Our Present Crisis: Daddy Issues Writ Large

The Social Justice Warriors project their own Daddy issues onto politics, because that is safer than confronting Daddy. It is also safer than confronting their anger at Daddy. And it is easier and safer than doing the hard, scary psychotherapeutic work, and indeed spiritual work – the work of growing up, at last – that is needed if they are to understand their Daddy issues the way that adults understand things, and so lay them at last to rest.

So is it that the Left are stuck in childhood. They cannot reason, but can only emote. Their essential complaint is that of the four year old, disappointed at the exigencies of family life: “It’s not fair!”

We can tell it is Daddy issues that bedevil and urge the Left, because they tell us so: they blame all the defects of life upon old white Christian men, like their fathers, and hate such men.

I wonder if there was something about the men of the Greatest Generation that particularly inclined them to failure as fathers, and so fostered the rebellion and resentment of the Boomers – especially Boomer daughters. Was it WWII? How?

My earliest memories are of a time when the horrors of WWII were only 12 years past. Literally everything of my earliest childhood was colored by that war. Its memory loomed over every tiny mundane thing. Was it that Great War – really only a codicil to WWI, despite its much greater extent, so that the two were one gigantic catastrophe in the history of civilization – that queered the West?

I hope not. I so do.

48 thoughts on “Our Present Crisis: Daddy Issues Writ Large

  1. Pingback: Our Present Crisis: Daddy Issues Writ Large | @the_arv

  2. Pingback: Our Present Crisis: Daddy Issues Writ Large | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  3. Conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza has come in for criticism at times from the alt-right and others – some of it justified, some of it not – but he was on the mark in noting that the “Greatest Generation” had a fatal flaw – it did not know how to reproduce itself. Meaning that the many members of that generation did not succeed in transmitting their values to their offspring.

    How does the old saying go – “Weak men create hard times, hard times create strong men”?

    The hard times of the Great War, then the Great Depression and the Second World War tempered the men and women of those times, but too many of their offspring, born not into hardship but into wealth, prosperity and plenty, did not undergo the character-building experiences of their parents and grandparents.

    The late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s were times of enormous economic growth. If the men of the Greatest Generation were “guilty” of anything, it is in wanting a better economic future for their children than they had experienced in the hard times of the depression. Tough for Dad to discipline the kids properly when he was grinding out long work-weeks down at the plant or traveling to all points of the globe to make that big sale. Mom got left in charge of the kids and had to handle things as best as she knew how.

    Perhaps the other great failing of the Greatest Generation is that parents naively assumed that college would be for their children as it had been for them – if they’d attended college at all, that is. Few Americans suspected the treachery of the academy, many of whose members sought to undermine every traditional value their children had ever learned in the home. It isn’t as if college and university professors advertised their intention to teach their students to hate everything their parents had labored so hard to teach them before attending college. But that’s exactly what happened.

    • Close that comment is. However I believe that the depression left the more telling mark than WWII. These men were born in the time between 1920-30. My own father in ’29. They grew up knowing nothing less than a hard scrabble life before the war was even a glean in Hitler’s eyes. I can remember as a kid my own father having as much fun with the train set he bought me as I did.

      Their failure, if you can call it that, was not to repeat their deprivations on their children.

    • “Grinding long hour work weeks”

      Thats the problem. If a father to make a better life for children do not actually have time to properly mentor them through life might as well flush all his money and time down the drain.

  4. When you are a teenager, Daddy is an asshole. He sets stupid rules and tells you that you can’t have things or do certain things. He even gets physical sometimes to make his point that his way is the way it will be.

    Then you get older and move out of his house and are on your own and over time discover that he wasn’t as big as an asshole as you thought, when compared to other people you have to deal with. And with time one gets to appreciate that even if Daddy was lacking in sophistication in some respects, he still cared about you and was a lot smarter than you gave him credit for.

    Anyway, that is how it is supposed to work.

    Too bad some people never grow up and they get coddled well into their adult life.

    Or they get jobs or get benefits without having to work that allow them to continue to live in fantasy land.

    My guess as to what happened: The men of World War Two were hard men. They had to be to survive. And some of them came back with what we would now call PTSD. They tried to raise their children right, but they were undercut by society at large (the sixties free love sex drugs and rock and roll) and feminism (women’s liberation) that said they were wrong and that they didn’t have authority and they didn’t matter except to go to work and earn a paycheck.

    It’s not daddy’s fault. Daddy wasn’t perfect, but he was insulted, disrespected, undercut and sabotaged.

    Well, maybe one day a future generation will have to go through the fire, and the people that emerge from the other side of that will be hardened.

    People argue about the source of this, but I think the pattern applies over generations:
    From bondage -> to faith -> to courage -> to liberty-> to abundance -> to complacency -> to dependence; and finally -> back into bondage.

  5. They made the mistake of giving young women the freedom they demanded. Women are submissive creatures and expect to have a dominating presence in their life. When that domination is absent, young women feel abandoned and resent their father for not putting them in their place. Women will rant and rave that they want “freedom” and “equality,” but the second you give it to them, they hate you for being weak and abandoning them.

    It’s a good thing they’re cute…

  6. Pingback: Our Present Crisis: Daddy Issues Writ Large | Reaction Times

  7. “doing the hard, scary psychotherapeutic work”

    Yikes! – I can hardly believe you wrote that phrase on the Orthosphere! Surely professional psychotherapy – in the form of psychoanalysis (excluding of God, implicit mocking of all higher values as ‘sublimation’) – was one of the prime agents/ indicators of the trend you describe. Its domination of US intellectual and ruling class life from the middle 20th century was extraordinary to any normal Brit.

    Psychotherapy is also therapeutically ineffective – or, more precisely, harms more people than it helps.

    • If I had meant psychoanalysis, that’s what I would have written.

      Psychotherapy is no longer only what it was in 1950. Viz., cognitive therapy and DBT. Nor does the focus of the latter sort of therapeutic praxis upon ill patterns of thought at all contravene the supernatural – which is to say, the natural. I know a professional psychologist and psychotherapist who understands his psychotherapeutic practice as spiritual direction, who is himself a mystic, and who talks freely of the influence of the demonic. Because why? Because he is a devout Catholic who regularly assists at exorcisms.

      The notion that science is at odds with religion is a ruse of the devil. The fog of intellectual confusion that enables such a notion to take root and flourish in the minds of men is the work of the Father of Lies.

      The Therapeutae were Essene monastics of Egypt, who formed an early salient of the Church. They were so called because they practiced the healing arts.

      • @Kristor – But ‘Daddy issues’ and ‘acting-out’ are themselves concepts derived from Freudian psychoanalysis – and psychoanalysis has nothing to do with science (except in aspiration, perhaps).

        Examples of individual effective psychotherapists don’t justify the phoniness of the profession.

        Cognitive/ Behavioural therapy is a different thing from the many and current analysis-descended forms of counselling; derived from a different source (ie from the theories behavioural and cognitive psychology).

      • I don’t disagree with you about psychoanalysis. But, from the falsity of Freud’s theories about what he discovered in his clinical experience, and from the fact that the therapeutic strategies and tactics he founded upon those inept theories are themselves inept, and do not therefore work, it does not follow that his clinical discoveries are entirely wrong, and ought to be abjured altogether and absolutely. There is a reason that so many of the terms he introduced to the lexicon – neurosis, unconscious, ego, id, and so forth – stuck. The reason is that with a fair precision they economically denoted phenomena that were for long widely suffered by ordinary people, if not much by them noticed. “Daddy issues” were not novel with Freud or any of his acolytes. They form much of the matter of King Lear. Indeed many of the phenomena Freud identified appear prominently in ancient Greek tragedy, and in the Bible.

        Likewise with Jung’s Shadow, and his naming of the phenomenon of psychological projection. These terms persist because they are useful in coping with reality, even for those who have no knowledge of psychoanalysis.

        Aristotle, too, after all, got a lot of stuff wrong in his scientific work. From that fact, it does not follow that he got everything wrong, or that we should altogether abjure him and all his works.

  8. As you say, everything in the childhood of a boomer was colored by the Second World War. Actually, I would say by the mythology of that war, since the propaganda did not end with surrender. This is evident in the phrase “Greatest Generation.” I don’t know if Brokaw coined the phrase, but it is appropriate, although not perhaps in the way Brokaw intended. Our age began with the myth of the Greatest Generation–our true founding fathers. It is ending because the myth grows threadbare.

    • I get the impression that the Greatest Generation pretty much defined themselves in terms of the adversary they had defeated, as being absolutely antithetical thereto. This had the natural result that their children did likewise: the one thing that both sides of the Generation Gap of the Sixties had in common was their abhorrence of anything that smacked of the Right. Thus the fight against Communism was from the beginning an uphill struggle, domestically. A lot of Boomers were disappointed – or, at least, badly disoriented for a few years – when the Berlin Wall fell, and the Warsaw Pact dissolved and went anti-Soviet within a week or two, followed quickly by the Soviet Russians themselves.

      That was the true end of the last episode of the Great World War of the Twentieth Century. Both SJW Progressivism and Muslim aggression shortly sprang up to fill the void left by that war. Ditto for post-modernism.

      But I don’t see how to tie those events to the Daddy issues that seem to me so clearly to plague the SJW mind. Perhaps it is simply that authoritative fatherhood is of the Right, per se. The rejection of all things Right by the Greatest Generation and the Boomers involved a recusal from authoritative fatherhood among the former, and a rebellion against it among the latter. Maybe that’s it.

      If so, then when Communism fell, the children of the Boomers, who had inherited the hatred of their parents for all things Right, had to find some other way than rooting for Communism to rebel against the paternal authority that was in any case more or less completely missing already.

      • I agree that these two threads are hard to braid into a single line. You might want to define “daddy issue” more precisely. Doesn’t this usually mean self-destructive female behavior that is ultimately tied to perceived neglect by their fathers? It seems virtually all the 1960s feminists complained that, as the oldest female child in their (mostly Jewish) families, they were supposed to be sons. So “acting out” may be as much a bid for attention as flipping off authority. It could be that historical circumstances simultaneously heightened natural female narcissism and depressed paternal investment in at least some girls. On the other hand, Daddy issues could be just another chapter in the Great Revolt against All Authority.

      • I lean toward the latter interpretation. Men have daddy issues, too. Viz., Kronos.

        Acting out is definitely both a bid for attention and a rejection of authority. It is an attempt to discover the authoritatively imposed limits on behavior, and will worsen until those limits are discovered.

  9. Child rearing 101:

    * Till 9 they are in awe of you.
    * At 13 they defy you.
    * At 17 they wonder how you can feed yourself.
    * At 23 they revere you.

    The secret is to have them writing their own checks as soon as possible.

  10. “They cannot reason, but can only emote.” A truer description of too many of my students was never written. They assume that the one who is angriest–the one who is reddest in the face–is the “winner” of any debate, which they view mostly as theatrics.

    Without trying to sound Freudian or anything, I’ve long suspected that hatred of Daddy was behind the perpetual adolescence of the cultural left. Same-sex “marriage”–which will overwhelmingly be a lesbian thing–means that Daddy must disappear from the scene altogether. And we don’t even need to ask what is behind the recent unhinged professions of feminist hatred, like the professor who professes to her emasculated husband that she “hates all men and wishes all men were dead.” This is not surprising. Daddy represents the interdictory side of human social life, while now overwhelmingly the highest good is seen as the autonomous self pursuing its unbridled passions.

    • … now overwhelmingly the highest good is seen as the autonomous self pursuing its unbridled passions.

      Yes. This is Thordaddy’s radical autonomy, which unintentionally effects the eradication of social relations, on account of the fact that social relations as such constrain individual autonomy. As eradicating society, radical autonomy eradicates also the self, which is an instrument for negotiating society. It is not only that, of course; but the negotiation of society is among the essential final causes of the self. Lacking that crucial intension, and indeed repudiating it, the self can no longer mediate social relations, and spirals evermore inward, toward a pure omphaloskepsis.

      The recent insistence of the snowflakes upon psychic “safety” is an insistence that their solipsist reverie be secure from any exogenous disturbances.

  11. Thanks, Wendy. Good read. Couldn’t have said it better.

    Am still waiting for the “case hardening” by white-hot fire for most. Seems a lot have been quenched badly giving us these flaws and defects.

    Been there, had it done to me, am now still fairly sharp in my 7th decade.

  12. Kristor, I think you have hit a great big nail on the head, identifying the “Daddy Issues” that are driving the Left’s hate and aggression. But I don’t think that WWII played any part in causing it.

    Georgiaboy and Wendystringer correctly point out that the Greatest Generation were strong men, and this is not their fault. I think it was created in great part by the generation before them: the quisling Appeasers who also own responsibility for the two World Wars.

    As CuddlestheCageFighter hints: it was not WWII, but “suffrage” that marked the great tipping point. The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920 by henpecked devotees of Democrat Woodrow Wilson, despite grave misgivings by serious-minded voices, erased the corporate unity of marriage, and created a new class of separate masculine and feminine identities that remained separate even within the family.* [See History dot com “This Day in History Oct 2 1919 Woodrow Wilson Suffers A Stroke”. This tidbit shows the profound “intersection” of responsibilities shared by married couples at that time when the Vote was representative of the entire family’s interests as a corporate, economic, and spiritual body, rather than the personal emotional or intellectual whims of individuals:

    Edith, who was even suspicious of the political motives of Vice President Thomas Marshall, closely guarded access to her husband. She kept the true extent of Wilson’s incapacitation from the press and his opponents. While Wilson lay in bed, unable to speak or move, Edith purportedly insisted that she screen all of Wilson’s paperwork, in some cases signing Wilson’s name to documents without consulting the convalescing president. Edith, however, denied usurping her husband’s position during his recovery and in her memoirs insisted she acted only as a “steward.”

    Both the 18th (Prohibition, ratified in 1919) and 19th were the first big wins of organized Feminism. No one will deny the explosive “unintended consequences” of the first … when we take a cold hard look at the consequences of women in power, even over the recent 20-odd years, it is hard to imagine whether male leadership could have any more brutal or chaotic consequences than the worldwide destabilization achieved by the likes of Madeline Albright, Susan Rice, Condolezza Rice, and Hillary Clinton.

    Our recent presidents, of both parties, have been tempermentally and ideologically much the same as Woodrow Wilson: their wives drove much of their policy, and they tended to “go along to get along” when making decisions, instead of providing genuine leadership. Now that we have a true, successful Father Figure in the White House for the first time in many years, the underlying sickness of the Left that you have identified is no longer covered by nuance or pretense, but on display.

    Like spoiled children who never think of anyone else, they are abusers, and it isn’t anyone else’s fault. I am praying for the compassion to allow me to pray for their healing, that our Father God may bring them to see their own responsibility, to stop looking backward and to have the courage to become adults. It’s hard to have compassion for violent abusers, but our Lord does chasten those He loves, and we here all know He does love them as much as He loves us.

    (I just realized how long this is … apologies!)

    • Gosh, Tina, no need for apologies. That was a great comment. I’m convinced to abandon the notion that the experience of WWII was what turned the tide. Not to say that the notion is altogether wrong, but rather that it seems to me now, having read your comment, less like a sea change and more like a wave.

      Women’s Suffrage seems a much likelier candidate. But then, that raises the question: what was wrong, if anything, with the generation of fathers who raised the women of First Wave Feminism? Was it the Civil War? Grasping for straws, here. I don’t know enough about the social history of the US after the Civil War to have any idea.

      • The best hypothesis appears to be the simplest: rebellion/revolution was baked into the culture for centuries.

      • Well, perhaps it wasn’t so much “what was wrong, if anything with the generation of fathers”, as it was a change in *the mothers*. I’m no scholar, but I think the roots of Feminism lie in the Social Gospel Movement, which arose just before the Civil War, formed the heart of the Progressive Era, and indeed is little changed in the ersatz theology of today’s Religious Left with their ideas of “social salvation” replacing God. Proponents of Social Gospel took advantage of America’s pulpits after the war to expand its reach and grasp in our nation as it did throughout Christendom. Lincoln and his successors centralized American government, and relied on appeals to feminine emotion and the “projects” of these progressives in order to anchor Federal control within local communities: “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” in more ways than one.

        The Social Gospel is sentimental and immature, wants Mother Mary without the constraints of Father God. Coming back around to MaryfromMarin’s and Gj’s observations, it’s one iteration of the backward looking rebellion of The Fall, and is why today’s Left cannot see the future.

      • Most of reactionary thought is more revolt, as implied by the name. Occasionally and accidentally it is ‘revolt into sanity’, as described by GKC.

  13. Professor Emeritus Sir Roland Winston Chadwick Milton Edwards Bernstein III, BSc, MSc, MPhil, PhD - Center For Research in Anthropological Sciences, and Human Intercultural Topics (CRAPSHiT) |

    Fr. Chad Ripperger has a conference on the topic addressed in this blog entry.

    I object to the oversimplification you perform on the analysis. There is a book by Jean Vanier titled “Toute personne est une histoire sacree”, I think you can find it in english also. I recommend you to read it, for it will shed some light from a different angle.

    To say that the problem with the young SJW communists is exclusively a matter of not willing to grow up is inaccurate. The christian fabric of society has been ripped to shreds, many young people come from shattered homes where the father was in fact a douchebag, and the kids received no formation that allows them even to start dealing with such issues. It is very difficult nowadays to find a man, a priest, a sports coach, who is willing and able to lead these kids back and help them develop. Many of them are frustrated and angry because they do not know what to do or where to go.

    Now, anyone could tell me “yes, but after WWII we had the same problem and we grew up pretty fine” (which is a load of bullcrap, just take a look at the 60s and 70s in the USA). At the end of WWII, there was still a remnant of the christian morality in the USA and some semblance of virtue among a decent proportion of the adults. Can we say the same nowadays? How many people over 50 years of age can say that:

    – they did not use any drug during adolescence and early adulthood?
    – they arrived virgin to marriage?
    – they did not use any contraceptive method in their lives?
    – they did not commit any infidelity in marriage?

    Not to mention that the communist penetration and indoctrination is so brutal that it is nearly impossible for a teenager to put any resistance unless he/she receives extraordinary grace.

    Yes, the stick is needed, but before that we need to show the SJW mercy and compassion so that they want to be part of society, guidance so that they find the right path, and the stick to keep them there.

    • You’ve oversimplified the analysis of the very simple post. I didn’t suggest that the problem with the young SJW Communists is *exclusively* a matter of their unwillingness to grow up. On the contrary, I immediately wondered whether their fathers, specifically, might somehow have failed to provide them with the moral and spiritual guidance they would need if they were to have a way of growing up.

      Which is why it is quite safe to suggest that almost the only people over age 50 who never used drugs in their youth, married as virgins, never contracepted, and remained faithful to their spouses, are a few of those who are also over age 80: the Greatest Generation. Of their children, virtually all ran perilously off the rails on all four counts.

      Those children – the Boomers – were in turn woefully inadequate moral exemplars and teachers for their own offspring. Generations without any rigorous catechesis have generated chaos.

      My impression is that the SJW crowd is deeply, deeply confused and unhappy, anxious, depressed, and so forth: lost, bewildered, and ever therefore on the verge of panic, which when we suffer it so often transits immediately into blind rage.

      My impression is that the SJW crowd *desperately* want to grow up, but don’t know how. So they misbehave; they “act out.” Such misbehavior is the way that the young child tests to find the limits on his behavior, so that having found them, he can settle down confidently into a safe harbor of propriety.

      • Professor Emeritus Sir Roland Winston Chadwick Milton Edwards Bernstein III, BSc, MSc, MPhil, PhD - Center For Research in Anthropological Sciences, and Human Intercultural Topics (CRAPSHiT) |

        Thank you for taking the time to write and clarify.

  14. It actually makes sense. They’ve never really, for the most part, experienced real hardship or real fear…but they crave it (that much is actually normal from my experiences) and invent it.

  15. It seems to me that we have all been laboring under an illusion regarding what our society is. The constitutional republic has not existed for the better part of 160 years. Being mortally wounded by Lincoln, it gave up the ghost under Wilson. The 16th-19th amendments saw to that.

    From there, the seeds of the new country that had been germinating, started to sprout. WWII was the fertilizer and the rest, as they say, is history. We think of the ideal society as being the childhood of the Boomers living under a republic. Neither is or was true. Neither is possible now.

    That, I think, is the illusion that people are, unwittingly perhaps, starting to see through.

  16. Pingback: 29 Oct 2018 – DSU01.COM

  17. I’m not sure that even the generations raised by WWII veterans fully realize the impact of being raised in either poverty or fear of poverty (25-percent unemployment during the Great Depression) then going off to mandatory service in a foreign war (no matter how honorably served nor how respectfully treated during and after service). They faced tough times as an entire nation in their early years, then used America’s golden years to indulge the many children they had. In many cases, fathers found solidarity with other fathers to be an easier thing to accomplish (from their common military experience) than solidarity with their wives and children. I think it also was the Greatest Generation that really started the rise in the divorce rate (failed marriages made in haste before going to war?). It isn’t that they’re a bad generation of people. They were simply flawed, like all of us, but with the added burden of poverty and war as formative experiences.The Greatest Generation really wasn’t even the Greatest Generation (their parents and the officers and leaders who saw them through the war are more deserving of that title, in my opinion).

  18. Kristor – what a great topic for discussion. A few thoughts:

    1. The late great Zippy Catholic (requiescat in pace) published not long ago an excellent reflection on the daddy issues of modernity which I highly recommend.

    2. The Boomers are the oldest generation in living memory to very clearly project their “Daddy issues” onto politics, but they were definitely not the first. Tina makes a great point in bringing up the generation that gave us the 18th and 19th amendments as precursors to the Boomers – this was the generation that gained their reputations as labor anarchists, rioters, settlement house workers, missionary crusaders, muckrake journalists, and suffragettes – they also saw the first black and female college graduates among their ranks. But this generation also had a precursor in the spirited evangelists, zealous abolitionists, and moral crusaders that exacerbated America’s sectional divisions in the mid-nineteenth century and marched this country right into the Civil War (it’s also worth nothing that this is where the suffrage movement started; Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were of that same generation). Looking even farther back you can find parallels in that generation of colonists who, having overturned the social order of their parents in the spiritual firestorm of the so-called First Great Awakening, rendered the American colonies nearly ungovernable by the end of the 1750s. And let’s not forget the Puritan generation before them, who first denounced – then violently warred against – the Jacobean society of their fathers. The Daddy issues of modernity are as old as modernity itself.

    3. Don’t forget that the so-called Greatest Generation were themselves deeply committed liberals. They went to war with the last of the great illiberal world powers (Imperial Japan) and literally nuked that country into adopting liberalism, good and hard. They held an unprecedented grip on political power in this country all the way through to the 1990s, and I can’t think of any lasting accomplishments of their tenure that weren’t thoroughly liberal, can you?

    • Well, they killed Soviet Communism. You have to give them that.

      Zippy’s essay is indeed radiant with his characteristic coruscating acid brilliance. God Bless and Keep the man, and send him speedily home.

      • Well, they killed Soviet Communism. You have to give them that.

        Sure, they brought down the Soviet Empire under Gorbachev. But only after they allied with that same Empire under Stalin.

      • Yeah, but they had to ally with Stalin. National loyalty to our British brothers, etc. It trumped everything. Britain had to be saved.

        The geopolitical sine qua non for much of the last 500 years has been to prevent any one power from gaining control of the entire European peninsula. So Germany had to be stopped, and after Germany Russia, in just the way that France had had to be stopped, and before France, Spain – and before Spain, Islam. Call it Patchwork. It worked out OK – even the Napoleonic wars, costly though they were, were but a rather quiet little sideshow compared to WWI – until the US gained control of the entire European peninsula. Then we got the EU.

        There was for many years a sub rosa conviction among the English that their especial historical mission vis-à-vis Europe was to prevent the rise of any Continental monopoly of lethal force – to play the spoiler, every single time. This was why they had to have the Royal Navy, and an Empire of planetary scope. They remembered Lepanto, and Salamis. It saved them in the 20th Century.

        With the eclipse of Britain after WWII, her sons in America shouldered her European duty. Only in the last few years have the Englishmen and their cultural confrères both of the Old World and of the New begun to realize, to their horror, that in their success at suppressing any regional pretensions to European hegemony – which is simply to say, at suppressing efficacious and dispositive local wars – they themselves have become the palmary military guarantors of the hegemonic European enemy they had always fought.

        We have met the enemy, and he is us.

        Who is in charge these days in Brussels? The Bonapartists, the Jacobins, the Communists, and now the Mohammedans: all the ancient enemies of the royal and ducal houses of Britain and France, of Italy and Iberia, of Germany and of the Slavs.

        That’s what happens when there are no spoilers around anymore.

        God send us ever uppity dukes, who want reprobation, and so engender a general reprobation.

      • We have met the enemy, and he is us.

        Exactly, and a much better point than the one I was attempting to make in my last comment.

        Our fathers defeated the Soviets, yet lost the Cold War. We are the godless Communists now.

      • Never lose heart, my friend. The victor in the struggle against evil is *always* the next victim of that evil. This will never, ever change. Of that knowledge springs the ancient dauntless pessimism of our Viking forebears, and so of the Angles and Saxons, the fathers of the English, and lo then in younger days of the Americans. No matter what we do, and no matter what victories we win, the Enemy will turn them to his own purposes. He ruins *everything that can be ruined.*

        Our forefathers among the Northmen saw immediately, when first they were presented with the Gospel, that this ineluctable doom was by no means dispositive of their ultimate fate, or of ours, their children. Fight on then. Ardently, to be sure, and indeed furiously – loose your inward berserker, when you deem it prudent so to do. But, never give up. Churchill our uncle was right. Never, ever, ever surrender. Die first. Happily.

      • Our forefathers among the Northmen saw immediately, when first they were presented with the Gospel, that this ineluctable doom was by no means dispositive of their ultimate fate, or of ours, their children.

        Amen, brother. No matter what evils befall this world, this country of ours, or even ourselves and our family, we know Our Lady was assumed, Body and Soul, into heaven; that the earthly bread and wine offered by the priest at Mass is daily transubstantiated into the Most Holy Body and Precious Blood of her Son, Our Lord, Jesus Christ; that this same Christ is True and True Man in Hypostatic Union; that there are nine Choirs of Angels, one of whom is my constant companion and guardian, and another is yours.

        These Truths were enough to inspire hope in our fathers of old. They shall be more than enough for us.

    • Looking even farther back you can find parallels in that generation of colonists who, having overturned the social order of their parents in the spiritual firestorm of the so-called First Great Awakening, rendered the American colonies nearly ungovernable by the end of the 1750s. And let’s not forget the Puritan generation before them, who first denounced – then violently warred against – the Jacobean society of their fathers.

      For a culture baked in rebellion, further rebellion is paradoxically being faithful to what past generations did.

      I wonder if there was something about the men of the Greatest Generation that particularly inclined them to failure as fathers, and so fostered the rebellion and resentment of the Boomers – especially Boomer daughters. Was it WWII? How?

      The simple answer is that the older generations did not merely fail, but that they passed on rebellion. The young are rebelling because rebellion as a culture has been handed through the generations.

      • The simple answer is that the older generations did not merely fail, but that they passed on rebellion. The young are rebelling because rebellion as a culture has been handed through the generations.

        Yes, precisely GJ.

  19. If your race is your fathers…

    Then anti-racism is to be against your fathers.

    Anti-racism is official “American” orthodoxy.

    Spiritually, The Perfect Father does not exist.

    Physically, the perfect father cannot exist.

    Psychologically, the above is the rationalization & justification for perpetual “r/evolutionary” enragement at the imperfect fathers.

    In other words, anti-racist ideology says:

    Because my perfect father does not exist, I am perpetually enraged.

    Well… That’s not what it really says… Partly because under its label is deception and partly because the ideology needs to entangle “blacks” who hate their fathers too, but who would never be so “white” as to publicly pronounce his hate as the driving mechanism of his “black” life*”

    *”Black” person likes anti-racism because he can righteously hate *your* fathers, too.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.