The Commander-in-Chief of what?

An article recently published by David Boaz on the the Cato Institute website is a good reminder of the limitations of the office of POTUS. We the People have acceded too much power to the head of the federal government in a way that is contrary to the Constitution. In the article, Mr. Boaz states:

[I]t’s important for our understanding of a constitutional republic to be clear on these points. The president is the chief executive of the federal government. He is the commander in chief of the armed forces, not of the entire government and definitely not of 320 million U.S. citizens.

We have afforded quasi-monarchical status to the office in recent years: this is not a new notion. We must remember that there were those who wanted General Washington to be the king of the United States; he flatly refused. He set a precedent that the President be limited in power. We must remember this if we are to remain a Representative Republic.

Likewise, “Commander-in-Chief” is a martial role. It represents the President’s role as the head of the military, but he does not have the power to declare war; that power is reserved to Congress, although they have abrogated that responsibility since WWII. That being said, the military has no obligation to Congress, per se, as affirmed in the Oath of Enlistment:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

The oath for officers is slightly different:

I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.

Officers do not swear/affirm obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over [them]. They are to make conscious decisions to give lawful commands in accordance with the Constitution.

Natural born citizens do not swear/affirm such oaths as this, but naturalized citizens must swear/affirm a similar oath:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

While there is no allegiance to the President, there is in all three oaths two common elements: 1) the person will uphold and defend the Constitution and 2) the person solemnified the oath “so help [them] God. With this affirmation, the person binds himself to the laws of the land and invokes the name of the Almighty to assist them in doing so.

As Southern Gentlemen, we have an obligation to obey those in authority over us. We are not, however, serfs of the State. We must maintain our dignity and ensure those elected to lead in all levels of government remain faithful to their offices and remain within the bounds set forth for them in the Constitution.


Cooking is a manly skill

Graham Seibert recently posted an article at Return of Kings citing eight reasons why a man should teach his son to cook:

  1. Cooking gives a boy adult responsibilities
  2. Cooking is educational
  3. Cooks pay attention to their health
  4. Cooking is thrifty
  5. Cooks learn to clean up
  6. Cooking saves time
  7. Ladies love men who cook
  8. Cooking is highly social

You can read this excellent article in its entirety here, but I’d like to share another reason that my father impressed upon me at an early age.

Being a grizzled veteran of the vile divorce wars, he told me in absolute terms that someday my wife might leave me, and if I didn’t know how to cook I’d starve. Granted, there’s a bit of hyperbole given the preponderance of restaurants this nation is blessed with, but the admonition was seared into my conscience. Thankfully, the Good LORD has blessed me with a loving and faithful wife, so I’ve never had to test my father’s theory.

Is Game a Modern Rite of Initiation?

A few weeks ago an article was posted on Return of Kings that was titled Game Is A Modern Rite Of Passage That Helps Turn Boys Into Men. I’d like to briefly explore some elements of that article. Mr. Anthony begins by stating this fact:

Anyone who’s been involved in the manosphere for long enough knows about the concept of a rite of passage. For tens of thousands of years, when boys hit the age of puberty, they were forced to undergo a set of challenges.

These challenges were meant to break them down, and build them back up even stronger. These challenges were meant to test them as men, and they are collectively known as an “initiation,” or as a “rite of passage.” When a boy successfully completed the tasks laid before him, he became a man.

Our society, for the most part, lacks these rites of passage. This is, in large part, why there is such a lack of masculinity in our culture—boys are never given a chance to develop into men. We have all of these 45 year old boyish-men running around for a reason: there exists no institutionalized rite of passage in the West.

When I look back at my own life, the closest thing I had to a rite of passage was Basic Training. I’d imagine that would be the case with many men of my generation. I’d enlisted in the Army National Guard my Junior year of high school and went to Ft. Jackson, SC, the summer before my Senior year in what was called the “Alabama Buddy Platoon”. A whole platoon (and a half) of Alabama kids spent a summer setting aside racial differences, as the platoon was fairly evenly split black and white, being broken down as individuals to become soldiers. We had a Puerto Rican drill sergeant who absolutely enjoyed forcing us to sing the Hee-Haw Song: he considered us all rednecks. When I finished Basic and went back to school, it was if all my friends had reverted to Kindergarteners, but I knew I was the one who’d changed. 

The author explains his reasoning of why rites of initiation are essential and why he believes that Game can fill the void:

I believe that, although it isn’t perfect, game is a phenomenal substitute for this lack of a male initiation ritual. Game provides us with many of the characteristics that you need to be a man, and it has many of the characteristics that the old rituals of the past did:

  • Destroys your ego
  • Requires you to face your fears
  • Forces you to be decisive, in times of uncertainty
  • Develops confidence, ferocity, and a strong will

While I like the aspects presented, here is my dissention with the premise: Game is largely focused on sexual satisfaction, although I’ve seen a bit of maturity beyond the original PUA mentality in recent years. I am reminded of Ecclesiastes where we are told “There is nothing new under the sun” which I wholeheartedly agree with. Game isn’t a modern innovation, it’s a rediscovery of lost knowledge adapted to deal with the dysfunctional society we live in. My disagreement on Game as a rite of initiation is that it serves as an unguided act without the tribal and paternal interaction with father and elders that are traditionally part of such rites. 

I’m not knocking Game as a rite of initiation; it’s a better option for instilling manhood than almost anyone else is offering. It comes about eight or so years later than most traditional rites of initiation, but so did my Basic Training experience. It leaves early teens still wandering between childhood and adulthood without offering a guiding hand. 

Here is where those of us with sons or nephews nearing that age can fill the gap. We can be the men to restore the traditions of our ancestors, which requires us to learn them. We can restore tribal identity in a morass of globalist non-identity. That means, for me at least, looking at my Welsh and Ulster Scots ancestors to see what kinds of rites they had. What did their descendants do after settling in the South? Fortunately for me, I still have a few years before my son comes of age. 

In all, I encourage you to read the article. In this post-modern era, we’re all struggling to maintain tradition and identity, and Mr. Anthony’s article is as good as any other on the topic, and far superior to any progressive notions on how one becomes a man. 

Read the full article here. 

Ressurecting Honor

I want want to share with you a well written article titled Ressurecting Honor that was recently posted on By Spear and Axe. 

The author reinforces many of the points that have been made on this site. I’m proud to live in the South where the honor culture still exists, but it has been greatly eroded in the past couple generations. 

Once people stopped holding their honor as sacred, the world began a nasty descent into what it has become today. Men and women both view relationships, even marriage, as temporary arrangements and get married only for tax benefits or to be on one another’s insurance, nothing more. So-called “protestors” initiate violence regularly. Alleged leaders defend a would-be killer and excoriate the police officer who ended the threat.

The author goes beyond pointing out the problem and offers some solutions:

  • Don’t Be Self-Righteous About It
  • Treat People Like Your Life Depends On It
  •  Own Up To Your Mistakes…Then Make Amends

These are all areas that a true Southern Gentleman will recognize as essential to maintaining honor, and I commend the author on bringing them to our attention. 

Read the full article here. 

Review: Reinventing the South: Versions of a Literary Region, by Mark Royden Winchell | Abbeville Institute

Chronicle’s most distinguished contributing editor, can be relied upon, always, to tell it like it is. He is doing just that when he writes in a blurb to Reinventing the South:“these essays are splendidly written—mercifully free of contemporary critical jargon and easily accessible to the good and serious reader.” And he amplifies this description of Professor Winchell’s work with “high intelligence joining wit, good humor, and common sense.”

Read more here:

Four Ways to Create a Gentlemanly Value System

Prior to viewing materialism through the lens of the pillars of the GentlemanProject I want to discuss the importance of creating and upholding your own personal value system. This is not a value system that is created by those around you, or by your hometown. This is a value system you create with yourself and the loved ones in your life. Creating and upholding your own personal value system is critical to your overall success, and ultimately, your happiness. We’ve all heard of the old adage, “Keeping up with the Jones”. This is NOT something you want to be a part of, because you’ll never be truly happy, or ahead of The Jones.

Read more here:

On Meritocracy and Experts

The word “meritocracy” is one which we’ve seen thrown around a lot in recent years. In theory, the word would describe the rule by those with the most “merit” (which would, on its face, seem to make it a synonym for aristocracy, but in practice this is most certainly not the case). As it is popularly used in the media and other outlets, it tends to take on a very narrow definition, with “merit” appearing to be used synonymously with “bureaucrat” or “public policy wonk.” In other words, those which our society considers to have merit are those who would more properly be classified as “experts.”

Read more here:

The Petty Tyranny of Social Media Page Owners

One of the open secrets of social media, especially groups or pages on social media platforms, is that whoever creates a page becomes the petty1 dictator of that particular piece of virtual estate. They are fief holders in a greater online empire. This applies for websites as well, but usually with a website, there is a clearer indication of who the particular owner is (the founder of this site, should it be unclear, is Jeremy Blevins, although he [I] would love to have it become what it was envisioned to be). Nonetheless, the petty dictator of a particular web presence can either be benevolent, neutral, or malignant.

Such is the case of a particular Facebook page earlier this week. A discussion was started as to creating a lapel pin for the pseudo organization and one of the members of the page (in full disclosure: me) submitted a graphic for consideration for the purpose. The owner of the page, whom I had collaborated shared with when he was setting up the page, took umbrage with my claim to the graphic, which was in no way unique, given it was based on traditional elements, and I was “called out” to give credit where credit was due, the other fellow being of the impression that he’d created the particular graphic. I posted proof I’d created it a couple years prior the page being set up, and awaited the fellow to realize his mistake and issue an apology, as surely a gentleman would. I suppose I will be waiting until eternity because injudiciously and without notification, I was kicked out of the group. Another gentleman who was a member of the group engaged the fellow in discussion on a different issue, and when the fellow was unhappy with the course of that dialog, he kicked that gentleman out of the group as well (this I cannot provide a first-hand account of, as I had already been kicked out of the group, but the other expelled gentleman shared the story). I have to be honest, were it a real organization with real people who met in person, I might take greater offense to my integrity being called into question, but it goes to prove a greater point: the relative security and lack of recourse provided by online forums exposes dictatorial tendencies, which I believe are more natural to human nature than forced and artificial egalitarian and democratic ideals.

To elucidate the point: the fellow who created the page didn’t like that I’d countered his challenge to my integrity, so he deleted me from the group like I didn’t exist. That is how dictators react. Dissidents through the world, and especially in countries like North Korea, to cite a modern example, are silenced when they speak out against the dictator.  Only a benevolent dictator allows dissidents to speak, and unless that dictator is well regarded (and strong), such speech poses a great threat to the authority of the dictatorship. I’m not insinuating the fellow with the Facebook page is a bad guy, I really don’t know him well enough to make such a claim. I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt. The fact remains, however, that by deleting me from the group, he has asserted dictatorial control over the message. He could still be accusing me of “stealing” the paltry little graphic, and I have no recourse to defend my good name.

So the moral of the story is this: don’t give too much credence to online communities (this one included). If you really want to associate with likeminded individuals, find a way to meet in person and share a human experience. Online forums are great, but they make us lazy and give us a feeling that we are more powerful than we truly are. Don’t hide behind a keyboard, be willing to stand up and be accountable in the real world with real men.


1In the medieval sense, i.e. “Of lesser importance or rank; subordinate: petty prince.” (The Free Dictionary)