so weak you have to defame EG’s critics with lies.
I already told you I don’t want or need feminism.
infidel…It seems to me youre upset over the loss of youre gyno-centric world view!
Were dealing with the reality that if most women disregarded feminism after concludeing that it is destructive..you would be left with whords of men trying to piece the feminist juggernaut back together!!
were dealing with the very posseability that some men need feminism more than women!!
steve farrel…pat buchanans work, and the other book slouching towards gamorah….
youve found a kindred spirit here !!
the west is in a state of internal decay!! and is consuming itself!!
All our resources are feeding the femi-narcissitst,
our society is being thrown into chaos, for our children are growing up without the guidance of a father!!
EG’s motto should be based on his methods of deception. i.e. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.
MMX said: “Speak the truth proudly, and with confidence.”
Yeah right. If you spoke the truth you’d admit EGism has been ripped to shreds.
I don’t think EG’s articles are “garbage” by any stretch. I would call his work poetic. It’s also thought-provoking and challenging. And that’s all good, even if you and I may doubt its viability as an intellectual model for the exploration of gender in the modern world.
MMX said: “People have to read Elder’s book at least twice before they can fairly criticize it.”
MMX, wake up. People are criticizing the articles he posted on this site. Get it? If the articles are garbage why should anyone waste his time reading the book?
MMX said: “Based on Elder’s motto, you can pretty easily sense what’s causing the Objectors so much discomfort.”
What total baloney. Again you impute to other feelings such as ‘discomfort’ and you have no basis for doing so. I have found many flaws in “Elder’s” message that you cann’t refute and that is the truth. No doubt you are the one who is suffering discomfort because you practically worship the guy.
Why would “Edler’s” motto bother me when I didn’t know or care what it is?
MMX, you are just a liar. You are imputing to others all kinds of views they don’t hold. You are really grasping at straws.
About the motto. I was pushing very heavily for, “People have to read Elder’s book at least twice before they can fairly criticize it.” Given that it’s only fair to understand something before criticizing it, I thought that was a good enough motto. It’s fair, exhibits great common sense, and helps moves the comments section along further.
But, alas, my suggestion wasn’t adopted.
Elder mentioned his motto about three articles ago. It has two versions. The first is, “I’m a man; I’m a REAL MAN.” The other is, “Speak the truth proudly, and with confidence.”
I doubt those are clear enough definitions, because they’re not designed to be clear definitions. But they do what they’re designed to do.
***Sunday night sarcasm alert***
Main Entry: mot·to
Pronunciation: ‘mä-(“)tO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mottoes also mottos
Etymology: Italian, from Late Latin muttum grunt, from Latin muttire to mutter
1 : a sentence, phrase, or word inscribed on something as appropriate to or indicative of its character or use
2 : a short expression of a guiding principle
EG has a “motto”?? Well, that’s practically a – *GASP* – definition!
HEAVENS ABOVE! Has the UNSEEN finally prairie-dogged its way into the wide, wide world?
Prey, do tell. What is this “Motto”?
cons – “So what kind of “movement” will sweep through men and motivate them even if unscathed by divorce? I don’t know for sure, but it should be one that is employable immediately, in one’s life, and in their home. It should be affirming. And it shouldn’t rely on a driving forced based solely on grievance.”
Team Hoyt’s message is “YOU CAN!”
Elder’s message is, “I’m a man; I’m a REAL MAN.”
Between those two messages, we’ve got that covered.
(Based on Elder’s motto, you can pretty easily sense what’s causing the Objectors so much discomfort.)
infidel — If you can’t even summarize what Elder’s message has done for me (or cons, or thurston, or Virtue, or scottkirk, or anyone else who has bought his book), then why should we listen to your opinion of his message?
Steve, you made a lot of good points in post 65. Some things you pointed out apply to what I call EGism. If you read the comments on the last few articles of EG you see how EG and his followers promote faith in EG’s Eastern style religion and how their faith is divorced from reason/proof. They even admit they can’t offer proof because according to EG “the truth is within you”.
“The Death of the West” by Pat Buchanan is a vital read on this subject, regardless of whether or not you consider yourself a fan of Pat – his follow on “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America,” is also a must read. Granted, the titles sound “end of the world” – “he does provide solutions, and where he sees a glimmer of hope he mentions is (and I can’t say I’m as negative as he as to the future) but that is not the point. His work is, as it always is, to the point, backed with facts and quotes and penetrating insight, and the issue is vital.
I’m also of the belief, however, that as things get worse, some of the best things can, and I believe in our case, will happen, and are yet to come. As we see in Wars many unexpected heroes step up to the plate, who otherwise were out there quietly minding their own business.
Pat too, will tell us that faith is vital, and that among the solutions needed is a reformation among Christians, for if we haven’t noticed, the Islamic world, for instance, for all its misguided passion, unfortunately, at least they do have passion, and if we don’t rise find passion as well, the evil will overcome the good.
I know he gets into the feminism issue quite solidly, along with our refusal to have kids, etc. in “The Death of the West.”
Going back a little bit a pretty interesting look into feminism on the college campus, and with it, how the university system has turned away from anything “male” including reason itself to accommodate feminism (and the larger agenda of the left) is found in “Slouching Toward Gomorrah.” What is particularly interesting about Bork’s discussion is that he points out how academia first attacked religion/faith/morality by divorcing faith from reason, next by outlawing any chance of their being re-united, and now … taking reason itself out of the equation, and replacing it with guess what? Faith, but not Judeo-Christian faith but a very emotion driven faith similar to what we would find in Nazi Germany, thus Eastern Religion (for examples) is being studied in Psychology departments all over America (some of the Universities setting up major sub-departments) and you’ve got religious sabbaticals, retreats, etc. being paid for by the taxpayers, and more radical feminism and earth worship stuff all becoming legit too … meanwhile dare not the Christian even have a club on campus, or speak out in the school newspaper on this or that … or a Christian oriented prof dare mix his beliefs with into a lecture or private conversation. Feminism, and any of these emotion driven religions become part of an engine for radical political change … the sort that would never succeed if there were appeals to reason, or faith and reason combined, but can succeed when its just emotion.
infidel..thats a very important piece…
west (in general) has gotten so selfish it no longer makes any sacrifice for the next generation…
The birth rates of western nations are no-longer enough to sustain themselves!!
That is historically the point where nations begin to collapse!!
MMX, yes you *are* putting all kinds of words in my mouth. You and other EGists have been doing this all along and imputing to me lot’s of views I don’t believe. It’s dumb. Speak for yourself, not for me.
SK, said: “One of the many nuggets of wisdom in his message is the fact that the west no longer reproduces enough of it’s own to repopulate this itself.”
That is a very old observation. Who needs EG’s confused message to tell them that?
It sounds goofy when I read that there is a coming revolution, armed and all, whereby we take back our republic. Why? Because there is less than 20% of the population that have even a fraction of the knowledge of what is happening and stand even conversationally against it. Those prone to “revolt” need to consider that they are about as likely to get somewhere as the Branch Davidians. How does this relate here?
Men here are of the opinion that something is amiss. I agree. Men realize something must be done about it. I agree. Some see that calling and writing letters to government will yield change. I disagree. Right now it may not seem like it, but outside of here and a few other forums, we MRA’s are an extremely marginalized bunch. Some may even call us kooks because what we see is invisible to most people, men and women alike.
Critical mass is needed, like the waves of calls and letters with the immigration bill. We are so far from that kind of attention it is less then a pipe dream. I don’t discourage those efforts. I send letters as well. But I encourage reality need set in.
So what kind of “movement” will sweep through men and motivate them even if unscathed by divorce? I don’t know for sure, but it should be one that is employable immediately, in one’s life, and in their home. It should be affirming. And it shouldn’t rely on a driving forced based solely on grievance. That is what we are doing now, bitter, complaining, reinforcing one another’s predicaments and how horrible they are.
If anyone honestly believes that’s enough, as therapeutic as it may be, I simply disagree.
I am open for suggestions as to other avenues.
I find it ironic that we celebrate men in super hero costumes climbing bridges and stopping traffic, but we rip holes in and poke fun at a pro-male philosophy. The contrast is cognitive dissonance. Both are good.
All: Here’s how Elder’s message works.
I’ve been talking to this 16 (now 18) year old kid for about eighteen months. He called me last night, because, in his first week of college, he’s having difficulty “clearly defining” (his own words!) his purpose and his life direction.
I told him to watch the Team Hoyt video, while keeping in mind the question, “Would Mr. Hoyt’s accomplishments been as amazing if he had known, the moment his son was born, that everything would turn out the way it did?”
He called me when it was over and said, “No! No way! Because if he had known, then he would’ve been doing it all to influence other people. But instead, he was just doing it all simply because he loves his son. You can tell when he cries at the letters he gets from strangers! He never cared about that, and never wanted them, so they’re always a complete shock to him!”
I then fired, “What kind of people have always demanded a “clear definition” of who you are from you?”
He quickly replied, “The complainers. The looters. The people who simply can’t do it themselves, so they demand that I do it for them.”
So then I asked, “Do you know who George Mallory was?” (Nope.) “He climbed Mt. Everest, and had a very famous reply to why he climbed it at all. Because it’s there.”
It took him a moment, but he deeply laughed and said, “You’re right! I’ve never needed a clear explanation for what I do! Neither did Mr. Hoyt! He just knew that what he wanted to do was right! And that he didn’t need to make other people feel comfortable with what he was doing before he could do it! Instead, he just up and did it!”
That’s how the message works. I’ve just helped an 18 year old learn to silence the Tyrant Mother voices that try to control him. I’ve no idea what he’ll do next, but I know that, whatever it is, will be authentic and masculine – an expression of his independence, creativity, and force of will.
Person-to-person, folks. The theories and definitions aren’t nearly as important as what you do with them. The message is in the application of the message.
infidel – You are putting all kinds of words in my mouth.
No, not really. Just noticing patterns in certain peoples’ behavior.
Elder’s definitions of masculine and feminine put forth “The Rules of Engagement” by modelling the masculine way to do things. When a man knows the Rules of Engagement, he reminds himself that he must never sink to a certain level.
And oddly enough, whether someone likes it or not, if someone asks for a “clear and concise definition” of those rules, it means he doesn’t know them and is using the wrong approach to find them.
Once Elder’s message shows you what masculine strength looks like, you’ll find yourself wishing to be surrounded with only those people who exhibit it. For the rest, there’s absolutely no contempt, nor anger, nor disappointment; but there’s no fellowship neither.
amfortas – “As for suggesting alternatives, why on earth should anyone suggest an alternative to unsupported nonsense when the alternative is in EG’s own hands.”
Because the joy inherent in creating your own alternative is so strong that you won’t need the much weaker drug of tearing someone else’s creation down in order to prop your non-creation up.
infidel… I’ve pondered youre theory of destructive E.G-ism..
One of the many nuggets of wisdom in his message is the fact that the west no longer reproduces enough of it’s own to repopulate this itself..
.Historically that means a nation is dying( from the inside).
If youre so western patriotic…then why are you attacking E.G. when he may be the only source here to state western civilization and its “gender bender” philosophies is destroying itself!!
Steve said: I suspect, when the big picture starts to come into view for all of us, we will all collectively say, “We knew nothing!”
There are all sorts of theories, mostly contradicting each other. Some day science will know more, but if we are using science it will be based on what we know now, not something radically different. In the mean time we must stick to the known facts or we will go on on all kinds of tangents.
The dean of the college I do some work for included in one of his lectures the idea of a common genetic code in the universe. I’m not sure where he got that from … I’m a real novice at most things scientific. I’m pretty sure he was theorizing; though I won’t be surprised if some day we find that it is true; well, at least for this order of Universes … if not for all others. It makes sense to me. Though I can’t say about male and female stars.
Funny though, I met a “mad scientist” once. He was a retired, old, old scientist, and i was a twenty-three year old doing door to door sales. He talked about that sort of stuff. He described the creation of the earth, its first stage being surrounded in water, like unto a birth, and so on, and it’s eventual passing away and then its renewal/resurrection … and the in between stages, telestial, terrestial, and finally celestial.
Nothing about gender, or interplanetary mating, I think … maybe not. It’s been near thirty years. But then there was this experiment he was doing … which I’ll save for another discussion … on his theory of stronger gravitational fields, back when it was all one land mass, prior to the flood, and its affect on growth rates and lifespan. He was so old, he probably died before any of it was published. But his claims were interesting … if only fantastic.
And there was more … Mad? I can’t say. Like Sgt. Schultz, “I know nothing!” But then, I suspect, when the big picture starts to come into view for all of us, we will all collectively say, “We knew nothing!” Or maybe as Malcolm Iam did: “paradigm shift.”
Mike: One last comment for me tonight, I know I’ve said this before, but I am constantly amazed at this website, the thought provoking discussions, the depth of knowledge in the participants, and generally the fairness in debate … though it isn’t always as civil as it ought to be. For those who haven’t mastered that yet, I recommend it; it is a far far better thing than that heat that comes when one is young – that I suppose has its purposes (on the battlefield) but is not always the friend of intellectual and spiritual growth. If being a bit softer and more tolerant (not of sin and error, but of people) is supposedly a feminine attribute (though I think it a Godly attribute), we ought to all strive for it, and MND will be even more stretching to us all.
As to wasting time philosophizing on these things, as someone alluded to, perhaps. But my belief is that the problem with this generation is that too many of us have been trained what to think, rather than how to think. This website of Mike’s, and you gentlemen are helping teach men how to think … and I’m guessing, there are plenty of unseen readers that aren’t debating but coming along for the ride, and maybe when they turn their computer off crack open a dictionary, a Harvard Classic, or the Bible … and maybe even pray for a little bit of help … and maybe, just maybe one of them will blossom, and not only be a thinker, but an action guy.
I know, kind of dreamy stuff, but I’m a dreamer, I admit it.
My question about stars is relevant.
99.8 % of the mass in our solar system is in the sun (according to http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html). If this is true for other solar systems, then a huge proportion of the matter in the universe is in stars.
EG’s article above says everything comes into existence through gender. He uses the tiny amoeba as a (dubious) example but he left out stars and planets which make up most of the universe.
If stars and planets do not come about through gender, how can one claim that gender is the universal principle of the universe that brings all into existence?
Why doesn’t EG just restrict his definition of gender to people? Why bring the whole universe into it? It is not provable, and I don’t see how it helps anything.
Hello Mike: re your # 20. Omega article, now bookmarked. Should be thought provoking. There is a quote in my faith: “The Glory of God is Intelligence, or in other words, light and truth.” I think another way of saying that is “knowledge is power.” But, then again,
“O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.”
Now, I like that. Learning is good, but then comes faith when our so-called learning comes in conflict. Wisdom puts God first (and I’m not saying in some blind way, or in response the commands of a dictator, or a speculation by a church servant who is speaking on issues God has withheld his hand from), but because we’ve learned to trust, and are willing to do so again.
Besides, especially when it comes to man’s “science” there is that “Circles” argument of Emerson’s. Every scientist ought to be required to read this little piece of 19th Century philosophy.
Where am I going with this, I think much of what we perceive to be as miracles from the Almighty, are in a sense miracles (for they are beyond man), but yet they are always performed consistent with the law of Nature and of Nature’s God, laws that we don’t yet comprehend — but more than this, laws to which we may be denied access (in some cases) save they are exercised by those who exercise faith in Christ, virtue, and in certain instance, authority (and yet they still will likely be in ignorance of the law they brought under their control … no need to know?). I am not one of those one’s – nor is my faith – that believes true religion is in contradiction with true science. Emphasis on true in both cases. I would not hesitate to say among God’s many names that he might with accuracy be called “The Great Scientist.”
And though I haven’t read the article, I would be one to say that God can predict cosmic events such as a new star arising on the night Christ was born because he is removed from time, and could see both the birth of the star and its arrival simultaneously (or something incomprehensible to my finite mind like that).
As to gender, since I believe like Socrates in a pre-existence, I believe we brought it with us (and will take it with us after death), and if some environmental thing messes that up a bit, just as one may be predisposed to addiction, we must put that problem on the alter, and obey nonetheless, easy for some, harder for others … but then we all have our various weaknesses don’t we?
As to the virgin birth, I have recently heard about that process sometimes exercise in nature (does God turn a switch), and yet, what of artificial insemination in a more miraculous [higher law] fashion? Christ is supposed to be the literal seed of the father. We are all literally his spiritual offspring, but Christ is the only literal physical offspring of God the Father.
I am speculating now, but even the Adam’s rib thing, always thought to be a metaphor (and maybe it is) is more plausible in this day of DNA replication, and what was this deep sleep (another metaphor possibly), but maybe not. For thousands of years it all sounded like madness. As science moves forward, maybe we need to exercise a little bit more faith in these “stories” and others.
Finally, considering your life = male + female, I wanted to add this quote from Franklin, a favorite of mine, counsel he gives to a loose living young friend of his:
“Marriage is the proper remedy. It is the most natural state of man, and therefore the state in which you are most likely to find solid happiness. Your reasons against entering into it at present appear to me not well founded. The circumstantial advantages you have in view by postponing it are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the thing itself, the being married and settled.
“It is the man and woman united that make the complete human being. Separate, she wants his force of body and strength of reason; he, her softness, sensibility, and acute discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the world. A single man has not nearly the value he would have in that state of union. He is an incomplete animal. He resembles the odd half of a pair of scissors. If you get a prudent, healthy wife, your industry in your profession, with her good economy, will be a fortune sufficient.”
Male without female = an odd half of a pair of scissors.
Female without male = an odd half of a pair of scissors.
Conservativation: was that directed at me? I’ll take that as a compliment … though I claim Christianity as my faith, and its defense (in a general manner, defending the Judeo-Christian foundations of this nation, and the continued need for its influence) has been the task of my writing for nearly 9 years.
Reading and applying books on getting publicity will likely do more for men’s rights than EG’s book. These books were written for people who want to take action (I keep hearing about that). And they are practical in that regard. Here are just a few.
1. Guerrilla publicity.
2. Guerrilla PR, Wired
3. The Publicity Handbook
See your public library for these and many more.