My last Deep Stater was from the NeoCon faction. This one is from the TDS faction. Dear Lord, TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME! Hillary Clinton must have been the True Antichrist, there’s no other explanation for all the enemies of Christ and America losing their minds over Donald Trump so completely that they’ve forgotten the importance of maintaining plausible deniability where the normies can see them.

The Path to Give California 12 Senators, and Vermont Just One

Maybe the two-senators-per-state rule isn’t as permanent as it seems.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/heres-how-fix-senate/579172/

By Eric W. Orts, 2 January 2019

Whoa, we got unpacking to do just from the title of this one. Why would Vermont losing representation be a good thing to a Democrat? Vermont is a Democrat stronghold.

Background

When the Constitution was being drafted, there was debate over how the colonies would be represented in Congress. Powerful ones such as Virginia wanted representation proportionate to their headcount because they really liked the status quo of them being the big guys. Weak ones such as Rhode Island complained that that would leave them with the very “taxation without representation” that they’d just fought a war over.

The compromise was allowing both solutions and dividing legislative power between them. The representational House let the Big Boys have their populist pulpit while the Senate was “two per State” with longer terms of service, to ensure the smaller states wouldn’t be looted by the unwashed masses.

Which is why House members are called “Representatives”, not “House members”. They’re the ones who actually represent the American population while the Senators represent (at the time) the state governments not the people.

A law school would have charged you a year’s pay for that history lesson and then blamed it for Trump being President. Specifically, Wharton Law School at U. Pennsylvania. Orts’ bio from them:

This is the only pic I have. It’s not enough for physiognomy.

Eric Orts is the Guardsmark Professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He is a professor of legal studies and business ethics with a joint appointment in management. He serves as an academic co-director of the NASD Institute at Wharton Certificate Program for compliance and regulatory professionals and directs Wharton’s Environmental Management Program. His primary research and teaching interests are corporate governance, professional ethics, and environmental management. His scholarly work is widely published in academic journals (mostly law reviews) and books.

Emphasis mine. A entire life spent in academia… academia that he doesn’t even value if it gets in his way, as this article proves. How ethical of him.

The article

In 1995, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan declared, .Sometime in the next century the United States is going to have to address the question of apportionment in the Senate.. Perhaps that time has come. Today the voting power of a citizen in Wyoming, the smallest state in terms of population, is about 67 times that of a citizen in the largest state of California, and the disparities among the states are only increasing. The situation is untenable.

House representation isn’t nearly that bad. He must be talking specifically about Senate representation but Senators were originally not elected by popular vote at all, but by their State legislature. They represented their State government directly. This changed with the 17th Amendment, championed by globalists such as William Jennings Bryan, SecState under Woodrow Wilson.

Pundits, professors, and policy makers have advanced various solutions. Burt Neuborne of NYU has argued in The Wall Street Journal that the best way forward is to break up large states into smaller ones. Akhil Amar of Yale Law School has suggested a national referendum to reform the Senate. The retired congressman John Dingell asserted here in The Atlantic that the Senate should simply be abolished.

One call to erase Statehood (and by extension, Federalism) entirely. Another call for a Constitutional Convention, which is the only national referendum permitted to override the U.S. Constitution. And a former Congressman who thinks he’s funny.

Nice friends you’ve got there, Eric. Did anybody you know vote for Trump?

There’s a better, more elegant, constitutional way out. Let’s allocate one seat to each state automatically to preserve federalism, but apportion the rest based on population. Here’s how.

The Constitutional way out is Senators representing none of their constituents. True equality!

Start with the total U.S. population, then divide by 100, since that’s the size of the current, more deliberative upper chamber. Next, allocate senators to each state according to their share of the total; 2/100 equals two senators, 3/100 equals three, etc. Update the apportionment every decade according to the official census.

Using 2017 census estimates as a proxy for the official one coming in 2020, the Rule of One Hundred yields the following outcome: 26 states get only one senator (having about 1/100 of the population or less), 12 states stay at two, eight states gain one or two, and the four biggest states gain more than two: California gets 12 total, Texas gets nine, and Florida and New York get six each. This apportionment shows how out of whack the current Senate has become.

In the new allocation, the total number of senators would be 110. The total is more than 100 because 10 of the smallest states have much less than 0.5/100 of the U.S. population but are still entitled to one senator each.

Why would they be entitled to Senate over-representation? If you’re going to argue thus then at least be consistent.

The obvious reply is, .This is impossible! The Constitution plainly says that each state gets two senators. There’s even a provision in the Constitution that says this rule cannot be amended.” Indeed, Article V, in describing the amendment process, stipulates that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate..

This seems like a showstopper, and some scholars say it’s “unthinkable” that the one-state, two-senators rule can ever be changed. But, look, when conservative lawyers first argued that the Affordable Care Act violated the Commerce Clause, that seemed unthinkable, too. Our Constitution is more malleable than many imagine.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was that mandating ACA did violate the Clause but taxing people for nonparticipation didn’t. When Trump ended that tax, a federal judge then declared it unconstitutional under the SCOTUS ruling, which is why Commiefornia is trying to set up an independent version of ACA.

First, consider that Article V applies only to amendments. Congress would adopt the Rule of One Hundred scheme as a statute; let’s call it the Senate Reform Act. Because it’s legislation rather than an amendment, Article V would.arguably.not apply.

Eric is a lying sack of shit. The reason the 17th Amendment was passed in the first place is because this exact reasoning is illegal. Illegal as in, lawbreaking.

Second, the states, through the various voting-rights amendments.the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth.have already given their “consent” by directing Congress to adopt legislation to protect equal voting rights, and this delegated power explicitly applies to “the United States” as well as the states. The Senate Reform Act would simply shift seats according to population. No state or its citizens would lose the franchise.

True equality is when nobody gets a vote in Senator election… everybody is equally zero… which is what the Founders wanted. I demand equality!

Note that even states that did not ratify the voting-rights amendments have, functionally, consented to them, and thus also to the constitutional logic supporting a Senate Reform Act. As Justice Clarence Thomas explained in 1995, .The people of each State obviously did trust their fate to the people of the several States when they consented to the Constitution; not only did they empower the governmental institutions of the United States, but they also agreed to be bound by constitutional amendments that they themselves refused to ratify..

Remember, too, that the Constitution is a complex framework document that has evolved over the course of more than two centuries. The Civil War inaugurated a century of ever-increasing recognition of voting rights through the aforementioned amendments, which created a new constitutional principle that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State” on specific grounds of race, color, sex, or age. All of these amendments include exactly the same enforcement provision as well: “Congress shall have the power to enforce this [amendment] by appropriate legislation..

The War of Northern Aggression put to death the idea that D.C. rules with the consent of the governed. Ironically, that made an actual Civil War in America possible. Remember that war started when the South withdrew its consent to be governed? “Consent of the governed” meant a Civil War wasn’t needed to sort out national issues; the dissenter could just leave. Although Stinkin’ Lincoln didn’t allow that to happen.

Now that we don’t have the option to peacefully leave, we’re buying lots of guns as if Civil War is inevitable. Telling us that we today approved the Democrats’ current agenda 200 years before they wrote it because they titled it c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n is a great way to force this particular issue.

Race and what W. E. B. Du Bois called “the color line” are crucially at issue here because the current Senate allocation is heavily biased in favor of small states with predominantly white populations, and against large states where whites are in the minority or close to it. For example, in California, 38 percent of citizens are white. In Texas, that figure is 43 percent. Compare the two smallest states: Vermont is 94 percent white…

I’d wondered why he singled out Vermont in the post title. It was a Bernie state in the 2018 election. (Yes, in 2018 Vermont elected Bernie to… the U.S. Senate?! Is Bernie Derangement Syndrome a thing, too?) The whites there are very liberal but, per Eric, still need to be demographically decimated because they’re too white. Hmm, this puts a recent post in a darker light:

https://gunnerq.androsphere.net/2019/01/03/choose-the-form-of-the-destructor-6-and-7/

But continuing with today’s article:

…and Wyoming is 86 percent white. A comprehensive empirical review comparing the national population of whites, blacks, Latinos, and Asians with the median representation in each state found that “whites are the only group that Senate apportionment advantages.” Other, statistically smaller inequalities are present with respect to sex, age, and other constitutionally protected categories, such as sexual orientation.

Why is majority whiteness a problem? We’re tired of your “white man bad” game. You Leftoids had us fooled because surely a fellow white wouldn’t betray us so coldly and completely… well, now we know better.

Constitutional originalists will surely argue that the Founders meant “equal suffrage” in Article V to mean one state, two senators, now and forever. But the Founders could never have imagined the immense expansion of the United States in terms of territory, population, and diversity of its citizens.

Eric Orts needs his citizenship revoked. He doesn’t consider himself an American. His residency status should reflect that.

Remember also that even if one takes original intent as definitive…

Anybody who doesn’t has no business practicing law, let alone teaching it.

…the intentions informing Article V at the founding must be balanced against those behind the voting-rights amendments adopted a century or more later. These amendments clearly and repeatedly authorize Congress to protect “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” against any abridgement “by the United States.. The plain dictionary meaning of abridge is to “reduce the scope” of a right or to “shorten the extent” of it. Unequal Senate apportionment abridges the voting rights of citizens in large states, including nonwhite citizens in those states. This kind of inequality is within the delegated power of Congress to address.

Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School has recommended that when an earlier constitutional text conflicts with later textual amendments, we should follow .time’s arrow.” We should keep in mind that the original one-state, two-senators rule was written and ratified by property-owning white men, almost half of whom owned slaves, and that the voting-rights amendments were adopted after a war to end slavery.

Damn, this white guy HATES whites! What did we ever do to you, Eric, to justify your genocidal wish list? Some of our ancestors using slave labor instead of prison labor, when slavery was legal and criminals were hanged? Since I couldn’t read Eric, I’ll read his friend Laurence.

Grandma? Whoa, Doppleganger alert. Anyway, very lined forehead for intelligence. (Had the lines been broken, it would indicate many intellectual interests, but this guy is focused.) Conformist ears except the tops poke out, which these days means vision problems. (It’s wearing glasses that turns the ear tops out.) At his age, the lines around his eyes don’t mean much; marital/sexual problems would have left deep furrows by now and some of those lines can indicate organ dysfunction. Problem glasses. Chameleon (thin, hard to see) eyebrows. Thin lips means poor emotional expression yet his eyes are rounded, giving mixed signals. A weak chin but with jowls: in youth he had a less forceful personality than later in life. Low nasal septum means he identifies closely with his preferred work. Slight bulb on the end denoting interest in wealth/prestige. Uniformly pale face. Triangle face shape, which I find correlates well with Gamma tendencies.

Conclusion, he’s a born rebel. Smart and steady enough to pursue a goal but lacking much in the way of emotional ties, so he can make and abandon allies easily. He reached celebrity status at a relatively late age but spent his entire career, as much as he could, in pursuit of what was truly important to him. (Marxism, apparently.)

*checks Wikipedia* Straight shot through law school, clerked around a couple years, went back to Harvard Law and got tenured almost immediately, where he played Spider In the Web ever after.

Frederick Douglass said the Civil War was fought to “unify and reorganize the institutions of this country,. and otherwise would have been “little better than a gigantic enterprise for shedding human blood.” He was right. Equality of voting rights is an essential constitutional principle that emerged from this struggle.and it’s been expanded since then in women’s suffrage, the civil-rights movement of the 1960s, and beyond.

Every civil war in history was fought to “unify and reorganize the institutions of this country.” Maybe that’s why Leftoids are now pushing hard for civil war against whites.

There are therefore two strong constitutional arguments in favor of a Senate Reform Act. It protects the equal right of every American citizen to a rough mathematical equality of voting weight and power in their national government.with a constraint, recognizing the virtue in federalism, of allocating one senator to every state at a minimum. And it corrects a heavy, unjustified bias favoring white citizens in the Senate. It doesn’t go too far to describe the current Senate apportionment as a vehicle entrenching white supremacy.

As I said in the introduction, Trump Derangement has the Left pushing their agenda so hard that they’ve forgone plausible deniability. What does Eric expect all those “muh Constitution and civil rights” useful idiots to think about him describing a Constitutional Senate as “a vehicle entrenching white supremacy”?

We don’t have to warn the middle anymore. We only have to quote the Left.

An additional argument supporting the plausibility of a Senate Reform Act is that the Supreme Court might see fit to stay out of the mix. The unelected, nonrepresentative justices might revive an old but good doctrine against overturning a federal statute unless Congress makes a “clear mistake” about its constitutionality. Or the Court might defer to Congress on this issue by invoking the “political question” doctrine, which requires treading lightly in areas where a democratically elected branch has been explicitly granted constitutional power.

Somebody is butthurt about Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Several other structural benefits would follow from a Senate Reform Act. It would automatically mitigate the unrepresentativeness of the Electoral College, which allocates presidential electors to each state equal to the number of its congressional delegation.that is, the total number of representatives and senators. (I should point out also that if this reapportionment had, hypothetically, occurred prior to the most recent presidential election, the result would not have changed. Red gains in Texas and Florida would have offset a blue gain in California, and blue losses in New England would have balanced red losses in lightly populated western states.)

In large states, the election of multiple senators could allow a broader spectrum of political representation.e.g., both Ted Cruz and Beto O.Rourke.which might help reduce the poisonous polarization that characterizes our politics.

Way too little, way too late, Mister “the Constitution is whatever gets rid of white people the fastest.” You whine about “poisonous polarization” IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEETHING AT STILL-WHITE AMERICA’S EXISTENCE! EVEN LIBERAL WHITE AMERICA!

Last but not least, a new minimum of one senator for small states could ease the path toward statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which are currently unrepresented in Congress. Adding one senator for each of these new states to a Senate of 110 would prove less difficult politically than adding four to 100.

The immediate political likelihood for passage of the Senate Reform Act is not great, in large part because it’s not only more democratic than the status quo, but more Democratic, too.

That capital “D” is his, not mine.

Taking the Trump electoral victory map of 2016 as a template, and applying it to the 110 senators created under the reform, yields a gain of plus-eight senators for Democrats and plus-two for Republicans. From a political point of view, then, Democrats should favor the reform.and one can imagine it passing in some alternative future, even if some Democratic senators from small states would have to vote in favor of fairness and principle rather than parochial and racial privilege. Republicans in large states might also be hard-pressed to vote against their own citizens. prospects for fairer and broader representation.

If a Democratic wave continues into 2020, then who knows, a Senate Reform Act could make America a democracy again.

Their hate for us is in the open now. Feels good. No more lies.

 

 

Women in Northern California are too white to be feminists. Indeed, the Womens’ March political movement is falling apart in many ways as Care-Based Morality assumes the sale of feminism and moves on to non-feminist agenda items.

Women’s March event canceled over concerns of being ‘overwhelmingly white’

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/organizers-cancel-womens-march-in-northern-california-because-its-too-white

By Louis Casiano, 31 December 2018

Organizers of a Women’s March rally slated for Northern California next month have canceled the event, saying they were concerned that participants would have been “overwhelmingly white.”

In a news release, organizers for the march in Eureka . about 270 miles north of San Francisco . said Friday the “decision was made after many conversations between local social-change organizers and supporters of the march..

.Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community,. the news release continued.

Have these people noticed how white their Antifa goons are? Maybe they should be more careful about disrespecting their own footsoldiers. Hey, Antifa, it’s okay to be both MGTOW and Orange Man Bad!

It’s okay to be white, too. Unless you’re Women’s March.

According to Census Bureau data from July, Humboldt County, where Eureka is the county seat, is 74 percent non-Hispanic white.

.I was appalled to be honest,. Amy Sawyer Long told the Washington Times. .I understand wanting a diverse group. However, we live in a predominantly white area . not to mention how is it beneficial to cancel? No matter the race people still want their voices heard..

That’s why it’s called the Womens’ March, so men can be heard too. Ah, silly me. Men are not people.

The rally, which had been planned for Jan. 19, would have commemorated the third anniversary of the original Women’s March, which was held Jan. 21, 2017, the day after President Trump took office.

Trump Derangement Syndrome again. Womens’ March isn’t just a movement. It’s a bowel movement!

The group said it is exploring shifting the rally to March to celebrate International Women’s Day.

The Women’s March movement has been marred by complaints from some black and Latina women, who’ve raised concerns that their input is often disregarded or overlooked, the New York Times reported.

Do they have a different way of hating Trump? Maybe they’re racist against Orange?

The cancellation of the march in California follows a previous one in Chicago.

Women’s March organizers in that city cited high costs and limited volunteer hours as reasons for nixing the annual rally, the Chicago Tribune reported.

.There’s no march, there’s no rally,. said Sara Kurensky, Women’s March Chicago board member. .We’re going to provide ways for people to organize and take action in their local communities..

Form of the Destructor 7: Taxes are too high to protest Donald Trump!

Meanwhile, the Women’s March national leadership has faced accusations of anti-Semitism because of ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

In a speech in February, Farrakhan praised a Women’s March co-President Tamika Mallory and declared “the powerful Jews are my enemy..

Leaders of Women’s March Inc. have come under scrutiny for not condemning Farrakhan’s rhetoric fast enough. The Nation of Islam is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Earlier this month, a Washington state chapter of the Women’s March disbanded in protest because of the national group’s links to anti-Semitism.

Troll 11/10. We should take notes!

Marches and rallies are still planned for Jan. 19 in Washington, D.C., and dozens of other cities nationwide and internationally.

Free Cyntoia Brown! But not around me, please. I don’t have a man to protect me from her:

https://gunnerq.androsphere.net/2018/12/14/cyntoia-brown-pussy-pass-denied/

 

A blogger named Bnonn has recently arrived on Dalrock’s radar by accusing him and associates of being woman-hating cultists. Not the most original accusation ever made against us but one commenter thought Bnonn was reasonably patriarchal, anti-feminist and pro-Scripture. Having already made light of the guy threatening to make a website against us, I felt obligated to check and see if perhaps the guy was a potential ally who got started off on the wrong foot with us.

Well… he has problems I have trouble even defining despite years in the Manosphere. On the one hand, Bnonn took the Red Pill. On the other hand, he coughed the Pill back up and invented “household theology”, my term, to justify women holding authority over men in violation of plain Scripture… which is the feminist agenda and surely not patriarchy from any perspective.

https://bnonn.com/qa-how-not-to-throw-out-the-biblical-baby-with-the-blue-pill-bathwater/

The nature of the sexual marketplace today is very different than throughout most of human history. In most cultures and times, it is not a cold, brutal fact of life in some winners-and-losers sense. Focusing on the United States, even thirty years ago it was extraordinarily uncommon for anyone to remain unmarried. Somehow, everyone seemed to find a spouse; by the age of 30 over 85% of people had married, and by the age of 45 over 95% had.See Percentage of U.S. women never married, by age, 1980 & 2015. Although the numbers do wax and wane through US history, the times when they were especially low were the result of war. But today, in the space of one peacetime generation, these numbers have changed dramatically: at age 30, over 40% of people are still unmarried; by age 45, they’ve just managed to catch up with the 30-year-olds of 1980. That’s a huge shift, but the fact that it has shifted should illustrate that it’s not pairing off per se which is the issue. Something else is going on.

That’s an odd conclusion. How did he come to think that people are still pairing off yet not getting married? The situation is obviously not common-law marriages replacing licensed marriages.

What is that thing? Most simply, I think it is the teardown of the household.

He has this theology about the household being the building block of society… not meaning the nuclear family because nations also count as households. It sounds a lot like Papism but he wants it applied Old Testament-style, not apostolic-succession style. A Papist Judaizer?

It is not the teardown of marriage, as you will generally hear Christians lament. That is too reductionistic. If it were merely marriage which was under attack, Christianity would offer a more effective bulwark.but lots of Christians value marriage, yet marriage rates in the assembly are down and divorce rates are up.

Wild idea here… maybe the institution of marriage isn’t supernaturally off-limits to the devil. Marriage must be fine because the Church would never allow marriage to be torn down! /facepalm

Neither is it the teardown of the patriarch, as many red pill pundits say. If that were so, then the mere reinstatement of patriarchy would solve the problem.but it typically produces cultism instead.

This is probably where his tweet of us being cultists comes from. We think men should wield authority; he thinks the household should wield authority. And women are part of the household. Hmm.

Memo to Bnonn, patriarchy is men having authority over women. It’s not about resurrecting the Biblical Patriarchs or installing new ones. In a few moments, in fact, you’ll be the one calling for Priest-Kings.

Rather, the effects we’re seeing today are the result of the household itself suddenly collapsing after over a century of having its key structural elements progressively weakened and removed. Tearing down the household obviously does involve tearing down marriage and the patriarch at the same time, but it’s a mistake to conflate the struts with the structure. When we do that, we miss the forest for the trees.

This is him spitting up the Red Pill.

For instance, I believe this teardown began much longer ago than most people realize: it started with the rejection of biblical republicanism in favor of flat democracy, rather than with what we’d today think of as egalitarianism or liberalism or feminism. Once social order began to be determined entirely at the individual level, with each person exercising equal, autonomous .micro-rule. through their personal vote, everything we’re seeing today inevitably followed.

Sigh. He certainly talks like a Papist, one of those people so cognitively dependent upon Church structure that he still thinks Protestants are the root of all evil. If only we would obey the authorities properly then we’d all have nice domestic wives… or something to that effect.

By the way, I’ve noticed Papists in Protestant circles also. I don’t use the term to mean the RCC specifically. There’s a certain mindset that just can’t handle life without an externally provided framework. Thus, I now distinguish between Catholics who follow Christ and Papists who follow Rome (or in Prot Land, Christians who always obey the State).

Bnonn’s Theology of the Household

https://bnonn.com/but-what-about-businesswomen/

To know what is appropriate for women in business, we need to first go back to what is appropriate for women in the household, and then figure out how business relates to that.

This is because the household is the primitive unit of society. It is the originator of order in the world. Adam’s household was also the original kingdom. As God’s son, Adam was a vassal king, representing God’s rule in creation.

This is the literary crime of eisegesis, the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one’s own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

God is the originator of order in the world; I’ve never heard Him be described as a household in Scripture or even Trinitarian theology. Similarly, “Adam’s household” is a concept created by Bnonn, not Scripture. Adam & Eve never even had a marriage, so far as we’re told. Adam was God’s creation, not God’s son. Only Christ is God’s son; the famous John 3:16.

Bnonn claims these are households in order to support his preexisting household theology.

[Adam’s] house’s mission was to expand and carry on God’s work of establishing right order in the world.

No. The command was “be fruitful and multiply”, not “restore right order”. The best way for Adam to have achieved the latter would have been to refuse to reproduce and died for his crime, as justice demanded. Intentionally breeding more humans condemned to sin, that was God’s Will but not restoration of “right order”.

Furthermore, if that command was to all humanity then God contradicted himself in Christ’s teaching about eunuchs, that one could be a voluntary eunuch for God’s sake.

Furthermore, God imposed curses on Adam & Eve that they were powerless to undo.

(compare how Jesus, in the gospel which especially emphasizes his sonship, repeatedly speaks of doing only what the Father has given him to do)

Yes. God sent Christ to undo the works of the devil, which all humanity from Adam to now could not. That is why Christ is my savior and Adam is not.

So a household is a kingdom in microcosm. As it expands and becomes many households, the kingdom in turn expands into its fullness. But it does not fundamentally change form; it only grows into maturity. This is why Israel as a national kingdom is still called the “house of Israel. (e.g. Exodus 40:38).

This is the crux of his theology and is obviously not based on Scripture.

The purpose of marriage is to symbolize the ideal relationship between Christ and the Church. Wielding authority over third parties is not part of that symbolism. A man’s authority over his wife is not a king’s authority over his subjects.

God usually chooses evil men to wield power in this reality. He was the one who raised up Pharaoh to disobey Him, who chose Saul and Rehoboam and other disobedient and rebellious people… Jonah and Samson being notable. Having power over other humans, even having supernatural powers, is NOT REPEAT NOT an endorsement of virtue or proof of divine favor.

Israel was the literal father of the nation Israel, something made possible only by God’s careful planning. Defining nations by genealogy in the New Testament era is a hopeless task. The genetic permutations and combinations simply cannot be unraveled.

God carries his rule into the world through the fathers of households.

Scripture disagrees. When God acted through human intermediaries, He did so through men without regard to their marital status. Genesis Patriarchs, Moses, priests, prophets, kings, apostles and even His enemies. Only the accounts of Ruth, Hosea and Jesus involved a household and that by biological and genealogical necessity.

As a fast counterexample, Jeremiah surely carried God’s rule into the world yet God explicitly forbade him from marrying. Apostle Paul was also an element of bringing God’s kingdom into the world and he was glad to NOT be married at the time. They were not households.

Every father rules his own house, and as these houses multiply, the wiser fathers work together to rule their clans and tribes, all the way up to the national level.

That… is astonishingly wishful thinking. Which is it, “work together” or “rule their clans and tribes”? These are mutually exclusive concepts of gov’t. And why, in light of recorded history, does he think the wiser fathers rise to the top?

Notice he slipped in “up to the national level”. I think Bnonn doesn’t understand that nations are different entities from tribes. One is ethnically defined and the other is politically defined. He assumes that God wants all nations to resemble ancient Israel, conveniently forgetting both that Israel was uniquely designed for specific purposes and that the New Testament did away with any concern for genealogy and its related tribalism. “God can raise children of Abraham out of these rocks!”

The purpose of this is always right order: establishing and maintaining the relationships between people and God, and between people and people. A father is a priest and a king. This is the system we see Moses establish in Exodus 18; indeed, the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 is married to a town patriarch who sits in the gate to judge disputes among the people, and to ensure the right order, the shalom of the houses under his care.

“A father is a priest and king?” Only within marriage, to honor the symbology of it but again, that situation does not involve authority over third parties.

What’s this about Exodus 18? That chapter describes Moses delegating his judicial responsibilities on the advice of his father-in-law. The criteria for new judges, per verse 21, was “capable men from all the people.men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain”. No mention of fatherhood at all. Also, no mention of allowing female judges. Also, no mention of priests, which in Moses’ time were Aaron and the Levites only.

Bnonn is twisting Proverbs 31 to claim that her husband’s household included ruling the town. This sort of eisegesis is how he claims all human authority is a “household”.

This brings us back to women in households and businesses. The virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 is a businesswoman. She assesses and buys a field; she plants a vineyard and sells the produce; she produces linen and trades it to merchants. But she does all this not as her own boss, nor as an employee, but as a wife. This is because the household was, until very recently, the basic unit of both order and production in society.

This is such a twisted reading of Proverbs 31 that I don’t hardly know where to begin. She’s a businesswoman who only does business as a wife, which makes no sense, and she operates a textiles factory but not as a boss or employee, and her household is full of both children and commercial vineyards.

The household is the basic unit of production in society? No, MEN are the basic unit of production. Don’t pretend women can work the mines or ranches. They need to keep home with the kids and make life more pleasant for her family, that’s what Proverbs 31 tries to say.

When the Bible speaks against women ruling, it is speaking against them representing God as father and king. It is speaking against them having priestly jurisdiction over how we must relate to God or others. But it is not speaking against them representing God at all, since otherwise they would not be the image of God! Women are made expressly to complete man’s representation of God, by filling and refining the world.

Translation, it’s okay for a woman to have authority over men so long as some man, somewhere has authority over her. This is what all his wordiness was leading towards.

Churchians do this same thing with marriage counseling. “Is your wife not obeying you? I shall intervene as God’s representative and determine whether she is right to disobey you!” Bnonn’s contribution is replacing the local priest with President Trump. That is not progress.

Bnonn is lying about women being made to complete man’s representation of God. God made Eve because Adam was lonely, not incomplete… remember God actually removed a rib from Adam in the process… and this “completion” was the person who led Adam into rebellion against God.

In fact, Adam being lonely is an image of God being lonely. He does not need humanity but He desires our company very much… enough to endure the Crucifixion to secure our freewilled loyalty.

For a woman to have authority in business is fine, because production is both a masculine and feminine mandate. A female executive is not representing God’s father-rule. But the business world itself is demented in that it has torn a rift between households and production, and this creates some very thorny difficulties for women to negotiate.difficulties they often negotiate poorly, and end up regretting when they are older. It masculinizes many women.short hair, power suits, bossy attitudes.and makes them both unattractive and miserable. If it is at all possible, it is far better for a woman to focus on stewarding the production of her own household than of an emaciated household-knockoff.

Let me close by simplifying this paragraph: Bnonn is unwilling to tell women No. Just like Adam in the Garden. Just like the complementarians. Just like the feminists.

Women are not to wield authority over men. Full stop.