Fatherless
Why Marxist professors hate fathers
I was assaulted yesterday.
Or rather—my car was.
I parked at my jiu-jitsu gym, and as I’m gathering my things, a homeless guy wanders up smiling. He’s holding a 1.5-liter bottle of Jack Daniel’s in each hand. I ask how he’s doing. He raises the bottles and says, “Good.”
It’s 9 a.m.
He tells me he just stole them from the Walgreens down the block. I ask him what he thinks the best thing in life is. Without hesitation: “Pleasure.”
That seemed to conclude the conversation. He had important business with the whiskey.
I head into the gym. A few minutes later, the owner and I look outside and see him smashing the hood of my car with a rock about the size of two softballs. We run out to confront him. He bolts, whiskey still in hand, shouting, “I couldn’t have done that—I’m holding these!”
How many layers of bad choices, addictions, crimes, and refusals to hear wisdom does it take to steal whiskey and vandalize a car by 9 a.m.?
With that level of industriousness, he could have climbed the corporate ladder with ease and had a corner office by now.
Think of how the leftist professor would frame this. The unhoused person is the victim of a settler-colonial-capitalist exploitation system in which those who do not participate in the “whiteness” are discarded and forced to abuse alcohol and commit crimes. If someone was just nice to him and offered him a helping hand, he would take full responsibly for living a life, getting a job, renting an apartment, and paying his bills on time. But instead, no one will give him a helping hand.
Anyone who has volunteered at a homeless shelter for five minutes knows this is not true.
The truth is that, without knowing anything else about him, we can know with high probably he was not raised by his father. All of the government assistance programs in the world don’t help, and usually just do harm, where a father would have changed his life.
This is why the leftist professor hates men and fathers. They want to create a dependent class that is constantly in need of government intervention. Fathers stand in their way.
Marx and Engles were not secretive about their hatred of fathers and the Christian family. They were very clear about their plans to dismantle that institution. And to the extent that they have succeeded we see the devastation it has brought about in personal lives and in society.
“The overthrow of mother-right was the world-historic defeat of the female sex.
The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude…
This form of the family is founded on the supremacy of the man.”
and
“The establishment of father-right was the first condition for the accumulation of wealth in individual families.”
The leftist professor repeats Marxist lies. Whether such a professor has actually bought into that philosophy or is what the Soviets called a “useful idiot,” they are part to the system to destroy fatherhood. Where a godly father teaches his children to take personal responsibly, the Marxist tells them to complain and envy.
Young men, you can stop this generational sin. You can marry the mother of your children and raise your children to love God. Don’t listen to the Marxist lies about the “patriarchy.” The strength of fathers to stand up to godlessness is just what we need right now.
Malachi 4:5-6
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
And he will turn
The hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.


On the Marxist note, I just gave an exam in response to a video essay called "How Did the World Get So Ugly," in which Sheehan Quirke shows how the sewer pumping station built in London in the mid-nineteenth century features a glorious interior of columns, arches, and gimcrackery compared to the concrete dome that functions today. The prompt asks, "What does Quirke mean by "the power of design?" What must an object do in order to qualify as a powerful design?" (The answer is that it should function, but also be beautiful, "do more.")
A student responded that Britain designed beautiful things in the Victorian era to oppress other countries, by showing their wealth...in other words the response was rooted in past offenses, completely missing the point of comparison between the beautifully designed objects of that past, and the cheap schlock we live with today.
What confounds me is that there is this dominant thought that no one is born bad, but people are bad because of their environment. Thus, changing the environmental conditions will change someone’s behavior. But rather than seeing intact families as a positive agent of change, they want to control the environment through political and economic means. This presumes, I think, that they assume all individuals are the same, no individual differences, born tabula rasa. Therefore, a one size fits all political environment controlled by a positivist philosophical system will make the most people happy—where happiness is defined by pleasure rather than human flourishing. What do you think about that?