The Disadvantage of Authority

In “It’s a Military Term,” I had noted that the word translated “helper” in Genesis 2:18 is used in the Old Testament as a military term that refers to that of an ally, rather than that of a subordinate, with no connotation of an implied difference in power or authority. So when Paul and Peter speak of the submission of husbands and wives, their explanations must be evaluated in terms of the Old Testament following the example of the Bereans.

Patriarchal Passages

Let’s consider these patriarchal passages:

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
“Let the women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but they are to be in submission, as also says the law. 
And if they want to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.”

Ephesians 5:22-23
“Wives are to submit to their own husbands as to the Lord, 
because the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, being himself the Savior of the body.”

1 Peter 3:5-6
“For in this way in earlier times the holy women who hoped in God also adorned themselves, submitting to their own husbands, j
ust as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him “Lord,” whose children you are when you continue to do what is good and are not afraid of any intimidation.”

1 Timothy 2:11-12
“A woman must learn without causing a disturbance, by being in complete subjection. 
I do not permit a woman to teach or to impose authority over a man, rather she is not to cause a disturbance.”

Under Christian patriarchy, each one of these is interpreted as if all men—whether fathers, clergy, kings, or husbands—should wield inherent authority over all women under him in his proper sphere of authority. No woman can ever have authority over any man whatsoever. The only question is, “under whose domain(s) does each woman fall?”

When these English translations are cherry-picked in isolation—often neglecting context, especially the Old Testament—this explanation appears to be correct. Yet, all of these have reasonable rational alternative explanations that are not terribly complicated, only different.

For example, Chrysostom, a native Greek-speaker writing in the late 4th century, understood 1 Peter 3:5-6 quite differently in light of his knowledge of the Old Testament:

“[Sarah] also reverenced her husband; for hear her own words, “It has not yet happened unto me even until now, and my lord is old also” (Genesis 18:12). And he again so loved her, that in all things he obeyed her commands.”

There are many other explanations for why “authority” isn’t the correct paradigm—including Genesis 2:18 and the head-as-leader anachronism—to explain the relationship between a husband and wife in these “patriarchal passages.” But, let’s first consider another passage.

What Does Nature Teach?

1 Corinthians 11:13-14
“Judge among yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered? Doesn’t even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?”

Paul teaches that women naturally have long hair throughout their lives, while men naturally cannot maintain long hair, which thins and is lost with age. Mankind can do precious little to alter this natural course of events.

But what about mankind’s natural inclinations regarding authority?

Christian patriarchy infers from this scripture that nature—natural law—teaches that men should be in authority over women, that for any woman to be in authority over any man is an aberration. Yet, human nature is to compete for status and power and defer to superiors, regardless of sex. The desire to organize into hierarchies is is largely driven by the inherent inequality in humans and the struggle for position.

Nature teaches that human authority is driven by competition.

Men compete with men, women with women, and men and women with each other. I’ve even seen it argued that women are more skilled than men at social competition for hierarchical power and influence, whether directly or the “power behind the throne.”[1] According to nature, those women who win the battle of competition over men are—by natural definition—their superiors. For example, although women tend towards hypergamy, given the wide variability in abilities, some wives will outstrip her husband in cognitive capacity, making her better suited to various cognitive tasks and decisions.

Seth Roberts shared research on his blog that shows that “Power Makes You More Dismissive.” Acquiring more power and influence makes you more likely to confirm your own biases when faced with evidence, including evidence that would normally oppose your beliefs:

“…Instead of analyzing the strength of the argument, those with authority focus on whether or not the argument confirms what they already believe. If it doesn’t, then the facts are conveniently ignored.”

…as [Supreme Court] justices gained power on the court, or became part of a majority coalition, their written opinions tended to become less complex and nuanced.

This is classically illustrated as folk wisdom by contrasting the emperor and the child in “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”

Why does authority lead to worse reasoning? Because it emphasizes enforcement and empowerment—control—over reason and merit.

“That requires men to assert authority when they cannot. It’s not men’s fault that women are empowered to sic the state on them.” — comment by Deti

“For me “authority” has enforcement power.” — comment by Sharkly

Power imbalances naturally lead to an increase in poor reasoning and bias in those with power. This is why authoritarianism leads to censorship and coercion rather than open discussion that decentralization and tolerance brings, and why in most cases the distribution of authority is not a pure meritocracy.

Nature teaches that authority is no friend of reason or merit.

This is quite evident in most political organizations, large business environments, influential religious denominations, social media platforms (e.g. blogs; wikipedia, twitter), the scientific community, and other hierarchical organizations. It’s also illustrated in marriage.

The Manosphere and Authority

As noted in “On Suffering,” portions of the manosphere are strongly influenced by leftist metaphysics. You might ask, “How can a far-right view share its metaphysics with a leftist political movement?” Because they merely disagree on implementation, while agreeing on their metaphysical assumptions. Christian patriarchy’s view of authority has a lot in common with this leftist ethic.

For example, the focus on ending earthly suffering—rather than embracing it—is a non-Christian, utilitarian ethic. Those on the left may focus on eliminating male oppression by promoting divorce, women’s independence, etc. Those who hold to Christian patriarchy may focus on ending male suffering and female supremacy by fighting for the opposite things. Yet, both do so with the goal of reducing whatever suffering they’ve prioritized.

After I raised these issues in “On Suffering”, Jack @ Sigma Frame responded:

In his comment, he did not analyze and refute the argument I made, but rather shared something that confirmed his existing belief, ignored the facts that I had presented, and tried to tell me what to do.[2] It has been well documented how Jack (and Sharkly) responds to complexity and nuance in my arguments:

For the second time, there is a dismissal (“arm chair philosophizing” and “It doesn’t add anything that we don’t already know”), telling me what to do (“Your views..would be more relevant…if you [did a list of things]”), and answering his own questions according to his own existing beliefs.

Now, remember that Chrysostom quote above? I was first made aware of it in May, 2023, but I had noticed in October, 2022 that the same Greek word for “obey” (hupakouō) was used of Sarah in 1 Peter and used of Abraham in the Greek Septuagint in Genesis 16:2. In other words, through my own research I had independently came to the same conclusion as Chrysostom—a 4th century native Greek-speaker—without realizing it.[3] Unfortunately, Jack’s response to my observation was predictable:

Jack’s response is a non sequitur.[4] It utterly failed to address the fact—not inference—that the word used was identical and the fact—simple observation—that Genesis never explicitly says that Sarah obeyed Abraham (using the Greek word whose meaning was being discussed). Genesis notes explicitly that Abraham obeyed Sarah, while Sarah’s obedience of Abraham is merely implicit! Yet, rather than address the relevance, Jack lectures me about “lived experiences”[5] and tells me what I should talk about instead, as if my original argument had a defect (it didn’t).

In case you think the three examples was not proof enough, here is a fourth example of dismissal and telling me what I should do instead:

All of this is predicted by understanding how authority and its pursuit naturally develops and corrupts. Combined with the stated personal views on marital authority—that it is great and men should have more of it—we would expect dismissiveness, lack of nuance, simplistic/low-complexity arguments, and confirmation bias. That is precisely what we see. Leaders, in general, are less likely to allow their own personal views to be challenged. If you want to learn the truth, avoid those who seeks authority.

Yet Christians were meant to set aside self-exaltation and to serve instead:

Matthew 23:11-12
“The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Given the extreme emphasis on authority and acquiring it, it is no surprise, then, that many manosphere beliefs are based on absolute, unquestionable certainty and a failure to acknowledge how significantly “Ambiguity in the Bible” challenges those views.

Seeking Unity

Now, what happens when you add all these things up and put them in a marriage? Nature tells us that if a wife is confused about scripture and asks her husband at home, she is less likely to get a correct answer if her husband is an authoritarian. He is more likely to simply give the answer that confirms his preexisting biases, rather than reasoning towards the correct answer.

If a wife is not submissive to her husband and the husband responds by seeking self-exaltation to become more authoritarian, this will make the problem worse. But what if a husband and wife mutually submitted to each other according to their proper domains what is due them? Then each husband and wife would do what best suits them both. The only way to achieve unity is if both submit to each other.[1][6] If either a husband or wife seeks authority, the result will be worse.[7]

Ephesians 5:21-22
“…submitting to one another out of fear of Christ, the wives to the husbands as to the Lord”

Romans 13:7
Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Irenaeus once recounted the tale of how Polycarp and “pope” Anicetus, Bishop of Rome disagreed over the Easter observance. Anicetus, out of respect for the visiting Polycarp, chose to set aside his differences and submitted to Polycarp. According to Roman Catholicism, Anicetus had more authority than Polycarp, and according to Protestants the two Bishops had equal authority. Yet, regardless, mutual submission took precedence over their individual authority and Anicetus submitted to his elder.

By contrast, in the midst of the Filioque Controversy in 1054AD, both sides met in Constantinople:

“At Constantinople the impression bequeathed by Cardinal Humbert and other western visitors was one of incredible arrogance. … It offended western visitors to find that at the consecration of the elements, Greeks did not add water to the cup until after the bread and the wine were sanctified.” — Chadwick, Henry, “East and West: the Making of a Rift in the Church.” (2003) p.226.

They failed to submit to one another, and so did not honor Christ by celebrating the Lord’s Supper together. Their stubborn insistence on their own authority was a power-play that eventually contributed to a permanent schism. This is especially ironic, as both sides were in error.

Since the very beginning, God wanted husbands and wives to work as allies to the same cause, one flesh with one unity and one shared purpose. It is no wonder, then, that prior to his instructions that husbands and wives submit to each other in Ephesians 5, Paul emphasized that everyone live in one unity in the one Body of Christ:

Ephesians 4:2-6
Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is  one  body and  one  Spirit, just as you were called to  one  hope when you were called;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism;  one  God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

We can see that the testimony of nature confirms God’s original plan of unity in the Garden of Eden found in the Old Testament, and is further revealed by Paul in the New Testament. Fallen mankind longs for authority because of the curse of the Fall and the loss of God’s image, but Christ has restored our potential for unity, restoring the image of God in every Christian man and woman:

Colossians 3:10-11
You have put on the  new self  that is being renewed in knowledge  according to the image of the one who created it , in which there is neither “Greek and Jew,” “circumcision and uncircumcision,” “barbarian,” “Scythian,” “slave,” or “free”—but Christ is all and in all!

Ephesians 4:24
“…put on the  new self, which has been created in the likeness of God  in true righteousness and holiness.”

Authority is no longer attractive[8], for it has been replaced by unity, as originally intended.


[1] In normal marriages, husbands and wives submit to each other all the time, deferring to one another as appropriate. We just don’t call it submission because in English submission is a naughty word fraught with discordant overtones. No loving husband, no matter how many boundaries and expectations he sets up, has ever always gotten his own way.

[2] Regarding…

“It doesn’t help anyone to discount this ministry as … ‘unChristian’”


“You have not yet written about the Peaceful Unity model of marriage, which is your area of expertise.”

…and other Red Pill models, the primary concern with models, procedures, rules, and other abstractions is related to positivist leftism, which is tends towards being anti-Christian.

I have no model to offer anyone. To the extent that I have anything to offer, it is Christ and the Word of God.

[3] I am often accused of interpreting the Bible through a modern lens, but this demonstrates that by looking at the ancient renderings of words, I am doing precisely the opposite: going back closer to the original meaning.

[4] Of course it was safe to assume that Sarah was sometimes obedient and sometimes disobedient to her husband, just as it is safe to assume the same of Abraham. Both were human. None of this has anything at all to do with the fact that the Old Testament only ever explicitly mentions Abraham obeying Sarah, and not the other way around.

[5] “Lived experiences” is a off-putting phrase which appears to have its origins in historic feminism. More recently, it has been used extensively in female-coded therapy and by woke, leftist women, most often to silence dissent and lend credibility to irrational statements by elevating personal experiences and perceptions over truth and reason (e.g. “Saying ‘no man can get pregnant’ invalidates his lived experience.”). As I’ve noted a number of times of Dalrock, it is entirely possible that women are posing as an anonymous males.

[6] This does not imply equality, nor the absence of hierarchy or authority.

[7] One could say that the Christian approach to marriage is a repudiation of Evo Psych.

[8] Like many other things, authority has both positive and negative attributes. I’ve portrayed just a few of the disadvantages here—especially of seeking through self-exaltation it as opposed to receiving it from others—but there are certainly benefits to authority as well. As with Biblical ambiguity, I object to the glorification of authority as something inherently divine and always good. It’s always subpar to put an unqualified man in authority over another qualified person, be they man or woman. Moreover, authority is not always good in all situations, such as a small team in which a cooperation is much more effective.


  1. professorGBFMtm

    ”As I’ve noted a number of times of Dalrock, it is entirely possible that women are posing as an anonymous males.”

    i usually only think that when some commenters come out with stuff that is highly inflamatory against women and makes MEN in general look like a bunch of stereo-typical ”He-MAN woman-haters”.

    ”Since the very beginning, God wanted husbands and wives to work as allies to the same cause, one flesh with one unity and one shared purpose. It is no wonder, then, that prior to his instructions that husbands and wives submit to each other in Ephesians 5, Paul emphasized that everyone live in one unity in the one Body of Christ:”

    i have experienced a peacefulness or cooperation with certain women my entire life-which is why i don’t understand a lot of other MEN’S ,let alone women’s seemingly daily combative attitude towards the other sex in general.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      I can only imagine that they’ve never had a relationship with a women that fits that description and so think it is impossible. What I have difficulty with is imagining what it must take to live in that kind of bubble.

      As I’ve pointed out in the past, my high school peers have less than a 5% divorce rate over more than two decades. It’s not just one couple getting lucky, it’s all of them. I can only think of one divorce at the moment.

      In my extended family—where most families have a minimum of three kids—I’m aware of precisely two divorces in four (or maybe five) generations.

      In my church throughout my childhood, I was aware of a single divorced family, and I was scandalized by it, not understanding how any Christian could divorce and still be a Christian (yes, I was naive).

      I know Jason’s “cultural Christian” family “somehow” didn’t divorce.

      1. Lastmod

        My parents were married until my mom passed in 2008. 43 years. had she lived, they would have stayed married.

        They knew each other for six months. Did they argue? of course they did. Did my mother push my father to anger on purpose? Never. Did my father provoke my mother? Never.

        They loved each other deeply. They both made sacrifices.

        The sphere says and has said it wasnt a “good” marriage because Jesus or “church” wasnt put first. Cultural Christian and done more on my mothers side and upbringing. My father was a Catholic, and he was aloof to it “Where was the church when the Nazi rolled into Poland in 1939? They were collaborating. Rome (the pope) did and said nothing. How about after? They collaborated with the Communists as well. More concerned about its institutional protection that protecting the flock. So much for that!”

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          Though you’ve said this many times, I don’t believe any of the gurus have responded to it. I’ve mentioned similar things, but never received a response.

  2. Liz

    We are consolidating our office and trying to clean things up now that we have a lot of free time. For years of moves and kids my system wasn’t super organized (I did okay for the most important stuff, but the less important has kind of piled up and a lot of shredding is in order).

    We just looked over some old letters we’ve saved (Mike scanned them, so if we lose the originals hopefully we’ll still have a copy on the hard drive).
    There is one he wrote to our son before he went into the military. Some of it is personal and I won’t share it all, but a portion is on leadership and it seems pertinent to the topic:

    “It can be daunting to walk into a new place being the person with the least time on the job, but everyone goes through that. You’ll be great.

    In the beginning especially it’s best to say less and observe more. It’s always easier to add things later than it is to take back things you wish you hadn’t said.

    Humility is not a sign of weakness and goes a long way to building relationships. It’s more important to be confident in your ability to learn than in what you already know.

    Always strive to do the right thing. This is not necessarily what everyone else thinks is right.
    On any given day be prepared to fall on your sword if you must. This will keep you free. Conversely, on any given day you might be fortunate enough to be in the right place to make a big difference in someone’s life. Don’t miss this opportunity.

    Don’t read your own press. If they don’t realize there really are no failures. Just keep moving forward and never give up.

    The mindset of continuing to evolve and improve is crucial. It’s more important than success in the moment.

    The relationships you build matter most of all. One of life’s greatest honors is to set an example that impacts others in a way that might make them better.

    As you know I am still learning, but these concepts helped me a lot along the way.”

  3. Liz

    I saw a quote this morning that kind of resonated with me.
    “The metaphors we use to understand the world dramatically affect our experiences. Many people see life as a “battle” or difficult “test” which assumes it is something we must endure”

    I was thinking how much this applies to the sphere on relationships. The words we tell ourselves matter. That internal monologue shapes us. So I think you are right about personal bubbles and seeing everything in terms of “I have to be an a*hole” and “this s*t test” or that. And in fact, we’ve seen the change in people who have been in the sphere a long while and maintain this paradigm…and not for the better. It’s no accident if you view your partner as an enemy.
    We do have a pecking order of authority in our home, so I might not see eye to eye 100 percent on the topic. But we are definitely a partnership, and Mike does ask for my opinion and values me very much (we value each other in this journey through life).

    1. Liz

      Kind of made me think of mom too. Her personal narrative harmed her greatly (and all her relationships). She seemed to view joy as a finite commodity that was shared…if others had it, there was less for her. So she wished ill on others, complained all the time, and led a completely joyless life for the most part. Hardship/”suffering” too was a shared commodity. Instead of asking God to help through the hard times, she would say “why me?!?” wishing her hardship on others.

      She might have been the most dour person I’ve ever known.

    2. professorGBFMtm

      ”That internal monologue shapes us. So I think you are right about personal bubbles and seeing everything in terms of “I have to be an a*hole” and “this s*t test” or that.”

      You mean like that Deti comment at Spawnys a few days back where he said ”i didn’t start out as a a-hole , i had to become one?”

      In connection with his marriage of course a few months after he found the ‘sphere in 2011?

    3. Derek L. Ramsey

      “That internal monologue shapes us. So I think you are right about personal bubbles…”

      Apparently, only 30-50% of people even have an internal monologue. Then there are the 4% who have Aphantasia, the inability to picture things in your head.

      There is a lower threshold of intelligence beyond which multi-step word problems become prohibitively difficult. There is a rough (and higher) threshold under which people cannot comprehend the essence of calculus, even if they can perform the operations by rote, which prevents them from evaluating statistical data. Others are simply unable to form and understand logical propositions, to understand cause and effect, or to think about consequences using conditionals, counterfactuals, and second order effects.

      Personal bubbles are often unavoidable. But, on the internet, how do you know if this applies to the person you are talking to (or, worse, yourself)?

      It may be rude…

      …to point out that people lack the intellectual abilities to interact with certain material…

      …but it isn’t factually incorrect to do so. It may even be an unfortunate necessity, as it was with Sharkly. What was ArchAngel supposed to do? Ignore people who lack the abilities to engage with his material? That’s rude too! Respond anyway, even though he knows that it is pointless? That sounds rude too.

      I suppose the tone could have been altered to soften the blow, but in my experience this doesn’t have much impact.

      When Jason critiques others (including me) for intellectual arrogance or high-minded midwittery, I don’t get upset about it. It’s a legitimate criticism. I certainly don’t ask him to tone it down.

      1. Lastmod

        To be fair to you Derek, you have the ability to listen instead of “not an argument” / “strawman” / “clouded and deluded by blue pill thinking” and “you put women on a pedestal” statements

        Which is many in the sphere’s answer to anything that does not fix or work like their math equation.

        Or worse, splice my comments with sheer contempt for the context and get mean.

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          “splice my comments”

          I was not a fan of that. If I ever splice a comment, it will be very obvious that I did so, and it will probably be to splice out a personal attack to replace it with a big “[Editor: personal attack removed here, please stick to the ideas].” I believe Jack used to paraphrase your words and pass them off as yours.

          What I do as comment admin is what a basic editor would do: fix spacing and paragraph breaks, add block quotes, clean up links, fix basic spelling errors, etc. I even fix the professor’s comments when he forgets to hit “reply” under a comment (this requires a direct database update, as you can’t do it in WordPress directly). I don’t change words to something else.

      2. Liz

        “Apparently, only 30-50% of people even have an internal monologue. Then there are the 4% who have Aphantasia, the inability to picture things in your head.”

        Heh, I knew that not everyone had an internal monologue but didn’t know the percentage was so high! The 4 percent doesn’t surprise me as much (since it is such a low number).
        I have entire stories running in my head. I don’t know how I’d get through a run without them. I can run on the treadmill and look at a wall and noodle. Then the next day continue with the story in my head, where I left off. LOL
        Part of me wonders if I trained my mind to do this. Spent a lot of time alone, often locked up (my parents had a dry cleaner/laundry business when I was very young and I sat in a room there all day for years, by myself…and then there was the leg thing.

      3. Liz

        Just read Archangel’s thread at Jack’s.
        Interesting it is kind of another way to state what I was attempting to say.
        Shaping one’s “interpretation” of reality to fit a preconceived narrative.
        I thought the analogies effectively made the point (“every dream is a nightmare” and “Custer’s makeover”). Shaping reality to fit a narrative.
        (which is poison over time, if the narrative is poison)

        I’ve mentioned before the person I know in the real world who brought up the subject of Tomassi’s books to Mike was a highly ungrateful, angry person to be around…no matter what happened in his life that was good (the training they were receiving and the hotel they were staying at were spectacular, for instance, and he did nothing but complain about both) he found a way to paint a bad picture of it in his mind.

        1. Liz

          I often wonder if people become so married to their grievances it starts to define them in a way they can’t escape from. Their own narrative makes them miserable, but they can’t drop it, because it also comforts them in some way.

        2. Derek L. Ramsey

          ArchAngel’s thread is very interesting. It’s a shame he doesn’t seem to get along with me. I got the sense from that one time he stopped by here to comment that he would have little patience with me, but—like Aristanal Toad—he’s the kind of audience I once thought I’d most like to attract. Yeah, I know. I’m a complete weirdo.

          Custer’s makeover is a perfect example of what I said there about the development of words. Someone uses “makeover” as a live metaphor in a way that isn’t well-defined. Over time, such use becomes accepted until it becomes a dead metaphor. Then one day it shows up as one of the multiple definitions of “makeover” in the dictionary, no longer a metaphor at all. Language is fluid, and we constantly shape it to satisfy our wants, needs, and realities.

          “I often wonder if people become so married to their grievances it starts to define them in a way they can’t escape from. Their own narrative makes them miserable, but they can’t drop it, because it also comforts them in some way.”

          Does language also shape us? Yes, I believe it does.

          Your statement here satisfies what I said more generally…

          “Modern man does not desire or see a need for salvation.”

          …based on what I described here.

  4. Pingback: Eve Is Trying To Subvert Her Curse

  5. Liz

    Not sure where to put this.
    It is my opinion that the “incompetency crisis” has a number of factors.
    It’s not just DEI. It has roots in “planned obsolescence” and other things (the victim mentality, ect). Here is the article:

    Portion that caught my eye in particular:
    “In addition, the Air Force found that the maintainer had signed off on paperwork for a pre-flight check on a different aircraft earlier in the day, writing that the work was done at 6 p.m. He had already been taken to a hospital by 4 p.m. that day.”

    The above is called “pencil whipping”….and maintainers seem to be doing this more and more. Creating dangerous situations (at one base a good portion of the parachutes were faulty, for example) in the interest of expediency.
    There was a base Mike was vice at, where something similar happening. An item was checked off during an ORI (operational readiness inspection)…the work that had been signed off for hadn’t been done. They were going to pass, and Mike went to the IG and told them they didn’t deserve to pass, and why. They failed and instead of taking responsibility for the failure, the maintenance group commander was angry and defensive. The opposite of Mike. Somehow this person got to be a Colonel taking no responsibility for his own leadership whatsoever.
    This is the problem…and it is a very large problem.
    I would bet there is a pattern throughout that unit that led to the above situation with the T38 maintainer. Hope they get to the solution before someone has a serious accident.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “Hope they get to the solution before someone has a serious accident.”

      The problems you describe happen in the housing industry as well. New houses involve lots of cutting corners and faked inspections.

      Due to the competency crisis, quite a few people have made the not-so-bold prediction that infrastructure disasters—including collapsing bridges and aircraft disasters—are going to become increasingly more common. Not only do I agree, but I think that the serious accidents will only make the problem worse as politicians run cover for those at fault and wasting time and money on that instead of the problems themselves. No one will be held accountable.

      But even if people were held accountable, there are plenty more incompetent people to take their place.

      The end result, with regards to quality control, is probably something like what China has, or possibly a bit worse since the average IQ is allegedly lower here.

    2. The above is called “pencil whipping”….and maintainers seem to be doing this more and more.

      Here at Spirit Aerosystems, due to the inspection stamps used prior to computerization, they call it “hot stamping”. And having once worked in their QA department for 8 years, I’d estimate that over half of their inspectors do it, sometimes, when they’re not being watched. And you will not be promoted in the QA department if you’re unwilling to help the company fraudulently hide quality issues. Every single QA employee above entry-level is consequently crooked.

      When I was a mechanic on jets in operation, I met a couple of mechanics that openly admitted to pencil whipping jobs. They were the two most corrupt mechanics I knew of. Both of them eventually went to work for the FAA, in Wichita, even though one of them had already been fined a $10,000 civil penalty by the FAA for an aircraft maintenance crime.

      “Researchers at Wharton and Harvard ran experiments that found people who cheat are more likely to be interested in government service than those who don’t. These people are also more likely to be corrupt when they get government jobs.”

      The morals of this, the most churched, nation in the world, are steadily getting worse on the watch of the Great Whore. They don’t teach the fear of God. They teach that God will love you no matter what, and they engage in cover-ups of their own evil. Things aren’t looking good for this nation, which no longer fears God.(not even the church)

      1. Derek L. Ramsey

        As Charlton has noted for a decade or two, bureaucracy is inherently evil. All those rules, procedures, and regulations are impossible to follow to the letter without bankruptcy or hitting the heat death of the universe. So in order to get anything done, you have to lie. It’s structural lying. And it’s in everything from aviation, science, religion, politics, etc. Anywhere you have a bureaucracy, which is almost everywhere.

        In terms of the language of economics, anyone doing the right thing gets priced out of the market even when there are labor shortages (as we saw during the covid lockdowns and shortly thereafter).

        There is no way to fix this.

        1. Liz

          I disagree (in part). I know this can be fixed because I have seen it (if not fixed completely, fixed to a great degree rather quickly).
          The human tendency is the status quo. For example, if you live in a trashy neighborhood (I have in the past, in several places), you get used to seeing trash everywhere. If you come from a nice area, it is very startling…at first you try to pick up some trash but there is just too much, the situation overwhelming, and eventually you too get accustomed to it.
          That’s a metaphor for other things.
          Is it impossible to curb the trash situation? No. Places do it all the time.
          And it makes a great deal of difference, when it happens…and once an area is clean, that is the status quo and once everyone is used to it, for the most part (exception perhaps outliers who are garbage humans) wants to keep it that way.

          “Since it is so likely that (children) will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker.”
          ― C.S. Lewis

          Once must pick one’s battles wisely, of course. I think my spouse has done a good job in picking the right ones through his life and work, and is continuing to do so. It does make a difference.

          1. Derek L. Ramsey

            “I disagree (in part). I know this can be fixed because I have seen it (if not fixed completely, fixed to a great degree rather quickly).”

            I have only one question: when those fixes are successful, is the total number of problems to be fixed permanently reduced?

            If not, then it is like trying to plug a hole in a dike when a dozen others are already open and getting larger. It is Charlton’s belief, and I agree with him, that it is much, much too late to do anything: they don’t address the root cause. Thus, attempts to fix problems are ultimately misguided at best.

            Even though I’m happy that Roe v Wade got overturned and fewer abortions were had, it didn’t address the root cause. As major of a victory it was, it was still a loss, for all that effort was spent just to overturn what should never have happened in the first place. In other words, we got back to a place we were once at, but the evil that occurred cannot be undone and the other evils that grew alongside it have long since moved significantly forward from where they were before Roe v Wade was passed in the first place. It moved the needle back by a fractional increment from how far it has moved forward. In the cycle of things, the needle always moves forward over time and you can’t stop it.

            If ten evils are implemented today and it takes you a decade to overturn one of them, you have failed, not succeeded.

          2. Derek L. Ramsey



            Fight, Fight, Fight is only a variant of “If only everybody would just be Nice”

            Things are much worse than most people think! That is clear from the “If only” conversations and writings that seem to have plagued the world for hundreds of years at least.

            “if only we had fixed this or that…”

            So many people though history have pointed out that “If only” people would just be nice, kind, reasonable, sensible, or whatever – “then” how much better this world would be…

            Yes indeed; but the Whole Point is that People are not thus, and show no signs of significant improvement in their natures.

            You are right that any individual can do good. And it appears that your husband is one of those people. He is truly doing good. I’m not in any way criticizing him or what he is doing. You are right to be proud of what he has accomplished.

            But don’t mistake his doing good for fixing what is wrong. He can always do good, but he can’t really fix evil. Evil can’t be fixed:

            And even supposing you were able to inflict significant damage on Them; by destroying The System; you would certainly cause the sooner (rather than later) collapse of Western Civilization*.

            Things are much worse than most people think; and even if people and this world were utterly different from what they actually are – the dewy-eyed optimism of those who exhort us to Fight reveals their naïve ignorance of how bad things actually are, how pervasive and (in its various, or specific manifestations) overwhelmingly popular is the agenda of evil.

            There is nothing for us in the here and now: the agenda of evil is overwhelmingly popular, pervasive, and persuasive. But…

            Realistically; there is no basis for optimism: that is, there is no basis for believing that the world can or will become significantly better than it is now.

            Read that again: “there is no basis for believing that the world can or will become significantly better than it is now.”

            But for a Christian this is not a counsel of despair, because Heaven is not of this world, and Jesus Christ’s promises are of resurrection for those who follow Him – real Christianity is not a programme of socio-political reform.

            And again: “real Christianity is not a programme of socio-political reform.”

            I don’t mean this to show offense to you or anyone, but if you cannot make something significantly better, why would that be your goal? Rather just do good and don’t worry at all about making things better. This is the error that Sigma Frame makes: it sees itself as a Christian manosphere whose Christian patriarchy program is just a “necessary” socio-political reform. It is not enough to do good, one must also bring meaningful societal change. Sigma Frame epitomizes “Fight, Fight, Fight!”

            If a Christian’s good works—which he was already doing anyway—lead to the significant betterment of society, it is because God willed it to happen, not because of the good works themselves. Those same good works would not have bettered society if it was not God’s will. And it is, plainly, not God’s will to better society in this day and age, for it has abandoned God.

            Again: it is plainly not God’s will that society be bettered. You should not try!

            Your husband is salt and light to the world. He is not a reformer. This is absolutely plain in his humility.

            Along with Jesus, Peter, and Paul, we counsel neither despair or optimism, but hope in the salvation in Christ. To wit:

            In other words: the cure for despair is not optimism but hope; not group belief in a high probability of amelioration or improvement but the personal certainty of salvation.

            The cure for socio-political ills is not optimism for the future, but hope in salvation in the age to come. Or, as I’ve been saying recently:

            Modern man does not desire or see a need for salvation.

            As Jason just wrote a couple days ago, modern man is without faith. He may want Christ for socio-political reasons, but he has no need for the eternal life that Christ offers.


          3. Liz

            Thank you for this considered response, it has given me something to noodle on.
            I’ll start by saying (reiterating) one must pick one’s battles.
            There is a point where effort is wasted, the scope of a problem too large.
            That is one big reason Mike retired. If he’d thought he could continue to make a big difference in lives he would have taken the star that was offered to him.
            But he determined the bureaucracy at that level would make his time in service relatively useless (at least for doing good…it would have been beneficial if he planned on being a government contractor or CEO of some corporation or something like that).
            It’s hard to measure the problems of the world in any real sense.
            Were there more, or fewer problems when the Islamic countries took Christian children into slavery (some were sold by their parents, unfortunately), forcibly converted then and then sent them out to kill other Christians? Would that qualify as one problem or thousands?
            The overturning of Roe is a good thing, whether it should have happened in the first place or not. It is a good thing not only for the obvious reason (making abortion less available in some places), but it works to shift a paradigm…which will in turn likely save more babies.
            On the other hand, one could look at that differently….the more people we have, in a sinful world, the more potential for problems. Does that mean more babies add to problems? Maybe, but babies are still a good thing for this world and the next.

          4. Liz

            Per Sigmaframe, I agree this type of medium could make meaningful social change, but it could be a lot better, and a venue could be at least a forum for people to engage in useful ideas and suggestions.
            That would require a set of standards that are not so arbitrary (and biased toward favorite personalities), for starters.
            Not my dog and pony show.

      2. Liz

        Thanks for the response, Sharkly.
        It is very troubling. We’re seeing the results now (I think society at large is starting to believe it, when doors start falling off of planes in flight it is hard to deny).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *