“Why Returning To The Pagan Mindset Could Bring Back Masculinity” – A quick reflection

I read an article from  the site”Return of Kings”, today which interested me. Its title was: Why Returning To The Pagan Mindset Could Bring Back Masculinity [link].

I must admit, I laughed at the title before I read it. I thought it was going to be hyper-masculine, neopagan LARPing. It wasn’t.
The author states that modern Christianity has a reputation for being namby-pamby. This is correct. It does. This namby-pamby, weak Christianity is what inspired me to set up this blog.
This weakness turns away many people. I can understand why. I come from a tough, working-class area. The Christianity many seem to espouse cannot work here.
Despite this, it’s not Christianity at its heart. It’s a modernist, idealistic sense of Christianity. It doesn’t work. It can’t. This new form believes everyone is good, that we can overcome with dialogue. Despite we can’t always do that.
Michael Sebastian, the author of the article, states:
Medieval Christianity did not share the modern belief that everyone is good. Cities were built with walls and strong defenses, not because their inhabitants hated the people on the outside, but because they wanted to protect themselves and their posterity. The idea that Christians are obligated to take in hordes of Muslim immigrants would have been ridiculed by Christians of the past.
I agree. Actually, I imagine it would be more than that. More likely, they would see those who think that as traitors. An enemy within.
He states how modern Christianity is pacifistic. Many Church leaders and Christians espouse not only non-violence, but even avoiding self-defence. He’s right. I’ve discussed with some Christians who act like that. Their smugness grates me.
I imagine that he, like me, is unhappy to be able to say this and be right. This lilly-livered pseudo-Christianity makes me sick. This is usually a form of idealism found in middle-class neighbourhoods. Very little crime. Everyone knows each other. A world a far cry from the world outside my living room.
The author and I part ways in agreement with the term ‘pagan mindset’. He doesn’t advocate for rejoining the old, European pagan religions. It would’ve been better if he used something else. Like Crusader Mindset. Or Templar Mindset. But Pagan mindset? Nah.
This is anecdotal, but most pagans I meet are serious SJWs or LARPers. They seem to hate Christians. Many even seem to love Islam. Weird, I know, but this is my experience – and it’s not one or two people.
His conclusion? A hope for church leaders to stop chasing secular culture. To reclaim our medieval history.
I agree. I am not ashamed of the Crusades* nor the Reconquista. If it wasn’t for those, Europe would have been Islamic. Islam doesn’t absorb cultures. It doesn’t meld with them. It destroys and replaces them. Overrides them. In rare cases, Islam and another culture can co-exist, but this seems to be more rural. Cities become more… Arabesque? The culture doesn’t survive as much.
* Except the Fourth. What the hell was that about?
My stance is, if we want to help destroy the SJW, pseudo-Christianity, we have to do three things:
  • be vocal
  • live it
  • encourage it
I encourage my Christian traditionalist friends and any traditionalist, Christian readers to write. Blog. Speak. Proclaim. Preach. Grow. Read. Learn apologetics. Defend.
The brave form of Christianity, the one of our ancestors, will take off.
We can do it.

“Mansplaining, waah”

A man recently accused me of “mansplaining” to him.
For those of you don’t know what this is, it’s:
  • being male
  • explaining something (usually to a woman)
That’s what it boils down to. Some will add other qualifiers to it, such as:
  • explaining something the person knows about
  • being patronising while you do it
… But it seems that this isn’t needed. Even without, you can still “mansplain”, it seems.
So, I was guilty of mansplaining, it seems. Why? The man said he doesn’t know what something is. I explained it.
He didn’t know what “hygge” was. I told him: Hygge is a Danish word. It’s like “a feeling of cosiness and contentment”. I gave examples:
  • Being in a warm room with blankets when it’s snowing is hygge.
  • Being with friends “hanging out” and enjoying company is hygge.
For some reason, he took offence to it and complained about it. Well, I take issue with people complaining about “mansplaining”.
Here’s why.
The term itself is stupid.
Women and men have a tendency to explain things. Sometimes to people who know about the subject. Sometimes being patronising.
If you accuse a woman of mansplaining, many say only men can do that.
If you say womansplaining, many say this isn’t a real thing. Well, neither is mansplaining. But oh well.
It’s also an ad hominem: an attack against the person. A male can’t help but be male. You haven’t said anything other than “STOP TALKING TO ME I DON’T LIKE IT WHEN MEN EXPLAIN THINGS ME!”. It’s your problem if you think like that. It’s training you to be a perpetual victim. That doesn’t work in the real world. It just makes you alone and hated.
Being a man or woman has no impact on the argument. Neither does being anything else. Is it right? That’s what matters. Nothing else.
When someone is telling you something, that has nothing to do with them being mean. They’re trying to help you by teaching you something. If you deny it, you’re refusing help because of who they are. That’s beyond stupid.
Worse than stupid, it’s shameful. It’s revelling in ignorance and hating on those who try to help you. If you can’t take people knowing stuff, that’s your problem, and it’s a pathetic one. Learning is good. I, for one, hate ignorance. If someone can help educate me, I am glad.
If someone is “talking down to you”, that has nothing to do with being a man or woman. They’re being a dick. Not mansplaining. Not womansplaining.
After the man accused me of mansplaining, what did I do?
First, I laughed at him for being idiotic, like he deserved.
Second, I asked him, “did you just assume my gender?”.
He stopped talking when other people found it funny.