Unfashionably True.

A series of truths that our masters say must remain in the postmodern cone of silence. Do not be them, and do not be like them.

Thesis one: Fathers matter.

The question was asked to determine whether a person’s religion carried through to the next generation, and if so, why, or if not, why not. The result is dynamite. There is one critical factor. It is overwhelming, and it is this: It is the religious practice of the father of the family that, above all, determines the future attendance at or absence from church of the children.

If both father and mother attend regularly, 33 percent of their children will end up as regular churchgoers, and 41 percent will end up attending irregularly. Only a quarter of their children will end up not practicing at all. If the father is irregular and mother regular, only 3 percent of the children will subsequently become regulars themselves, while a further 59 percent will become irregulars. Thirty-eight percent will be lost.

If the father is non-practicing and mother regular, only 2 percent of children will become regular worshippers, and 37 percent will attend irregularly. Over 60 percent of their children will be lost completely to the church.

Let us look at the figures the other way round. What happens if the father is regular but the mother irregular or non-practicing? Extraordinarily, the percentage of children becoming regular goes up from 33 percent to 38 percent with the irregular mother and to 44 percent with the non-practicing, as if loyalty to father’s commitment grows in proportion to mother’s laxity, indifference, or hostility.

Before mothers despair, there is some consolation for faithful moms. Where the mother is less regular than the father but attends occasionally, her presence ensures that only a quarter of her children will never attend at all.

Even when the father is an irregular attender there are some extraordinary effects. An irregular father and a non-practicing mother will yield 25 percent of their children as regular attenders in their future life and a further 23 percent as irregulars. This is twelve times the yield where the roles are reversed.

Where neither parent practices, to nobody’s very great surprise, only 4 percent of children will become regular attenders and 15 percent irregulars. Eighty percent will be lost to the faith.

It is therefore important that we do not sissify up Church. That we do not make it entirely the work of women. That we do not remove the masculine, so things are neat and pretty. For that will drive men away, and that is a disaster. Secondly, and I am not going to show statistics on this, it matters in this secular life as well.

Basically, anyone who doesn’t have a benevolent, involved father is going to have an enormously difficult time believing that moral boundaries set by an authority are for the benefit of the person who is being bounded. The best way to make moral boundaries stick is to see that they apply to the person making the boundaries as well – and that these moral boundaries are rational, evidentially-grounded and not arbitrary.

Secondly,

the truth is now unacceptable.

We are at the end of the progressive experiment, but not necessarily the West. The two are different. For the progressive experiment falls out of the Whiggish view of history: that we are progressing and that we are wiser and better than our forebears. It conflates techne, craft with sophos, wisdom. The two are not the same. Do not believe the progressives when they call Whiggish history something to deconstruct because of the underlying power balance, for what they accuse their forefathers of doing they do themselves: their parents drank sour wine and they find their teeth on edge.

The idea of progress is Whig History (that is to say The Enlightenment) in action: the absolutely seductive notion is to conflate and confuse technological improvement and advance with a change or improvement in the human nature. This is an entirely new idea: consider any writer before about 1600 writing about the past; he writes as if the past time is no different from the present, as if those now deceased personages are his contemporaries. That is now impossible: I can no more treat Dickens as my contemporary – even though I used to pass his home twice most days – than I could wear Dickensian costumes and not expect to be stared at; I can no longer write music in the manner of Johannes Brahms – though my (Pianoforte) teacher’s teacher’s teacher (may have – the letters have been burned) been his lover – without being a plagiarist and thus placing myself well outside the sphere of musical relevance. In any event Dickens and Brahms are undoubtedly Misogynists as well as being – surely – sexist, racist and Homophobic (obviously Tchaikovsky gets a pass there to be admitted as one of the enlightened ones) and as there is nothing in the world worse than that trio of thought crimes it is clear that we are indeed marching towards a Utopia of Universal brotherhood and love – at least we would were it not (as Dalrock says) for weak men continuing to screw up Feminism. One day in the not too distant future the lion will indeed lie down with the lamb to the zoo keeper’s delight; human nature will be overcome or rather those bad things which have so far prevented universal joy will be eradicated and we will indeed march towards that rainbow world of interchangeable sexual partners, of whatever sex, or race, an entire village (but not single males, obviously) will bring up a child and Happiness will prevail for all; all that is of course except for those recalcitrant individuals (single males again) who will have to be imprisoned or eradicated.

Having said that: material comfort does seem to facilitate political docility, so perhaps with my Occular Rift and a supply of mind-altering drugs in my gated-community Condo I really will act with peace towards all men, not that I will ever see or meet any – even the Alpha males whom I secretly envy – but at least in my Omega Blue-Pill world I will not be a lap-dog Beta Orbiter, that is until one day in a fit if despair I write a Manifesto of my Twisted World, buy three guns and in my black BMW make a video of all the nasty things I want to do to all those people who have ruined my life.

The trouble with this world is threefold: firstly, you cannot keep on spending other peoples’ money indefinitely. You run out, or debase (or do both) and the entire artifice of the progressive redistribution comes crashing down. You may choose not to have a man in your life, and keep the bed to yourself, marrying the state, but when it goes bankrupt you are left with nothing. THis quote is from a country that used to be richer than my own.

For Argentina’s poor, the reality is even starker. Kids busking at red lights or juggling on the metro is common enough. People going through the rubbish (known as ‘cartoneros’) has also become a part of daily life since the country’s own, private financial implosion at the end of 2001.

Statistics published recently suggested poverty figures had crept back up to the levels they were just before the last crisis: i.e. around 11.8 million people (around 32% of the population).

Numbers are easy to ignore though. Less simple to pass over is a news item that I saw in the local La Nacion newspaper today. Apparently, children as young as eight years old are prostituting themselves for food.

The case involves up to 200 children between eight and thirteen years old, who sell themselves for sex in Buenos Aires’ Central Market. In exchange, their clients (other shoppers) provide them with something to eat.

Thirdly, the current ideology of the elite and progressivism has led to a reduction in the proportion of people who have children, and indeed of the number of children per household. Women have been told to get a career — to the point where this is seen as essential, and raising a family as not. The trouble is that these childless or small families will not replace the population, and then you get Japan: an economic declien following lockstep with a demographic implosion.

But do not say this. Do not warn. For if you do, the elite will shun you, and you can kiss goodbye to promotions. This is why Roosh suggests a low profile: being anonymous.

Too late for him, and too late for me. Besides the ruling elite is always something that changes. Do not build on sand, folks. Find rock.