Instagram story viewer> @pxstmillitant> Tagged
16.1K
followers
1
following
Postmillitant in eXile
Postmillennial. Church Militant.
💪🏼⚔️🐉
be blessed… OR ELSE!
…
backup for @postmillitant
POSTS STORIES REELS TAGGED
“An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men.” — Sir John Glubb, The Fates of Empires

When women and children are in charge, men have failed. The men have not failed to lead, they have failed to lead well. Strictly speaking, God has made men to lead. This is inexorable. Men cannot not lead. So, even where women and children rule the roost, it is the men who led the procession to crown them. Men can lead poorly. They can push women and children out front and into authority, but they cannot remove themselves from their responsibilities.

It is good and godly for a man to put women and children ahead of himself where hot food or escape from danger is considered and bad and wicked when he puts them into positions of ultimate authority and responsibility. 

Women in places of power points to weak men off somewhere else. No man worth his salt would stand idly by. He can’t. So if a man does, it is his vacuum that is filled in. Men can abandon their posts, but they can’t abandon the fact that the post is theirs. 

“In the hive and the ant-hill we see fully realised the two things that some of us most dread for our own species—the dominance of the female and the dominance of the collective.” — C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy

Matriarchy and the hive-mind make the bee’s life a microcosm of what Feminism and Socialism are attempting to accomplish. It is no wonder that men like Barfield and Lewis found this diorama repulsive. Mind you, this was written in 1955. The seed forms of the effeminatti and the cult of the comrade were merely cutting teeth back then. However, if that much can happen in 70 years, it can also happen in the opposite direction, and in less time, no doubt, since sanity has the advantage of steady strides whereas insanity stumbles over itself every other step like a drunk runner-up prom queen missing one of her heels.
16
“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This [Northern conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its ‘bark is worse than its bite,’ and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it ‘in wind.’ and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.” — R.L. Dabney

American conservatism could never be convicted of conviction. There would not be enough evidence to indict. It would never submit itself to martyrdom. It sees compromised survival as superior to principled sacrifice. Living to fight another day is more important than losing a battle. But in the wisdom of God, a principle that dies is more potent than a compromise that lives.
176
back to up