What is the blue pill?

Blogger Bnonn recently took a catty swipe at this blog and the larger Christian men’s sphere in a sixteen part tweet.

1/16 There are lots of folks calling themselves red pill Christians. This is no better than feminist Christians, or social justice Christians, or gay-affirming Christians, or whatever other idol of wokeness someone has discovered in the world and then attached Christianity to.

5/16 The red pill acolyte is inducted into an elect group, gains hidden wisdom & secret doctrines, becomes part of a justified minority. So the red pill is a modern mystery cult; pairing it with Christianity just produces a Christian knockoff of that cult…

12/16 Many RP Christians are those of whom Peter warns us: “they speak loud boasts of folly, enticing by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption.”

13/16 This is obvious if you read discussions on blogs like Dalrock; the eagerness with which they violate the principles of Eph 5 is startling to behold. There is as much contempt for women there as for men on feminist forums, and as little fear of God before their eyes.

For the purpose of this post I’ll set aside the absurdity of Bnonn claiming open discussions on public forums involves secret knowledge, and the more embarrassing problem with him using gossipy Queen B* tactics to promote his upcoming website on masculinity.  I’ll merely note that if he ever takes issue with anything I’ve written I would urge him to man up and quote it and kindly explain my error.

What I want to focus on for this post is what I believe is Bnonn’s difficulty understanding precisely what the Christian “red pill” is.  The term itself has never been my preference, but I’ll work with the metaphor he and others have adopted.  One bit that Bnonn has right in essence is that:

Red pill is a reactionary, negative movement…

This is true, and the difficulty with defining the red pill begins with defining what it is reacting against.  This is where the confusion begins even within the men’s sphere.  To explain this we need to start with Christianity, even if like Heartiste your choice is to lounge poolside and enjoy the decline.  This is the case because the red pill isn’t the original reaction.  What we call chivalry is the original reaction, and chivalry was reacting to/against Christian sexual morality.  Chivalry/courtly love was originally a parody of Christianity, ostensibly a game of reversing Christian teachings regarding men, women, and sex.  Where Christianity taught that it was marriage that made sex and sexual desire moral, courtly love taught that the only pure expression of sexual passion occurred within adultery**.  Where Christianity taught that wives were to submit to their own husbands in fear and reverence, courtly love taught men to submit to other men’s wives in fear and reverence***.  What was pure was portrayed as perverse, and what was bawdy was portrayed as pure.  It was a truly devious joke.

But quite quickly Christians started seeing the parody not as a devious joke, but as the real deal.  Here we are over 800 years later, and conservative Christians regularly present the morality of courtly love as if it were legitimate Christianity.  This pops up in the most astounding ways, including Pastor Doug Wilson teaching that if a husband properly loves his wife she will become more physically beautiful (all emphasis mine):

When husbands undertake the assigned responsibility of loving their wives in such a way that they grow in loveliness, they need to understand that the results will be visible. This does not mean that, with the right husband, all women could be equally beautiful. Some women have the advantage of a greater natural beauty, and others had exceptional fathers—men who treated their daughters right. But it does mean that a man who marries biblically should expect his wife to be visibly lovelier on their tenth anniversary—and if she is not, he knows that he is the one responsible.But as the one responsible, he has to know where true beauty begins. Every husband should learn how to ask, “What will living with a man like me do to this woman’s appearance?”

This weird bit of doctrine doesn’t come from the Bible, it comes from Arthurian chivalry and The Wedding of Sir Gawain.

Likewise there is Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. (President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), claiming that by God’s design a wife’s sexual attraction for her husband is a barometer of the man’s righteousness:

Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.

Pastor Doug Wilson discusses the same basic issue slightly differently in his book Reforming Marriage.  Wilson explains that the way a man can tell if he is pleasing God is by his wife’s happiness (or lack thereof):

…the key is found in how the husband is treating his wife. Or, put another way, when mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.

The collateral effect of obedience is the aroma of love. This aroma is out of reach for those who have a hypocritical desire to be known by others as a keeper of God’s law. Many can fake an attempt at keeping God’s standards in some external way. What we cannot fake is the resulting, distinctive aroma of pleasure to God…

When a husband seeks to glorify God in his home, he will be equipped to love his wife as he is commanded. And if he loves his wife as commanded, the aroma of his home will be pleasant indeed.

Another Pastor Wilson (Pastor Dave Wilson) teaches in FamilyLife’s Art of Marriage that if a wife isn’t sexually attracted to her husband, it is God speaking to the husband through his wife’s (non) burning bush:

Dave:  Yes. Here’s all you need to know about that night—the thing that changed our marriage is when Ann was sharing with me what she felt—I had a pretty unique encounter with God. I sensed God was speaking to me, through Ann;

But while Christians adopted chivalry’s parody of Christianity as if it were the real deal, feminists used chivalry to do the heavy lifting for their own rebellion against Christianity.  This gives us not two philosophies (or pills), it gives us three.  One is the real deal, and two are in rebellion against the original.  This is where it gets even more confusing, because there is a fourth perspective which is Game:

chivalry

Game came about as a reaction to the practical reality created by chivalry and chivalry’s spawn feminism.  Game is a logical response to chivalry and feminism’s joint rebellion against Christian sexual morality.  Game is a reaction to the chivalrous and feminist lie that women are sexually attracted to masculine virtue, and that the way a man can seduce a woman (or otherwise please her) is to submit to her.  Game is a practical rejection of the obvious lie regarding what sexually arouses women.  Rejecting a lie is in itself virtuous, but the most learned practitioners of Game employ it to take full advantage of the feminist and (modern) Christian rejection of Christian sexual morality.

For some Game itself is the red pill.  For most in the men’s sphere I would however argue that discussion of Game was the catalyst for the red pill reaction.  As the combox discussions regularly prove, there is no orthodoxy in the sphere regarding exactly what Game is, if it works, and if it is good, bad, or neutral.  I won’t try to resolve those questions in this post.  What I want to focus on with this post is what the Christian red pill is or should be in reaction to;  what is the blue pill?  As I noted earlier there is confusion on this even within the sphere.  When I first started blogging I probably would have tentatively answered feminism.  But fairly recently it has become clear to me that chivalry is a much more precise answer.  As Christians we should oppose the lesbian feminist “pastor” who is melting down purity rings to create a golden vagina.  But at least her rejection of Christian sexual morality is overt.  The far more insidious rejection of Christian sexual morality comes not from liberal Christians but from conservative Christians, and it comes not as feminism but as chivalry posing as Christianity.  The problem is compounded by the desire of Christian men to strike a mock courageous pose by proposing to fight feminism with chivalry, which in their mind is the real Christianity anyway.

In retrospect I should have understood very early on that white knighting was not a modern corruption of something that was once good.  I should have understood that the perversion came with Sir Lancelot, the original white knight:

White Knight is a title which the famed Arthurian knight, Sir Lancelot, used until he discovered his actual name. According to legends, he was one of the most important knights among the Knights of the Round Table. He has been variously regarded as the bravest knight of King Arthur as well as the closest friend of the King. The White Knight, Sir Lancelot, was also the one who fell in love with Queen Guinevere and had an affair with her.

That this simple observation took me eight years of blogging to achieve is something that astounds and humbles me in retrospect.  The evidence was always at my fingertips, but I couldn’t see the simple pattern.

Bnonn says that he has benefited from the discussion in the sphere, and plans to “integrate that knowledge into a biblical theology of man, woman, and how we’re to work together to extend the dominion of God’s house.”

I fervently pray that Bnonn and Pastor Michael Foster are wildly successful in this endeavor.  However, if they are to be successful they will need to avoid the snare of adopting chivalry/courtly love as if it were Christian and therefore the proper antidote to Christian feminism.  They must avoid this snare themselves in order to help other Christian men learn to do the same.

*I am told the “B” is silent.

**Later this was further twisted to the modern Christian assertion that romantic love sanctifies married sex and the logical follow on case for no fault divorce.  We can trace this same perversion in the modern cuckoldry movement.

***Later this was modified to teaching men to submit to their own wives in fear and reverence and call it servant leadership.

H/T Emperor Constantine

Related:  Why Game is a threat to our values.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Bnonn, Chivalry, Courtly Love, Cuckoldry, Dave and Ann Wilson, FamilyLife, Feminists, Game, Men's Sphere Lexicon, New Morality, Pastor Doug Wilson, Pastor Michael Foster, Romantic Love, Servant Leader, Sir Lancelot, Traditional Conservatives, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

196 Responses to What is the blue pill?

  1. earl says:

    We’ve always had the truth from Scripture about how marriage and the roles work so it’s not really ‘red pill’ to say we’ve discovered some secret knowledge. It’s the fact people have twisted it into the inversion which is why it has taken a long time to get why this is wrong…that it seems like this is something we haven’t heard of before.

  2. The Question says:

    “I fervently pray that Bnonn and Pastor Michael Foster are wildly successful in this endeavor.”

    We will have to watch and see what fruits grown on their trees. But the catty swipes aren’t a good sign.

  3. The Question says:

    “Here we are over 800 years later, and conservative Christians regularly present the morality of courtly love as if it were legitimate Christianity.”

    I’ve been having conversations with older members of my church about this, trying to help them understand that much of what we think is Christianity and part of the Bible is not, and the corruption of the faith has been going on for centuries. I try to explain that the modern Western church is founded on many shibboleths that will have to be removed if things are going to change.

    Based on a handful of these chats, it seems that many know deep down something is terribly wrong but they’re afraid to find out just how bad the rot is, much like someone doesn’t want to lift the carpet to see how badly wood floor has rotted away.

  4. Gunner Q says:

    “16/16 If you’d like to join us in this effort, we’re launching It’s Good To Be A Man in 2019. Get on the mailing list here in case we’re deplatformed: http://www.itsgoodtobeaman.com.”

    Hee hee. God news, Bnonn, deplatforming will not be your fate.

    *checks*

    Why is his website not up yet? It takes two minutes on WordPress unless you get fancy with the background.

  5. Jonathan Castle says:

    “Red pill is a reactionary, negative movement…”

    No Dalrock, this is exactly wrong. Red Pill is a positive _affirmation_ of Biblical principles of sex roles and identity.

    Feminism is a reaction against God’s design.

  6. ranger says:

    one thing I would like to ask the Orthodox readers here? Does the fact that Chivalry was born in the Western Church AFTER the Great Schism somehow protect Orthodox Christianity from this issue?

    I realize that, especially in today’s world, there will be a lot of influence from West to East, but would you say that, in a way, Chivalry is mostly a western heresy?

  7. Cane Caldo says:

    That this simple observation took me eight years of blogging to achieve is something that astounds and humbles me in retrospect. The evidence was always at my fingertips, but I couldn’t see the simple pattern.

    Guilty here also.

  8. Novaseeker says:

    one thing I would like to ask the Orthodox readers here? Does the fact that Chivalry was born in the Western Church AFTER the Great Schism somehow protect Orthodox Christianity from this issue?

    I realize that, especially in today’s world, there will be a lot of influence from West to East, but would you say that, in a way, Chivalry is mostly a western heresy?

    It’s a cultural issue. In the Orthodox world, chivalrous views of women are much less common — making some inroads due to Western educated elites in some countries, but overall it isn’t the culture. Orthodox in the West, like here in the US, are as influenced by the courtly love ideas as everyone else in this culture is, unfortunately — it’s the cultural model here.

  9. Robert What? says:

    “even if like Heartiste your choice is to lounge poolside and enjoy the decline”

    As an aside I believe you are referring to Aaron Clarey, who also has a book entitled “Enjoy the Decline”.

  10. feeriker says:

    Based on a handful of these chats, it seems that many know deep down something is terribly wrong but they’re afraid to find out just how bad the rot is, much like someone doesn’t want to lift the carpet to see how badly wood floor has rotted away.

    It’s willful blindness. As you pointed out, on a visceral level they KNOW that things are dreadfully and destructively off course. What they cannot bring themselves to admit is how profound is the rot, their own culpability in perpetuating it, and, most unacceptably, the renunciation of the modernist outlook on life that would be required to reverse the decline and restore a godly relationship between the sexes.

    TL;DR version: The majority of “Christians” live with comfortable lies because they lack genuine faith.

  11. vandicus says:

    Originwise I figure Welsh to English to Anglosphere. Brazil is kind of an outlier but otherwise the chivalry/feminism levels track well with exposure, easily explaining why most Catholic countries are not as far gone(alternatively more traditional) or enamored with the concept of chivalry and feminism.

  12. 7817 says:

    I fervently pray that Bnonn and Pastor Michael Foster are wildly successful in this endeavor

    Honestly I hope the opposite, because an endeavor that starts with lies is doomed. His Tweet thread and connected facebook article are dishonest in several respects, starting with his misrepresentation of the theory of AWALT.

    He is going down the path of Doug Wilson. The temptation to be seen as the moderate must be incredibly powerful.

  13. That Brotha Pedat says:

    I don’t have an issue with the claim the Red Pill Christianity is reactionary.

    The same way the Father chose to spit the fakers, lukewarm, and frauds out of his mouth in Revelation 3:16, those in the Christian manosphere spit out the fruits of feminism, gynocentrism, misandry, and idolatry (of whom one of the bastard children is chivalry).

    If Bnonn can’t rock with us in our disdain for all the fuckery and be clear about his aims and means, then his endeavor will only lead to a bunch of brothers being bnonn-plussed out the ass.

  14. Lexet Blog says:

    They have their own web designer so WordPress doesn’t deplatform them

  15. That Brotha Pedat says:

    I’ll also add the D was being kind in his characterization of Bnonn’s tweet as a “catty swipe”. It was some bitch ass shit he pulled.

  16. Name (required) says:

    Going a little off topic, has anyone heard of Voddie Baucham? He wrote a book titled “What He Must Be: …If He Wants to Marry My Daughter …”

    It says some of the things we read here, not much man-bashing, not much error except that in his final chapter, he calls racism a sin.

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    No Dalrock, this is exactly wrong

    That didn’t take long. The Law of “You’re Doing It All Wrong” strikes again.

    I miss Anonymous Aged 60-something…

    Didn’t Bnomm comment here, or maybe on some other sites (Deep Strength? Wintry Knight?) for a while? Maybe I’m confused.

    “Pastor Michael Foster” returns a number of results from a casual search, so no clue who that is. Not yet anyway.

  18. Anonymous Reader says:

    They have their own web designer so WordPress doesn’t deplatform them

    That’s prudent in the longer term, however as long as they limit themselves to discussing men, women, children, families in the context of the Bible and don’t get the Pronoun Police after them, it is not likely they will be deplatformed in the next few years. Pretending that could happen is a bit over the top.

    However, given the number of website-generation tools, the number of webpage designers and HTML slingers out there, if there isn’t a credible site up by the end of the first week in January, those men are not serious about the project. There are tiny churches (50 attenders every Sunday) out there with a web page, usually maintained by a couple of volunteers or maybe a church secretary. It’s not 1992.

    So we’ll see what we see. So far, there is no content. Seriously, 10 tweets isn’t even a small essay. It’s not even 10 comments on a blog…

  19. American says:

    Leftards are so far gone they can’t even acknowledge anymore there’s a difference between say a witch doctor selling occult curses to make people sick and a Christian pastor praying for someone to get well because, you know, they’re both “religion.”

    ^ We call them leftards for good reason, whether or not they claim to be Christians.

  20. Ray6777 says:

    I believe this is the twitter account of the pastor who will be running the site.
    https://twitter.com/thisisfoster?lang=en

  21. Random Guy says:

    @ Name Req’d.
    Voddie used to have his name thrown about here for a long time. It’s how I found my way back into church was through here and Voddie. He’s a bit biased as to racism being a sin since he’s, well, rather black.

  22. ray says:

    “The red pill acolyte is inducted into an elect group, gains hidden wisdom & secret doctrines, becomes part of a justified minority. So the red pill is a modern mystery cult”

    Ooh! the widdle beebee is jealous! lol The ‘pastors’ of Feminist Christianity — who already have turned most of Christ’s Church into vile goddess/mystery cults, based around their own elevated personalities — identifies those who call him and his punk fellow-travelers out for their cowardice, hypocrisy, and apostasy a ‘cult’. Because any authentic Christianity exposes himself and his accomplices as the liars and fakes they are.

    There’s gonna be a lot more of it Bnonnboy, so you run off now and tell your friends the Big Bad Man Cult is coming for you all. You think this is bad you wait till Jeshua gets ahold of you.

  23. Lost Patrol says:

    There are lots of folks calling themselves red pill Christians.

    Is that a fact?

    I’ve met “lots” of folks from a variety of churches and locales that call themselves Christians. The number that call themselves red pill Christians has been, and remains zero. As in bnonne at all.

    Five bucks says he’s built his case entirely from reading in the Christian men’s sphere, and doesn’t personally know anyone calling himself a red pill Christian any more than I do. Ten bucks says many of his protagonists were drawn from the esteemed ranks of Dalrock commenters and that he is reading their commentary with malice aforethought, without regard for how the man’s trials or where he may be in the process of learning and recovering affects that man’s views over time.

    Of course it’s just my word against his.

  24. Name (required) says:

    Random Guy, I figured it was an irresistibly attractive error for him. It was a real clanger in an otherwise good effort.

  25. Lost Patrol says:

    That this simple observation took me eight years of blogging to achieve is something that astounds and humbles me in retrospect. The evidence was always at my fingertips, but I couldn’t see the simple pattern.

    Guilty here also.

    Your work has been and remains a vital public service. All I ever figured out on my own was that things were FUBAR. It’s a life changing relief to have it explained, even though it leads to discomfort of a different kind.

    Thank you to Dalrock and all the bloggers that have led the way in the Christian men’s sphere. You give the rest of us a fighting chance.

  26. ray says:

    “The problem is compounded by the desire of Christian men to strike a mock courageous pose by proposing to fight feminism with chivalry, which in their mind is the real Christianity anyway.”

    That’s it, yes. This appeals greatly to females, and to like-minded (spiritually immature and timid) Christians. Apparently fishing agrees with you.

    “I fervently pray that Bnonn and Pastor Michael Foster are wildly successful in this endeavor”

    It’ll probly be a hit, but I will pray against it. Not fervently though cause they aint big fish. Just want to be. And I will pray against any others who slur those about my Father’s business and call it a ‘mystery cult’.

    I will be watching Mr. Boon’s Good To Be a Man and if it’s anything like the usual Promise Keeper’s/MenProject groveling, then I will pray fervently.

  27. Based on a handful of these chats, it seems that many know deep down something is terribly wrong but they’re afraid to find out just how bad the rot is, much like someone doesn’t want to lift the carpet to see how badly wood floor has rotted away.

    Here’s how bad it is. I encourage everyone to read “The Death of Western Christianity.” Probably the only thing that will awaken us from our stupor is persecution.

  28. Anonymous Reader says:

    After looking a bit at Bnomm’s site I can see one obvious problem: he’s in New Zealand. Therefore there’s a whole lot of stuff he can’t “see” because it is not in his face, unlike those of us in the US. For example, I doubt that there are any girl’s wresting teams, therefore no high school girls “transitioning” from F to M (taking steroids) winning wrestling matches and even championships. No men carrying purses bellowing “IT’S MA’AM! NOT SIR!” to some clerk at the Gamestop. Just to cite a couple of events in the last week.

    I could be wrong. Maybe the madness in Kiwiland is as bad. But I don’t think so.

  29. Opus says:

    The joke goes that when arriving in New Zealand one has to set ones clock back…. fifty years.

  30. Pingback: What is the blue pill? | Reaction Times

  31. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The Arthurian legends evolved over the course of centuries.

    Some Arthurian scholars believe there are two broad sets of characters. The original Celtic characters (e.g., Arthur, Morgana, Merlin, Mordred) and the latter French characters (e.g., Lancelot, Guinevere).

    The older Celtic stories were largely pagan, incorporating incest and magic. It’s possible that Arthur and Morgana were both spouses and siblings in some of the earlier (now lost) tales. That’s why they are still siblings, but merely lovers, in the later, Christianized versions. (In which Morgana tricks Arthur into sleeping with her — probably no trick was necessary in the earlier pagan versions.)

    The French characters were introduced after the Norman conquest of 1066. These French characters had their own stories, prior to being grafted onto the Celtic Arthurian stories. Scholars speculate Lancelot and Guinevere were lovers without spouses, in some earlier (now lost) French tales. When they were grafted onto the Arthurian stories, Guinevere became Arthur’s wife, yet Lancelot remained Guinevere’s lover.

  32. Ben Mavet Who says:

    “ The red pill acolyte is inducted into an elect group, gains hidden wisdom & secret doctrines, becomes part of a justified minority. So the red pill is a modern mystery cult; pairing it with Christianity just produces a Christian knockoff of that cult”

    Cool. I’m somewhat new here. Does the induction process involve motor oil, fishing line and a live chicken or is that just a rumor? I’m offended that nobody has taught me the secret handshake yet!

    On a serious note, I clicked over and read through the tweets. It sounds like he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Christian manosphere teaches. For instance, I would say that this blog does not promote sexual immorality but rather the polar opposite.

    I’m saddened by the state of churchianity today.

  33. Dalrock says:

    @Ben Mavet Who

    Cool. I’m somewhat new here. Does the induction process involve motor oil, fishing line and a live chicken or is that just a rumor? I’m offended that nobody has taught me the secret handshake yet!

    Hilarious! Well played.

  34. Joe2 says:

    @Opus

    The joke goes that when arriving in New Zealand one has to set ones clock back…. fifty years.

    According to this article, New Zealand women are more promiscuous than men!

    http://www.returnofkings.com/88196/6-reasons-new-zealand-women-worst-western-world

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    Currently I’m reading too many books, one of them is The Red Queen by Matt Ridley circa 1993. Beginning on page 238 of my paperback copy is a discourse on Courtly Love. Long story short, he provides evidence that the entire Cult of Courtly Love was set up to specifically enable cuckolding. The regular events provided chances for married people to cross paths with other married people, the tournaments were “Let’s You And Him Fight” written large and with complete lists of all the contestants for ladies to choose from, etc. Having secured their Beta Bucks title, women could vie in a very secret way for their Alpha…

    At a time when the legitimate eldest son of a great lord would inherit not only his father’s wealth but also his polygamy, the cuckolding of such lords was sport indeed. Tristane expected to inherit the kingdom of his uncle, King Mark, in Cornwall. While in Ireland he ignored the attentions of the beautiful Isolde until she was summoned by King Mark to be his wife. Panic-struck at the thought of losing his inheritance but determined to save it a least for his son, he suddenly took an enormous interest in Isolde. Or at least so Laura Betig retlls the old story.

    Betzig’s analysis of medieval hisory includes the idea that the begetting of wealthy heirs was the principal cause of Church-state controversies…

    There’s more, a lot more, but the gist is above.

    The evidence I see points to prominent women such as Eleanor of Aquitaine up to their ears in the entire creation of the cult of Courtly Love, ostensibly because of Art and Music, etc. But actually? The Female Imperative was at work at the level of nobility.

    tl;dr
    The Traditional Conservative men who champion “chivalry” have been duped. The fact that at least some of those men are the kinds of guys who will hold their wife’s purse while she chats up a stranger is icing on the cake.

    PS: Happy New Year to one and all, even those east of GMT who are past midnight.

  36. ray says:

    I’ve checked Voddie a number of times and, always good.

    If he’s hung on the Racism Rap, he should listen to Jesse Lee Peterson. Jesse is black too and lived/worked under Jim Crow. Which he says is preferable to modern, liberated blacks with matriarchal ghettos and etc. He thumps down on feminism too.

    Jesse lights up the whole Pore Me People Are Racist excuse. Satan loves this tribal meltdown.

  37. Jonathan Castle says:

    “‘No Dalrock, this is exactly wrong

    That didn’t take long. The Law of “You’re Doing It All Wrong” strikes again.”

    AR, it’s actually very important to set the correct frame.

    The Left in general has the conceit that they are the prime movers, seeking a new and better path and that people like us are just grumpy reationaries to their new ways.

    A Christian red piller should know that God is the prime mover and that Feminists are reacting (rebelling) against him. We are not joining them in their rebellion.

    Why yield any ground to the Left’s incorrect and self-serving frame?

  38. Gunner Q says:

    Anonymous Reader @ 4:23 pm:
    “…As long as they limit themselves to discussing men, women, children, families in the context of the Bible and don’t get the Pronoun Police after them, it is not likely they will be deplatformed in the next few years. Pretending that could happen is a bit over the top.”

    They’re posing as victims even before their first post. They’ll get their site up, squirt out a couple fedora-tipping posts, complain about our abusive insistence upon facts and Scripture, call for our deplatforming and start a Patreon to fund their blog shutdown. In certain circles, that brings major credibility.

    Notice Bnonn talks like we’re a self-defined group of victicrats. He hasn’t yet encountered the strength that comes from devoting oneself to the God of Truth.

    For my part, the Red Pill is the re-recognition of Original Sin, its implications and our potential responses. By this definition, even non-Christians can be Red-Pilled… and in fact, it was the non-Christian pick-up artists who independently rediscovered the Biblical teachings on human sexuality.

    That’s the power of Truth.

  39. feeriker says:

    Five bucks says he’s built his case entirely from reading in the Christian men’s sphere, and doesn’t personally know anyone calling himself a red pill Christian any more than I do

    It’s pretty painfully obvious. Matter o’ fact, it’s probably not a wild stretch to assume that his ONLY extensive exposure to the androsphere has been right here.

  40. OKRickety says:

    Having just read ten or more posts by Bnonn on his blog, it seems he is adamantly pro-patriarchy, anti-feminism, anti-complementarian, and, most importantly, pro-Scripture. Thus I have concluded that his blog is quite deserving of my readership. Perhaps others would agree if they give him reasonable consideration.

  41. OKRickety says:

    Anonymous Reader said: “I could be wrong. Maybe the madness in Kiwiland is as bad. But I don’t think so.”

    I rather suspect AR is wrong. After all, New Zealand was the first country in the world to give women the vote. From that point, just what would you expect to be the case now? As Joe2  points out, the claim is that “New Zealand women are more promiscuous than men!”

  42. 7817 says:

    @OKR

    That’s the whole thing. It’s the same pattern as Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson and Doug Wilson and the rest of that kind. Agree to the principles until everyone thinks you are on their side and looks to you for leadership, then start leading down a pointless path that is harmless to the status quo. Bnonn is doing the same thing.

    I’ve commented on his site before, and he responded well, as someone who understood and accepted the truth. But then he started this new project off by lying and creating distance between himself and those who tell the truth even if it’s painful.

    That is not Christian.

  43. info says:

    ”I fervently pray that Bnonn and Pastor Michael Foster are wildly successful in this endeavor.”

    The pot may already by poisoned by their effeminate parody of masculinity. They still don’t know what real masculinity looks like. And may actually be false teachers themselves.

  44. info says:

    @vandicus

    Chivalry originated and spread through originally Roman Catholicism dominated countries. But it was perhaps exacerbated in the Anglosphere.

  45. info says:

    @AR
    ”I miss Anonymous Aged 60-something…”

    I think he has passed away. He stopped posting for this reason.

  46. Jack Russell says:

    Ray-I also listened to Jesse Lee Peterson. No nonsense kind of guy. Here is another one. Pastor Stephen Darby. He passed away late last year. Doesn’t put up with feminism, and goes after SJW types. Also has sermons on end times, morality and many other issues. NSF(Snowflakes).
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGfI4EN–tTAcJH0nMFkXpw

  47. JDG says:

    Happy New Year!

  48. Luke says:

    Related joke about the minimum expectations women carry into Marriage 2.0 now:

    A bride at the altar…

    A bride is asked if she agrees to live for richer or poorer, in health or sickness, until death do you part. She replies “yes, no, yes, no, no.”

  49. Nate says:

    Seriously, look at the guy https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1072307209881706496/94OgpbBY_400x400.jpg
    I would be surprised if he HADN’T shit on the reality of the RP.
    No one want’s to admit it, but there is a genetic component to why the west is failing as well. Strictly enforced monogamy breeds larger amounts of these genetically soft males into your society. His behavior isn’t all learned. I have known hundreds of these types of men, and if you spend enough time with them you realize they are predisposed to this type of thinking. From a Christian point of view, there’s probably nothing moral that can be done about it and it’s just part of the fallen nature of existence that we’ll have to cope with until Christ’s return.

  50. Paul says:

    Bnonn has been sympathetic to Dalrock in the past, even encouraging readers to go here for wisdom:

    https://bnonn.com/last-jedi-first-successful-leftist-porno/

    If you’re not familiar with hypergamy and its various follow-on effects this will probably seem like a left-field objection; if that’s the case, I’d encourage you to look it up. Dalrock has some good stuff.

  51. Deansdale says:

    “Red pill is a reactionary, negative movement”
    Not from my viewpoint. The red pill is TRUTH. It’s the proper application of actual science, knowledge and wisdom to fields that are generally associated with lies, pseudo-sciences and/or *fake* conventional wisdom. It’s not limited to dating, it says things about dietetics, politics, economics, and so on.
    http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-red-pill-bookshelf.html
    http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/p/red-pill-blue-pill.html
    Well, one could argue that this is all in reaction to the scam that is being played on us all, but I just can’t see the truth as a reaction to lies.

  52. Oldřich says:

    Well aimed piece. The thing to focus on w/r/t chivalry is that most its power comes from the urgently felt need to give concrete, practical and expedient advice to real people, to real couples in the real world. It is all good intentions. Handling falling apart relationships is not easy and I am not certain, if fierce ŕedpilling of all parties involved would work.

    I admire Dalrock’s fortitude in not making up lists of advice, inventing strategies and theorizing in the practical direction. It is understandable when people do it, but ultimately it is doomed exercise and it only serves author’s pride. People who give advice only take credit for the successes, that is clear. Wise person tries to live up to the example of his heroes and in such way keep the example actual.

    The point that we all should keep in the forefront of our consciousness is that advice is futile – beyond the basics – and doing the basics right and not avoiding anything is difficult enough and a project of a lifetime. Also what the basics are is well covered.

    It is important to contemplate boldly the ugliness, poverty and despair of the world, and at the same time not to set oneself aside in self pity and self protection, rather to throw oneself trustingly (and cunningly to the extent one can manage it) into the fray, with faith that truth will manifest in this way, somehow, because it must, and the pain will purify the soul.

    I think that the thing that should be kept at the forefront of our thoughts is that not by logic and memory, not by planning we can overcome the world, but only by disciplined exercises of imagination, by prayer and meditation, by kindness, by gratitude. Not really just because these are “good”, but because these things actually maintain the integrity of soul and give direction and impact to ones actions.

    The priority isn’t to be safe, the priority is to be saved and to save. So what I try to do is to render all the bitterness that I can handle and swallow it gladly.

    Happy new year, everybody. Think less, pray your prayers, sing your hymns. Do the uncomfortable, be in silence, walk in cold winds underdressed, go hungry. Expect nothing in return, give yourself. Appreciate beauty. Do not attempt to name the unnamable – there is no pill to save your soul – cling to the humble simplicity of your spirit. I am almost certain that the cultural war can only be won within.

    May we all find the strength.

  53. Charles says:

    All this “red” pill crap is deeply problematic. It’s a gnostic metaphor. To paraphrase Jerome, the entire world has “awoken” with a groan to find itself gnostic. The Matrix – besides being terribly stupid and boring (the first movie is watchable as an action movie, the other two are nonsensical puerile pap) is gnostic anti-gospel. The world is full of satanic nonsense, there are lies and hypocrisy everywhere, and so many people who call themselves Christians are traitors, which is why so many of us indulge in conspiracy theorizing – because the demonic conspiracy is real, and we are immersed in it, and this is why this metaphor seems useful. But the seduction of this metaphor is itself satanic. We do in fact but “see through the glass darkly” and the temptation to find an interpretive key that explains – “elucidates” – everything is thus all too seductive. We must resist this. Relations between the sexes, between all men, have been broken since the fall, and will be until the Parousia. This is an aspect of the Cross upon which we must suffer. The only answer to this curse is the beatitudes, to bless those who curse and hurt us, to worship and cling to Christ in this vale of deceit and viciousness. The devil is already judged. We do not need to understand what cannot be understood, and evil is in its essence (as opposed to its effects and affect) always stupid and impossible to understand. It’s enough to describe the pathology – as you are striving to do here – in order to diagnose so as to flee and hopefully heal it, when we can..

  54. freebird says:

    The Blue Pill is the strictly enforced social mandate of gynocentrism.
    Most acquire this conditioning from a young age from the matriarchal unit whilst the Father was gone working. (no longer applicable)
    Most comply out of fear of social ostrization or Penalty of Police State.
    The Red Pill is Truth,as many previous commentors have commented.
    To leave the State of cognitive dissonance (schizophrenia) by means of the Truth
    requires Godly courage,which requires Godly knowledge.
    This Boon fellow’s quote from James was completely unrecognizable.
    He must be reading from the New Age Blue Pill Version which was specifically written to undermine the Patriarchal Authority of the Father/Son dynamic,that is to say, it is a work of blasphemy that leads such sheep down such dark allies.

    Good point Dalrock,that chivalry can only come from a position of strength.
    In other words: MALE LEADERSHIP.
    In the current dynamic of all things female the women are treating men like total dog-shit.
    Openly call all of them rapists,child molestors,laughing about penis cutting,abuse of The Police State,

    It strikes me this Boop fellow has gone beyond white-knighting and has become full on female looking to REBUILD THE NEST.
    However the matriarchal nest is built on shifting sand,the men will not stand on it.
    The Nest must be built on ROCK. Man, given Godly Strength and Mandate from Heaven.

    All this blue pill talk is a call to embrace insanity and decadence.
    by decadence I am talking about zero replacement among Our People,the scattered Tribes who only made it through the generations by controlling the*opportunistic* sex drive of the female. (for Gain)
    There is No substance to the two wesites listed,and I’m not going on social media to see the twatter BS.
    THIS LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE A PAID PIECE FROM GOODMANPROJECT
    That is to say, Satanist feminazi propaganda
    Ray said:
    “There’s gonna be a lot more of it Bnonnboy, so you run off now and tell your friends the Big Bad Man Cult is coming for you all. You think this is bad you wait till Jeshua gets ahold of you.”

    Praise God,strong words,steel sharpens steel and we can no longer afford to have these coyotes knipping at the edges of the flock that is already in the ditch.

    I see the need for the cutting edge.
    as in: Jesus arms UP with his cat-0-9 tails,kicks in the door of the Church and
    STARTS KICKING ASS

  55. BillyS says:

    We don’t have strictly enforced monogamy today Nate, so your point on that is not valid. Weak men come because being wealthy enables them to survive and even thrive. That then leads to a downfall. It is not genetics per se, it is what is allowed in society. Not having to scrap for a living lets the counterproductive succeed more than they should.

  56. BillyS says:

    Charles,

    No earthly analogy will ever be perfect. The point is not that The Matrix was a great or a bad movie. The point is that you can see a fake reality or you can see the true reality. The Scriptures reinforce this point when they talk about the reality of a spiritual realm behind the physical realm we see.

    Too many walk in a false understanding by seeing woman as either Madonnas or whores, with no understanding that they are just as fallen as men. Thus it definitely is an issue of seeing reality as it is and thus the use of the analogy (“red pill”) is very appropriate whatever the merits of the movie it came from.

  57. Hmm says:

    Dalrock,

    I discussed your thesis on courtly love with a history professor friend of mine. He made the following points:

    1. The diagnosis that courtly love was about men obeying their lovers and led toward adultery is spot-on.

    2. He contends that the adoption of courtly love into the church led historically in the direction of admiration (later, adoration) of the Virgin Mary as a man’s perfect “lady”, and also in the inclusion of consent being necessary for marriage. This broadened the grounds for annulment, but didn’t change the arranged nature of marriages. The move away from arranged marriages and toward marriages based on feelings of love comes much later.

    3. Until the industrial revolution, the household was the typical unit of production. As such, through the mid-19th century most marriages were still based upon consideration of property, influence and wealth.

    4. He would attribute the rise of romantic love as the ideal to the age when the average man began to leave the home and be the sole support of the family. There was less need to consider wealth and property, and romantic love as the main basis for marriage grew in significance. This was also the time when the rise of womens’ “righteousness” movements (temperance, etc.) was made possible by the woman’s increased time at home. And this corresponds exactly in time to the rise of the idea that women were more righteous than men, and thus should be the “conscience” of the home. From this elevation of womens’ “sensibility” comes much of our modern woman worship.

  58. OKRickety says:

    Dalrock wrote in OP: “What I want to focus on with this post is what the Christian red pill is or should be in reaction to; what is the blue pill?”

    BillyS said: “The point is that you can see a fake reality or you can see the true reality.”

    If “red pill” was simply understood to be a metaphorical description of recognizing true reality, there would be far less confusion about “Christian red pill”. Unfortunately, “red pill” has a much wider spectrum of definitions. Some of the most widely-known and most vocal proponents of “red pill” have focused on a non-Christian perspective, using the concepts of “Game” to satisfy their own selfish desires with a particular focus on the sexual ones.

    Thus, when the less discerning Christian reader finds reference to “red pill”, they are most likely to be seeing this perspective. Thankfully, many of them still consider this behavior to be sin, and thus believe all “red pill” to be non-Christian and evil.

    Since everyone has a subconscious bias towards believing what they are told first, it then becomes difficult for these misled Christians to accept that “red pill” is not synonymous with pick-up artists and the like.

    It becomes increasingly more difficult to correct their beliefs when they come to this blog and find, for example, a recent commenter stating that he is Christian while also often trying to justify his actions of currently having sex without marriage.

    I believe that “Christian red pill” is not evil, but many people think all “red pill” is evil. How can this misunderstanding be corrected?

  59. Hmm says:

    BTW, in my post above about courtly love, it seems clear that in the 19th century air was the idea that courtly love had been a representation of ideal romantic love, probably through bowdlerized tellings of the Arthurian tales and other medieval stories. This just means that the descent was not direct, but literary.

  60. 7817 says:

    @OKRickety

    Classic concern trolling, 8/10.

  61. Scrutiniser says:

    “The red pill” as a term, is in reality a red herring. The concept of the red pill was lifted from Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.

    Plato’s story imagined men sat in a cave with a fire providing light, bound together and forced to look at the cave wall, only viewing shadows of those passing by. The shadows projected onto the wall were understood by the men to be the reality itself. But one man was unshackled and released into the outside world, where he first saw things in their true form, as they are – including his own reflection, trees, people, and the sun itself.

    Now, if this freed prisoner were to return to his shackled brothers and explain reality, Plato posited, they would laugh him off and ridicule him. They wouldn’t want to believe that the images that they had been seeing were only shadows all along, and that reality was truly different, because the shadows were the only reality that they knew.

    As red pill terminology has developed, men speak of coming “off the plantation”, which in the Platonic analogy, is leaving the cave. So the man who has “taken the red pill” is akin to Plato’s unshackled man released from the cave.

    The Allegory of the Cave does not promise secret knowledge, so much as it argues (I think!) that (a) reality is different to what is commonly perceived, and (b) the wise man who grasps reality (that is, truth), tends to face rejection.

    While I would warn people away from adopting Platonic philosophy as truth per se, Plato is I think correct in his observations here. It follows that “red pill men” (or “unshackled Platonic cavemen”!) are not claiming secret knowledge/gnosis, but to have correctly perceived events so as to inform themselves about the true nature of certain things.

    This is an important distinction, I think.

  62. Oscar says:

    A big part of the problem is that truth about female nature is so difficult to find in the church.

    I heard more truth about female nature from the NCOs I knew when I was a young enlisted man (all of whom were hedonistic unbelievers) than I ever did in church. That should not be.

    So, what does a young man do when he figures out that the church has been lying to him, and hedonists like Heartiste are telling him the truth? Many of them will decide that, because the church lied to them about women, then the church must be lying about other things, which then leads them to believe that Christianity is a lie.

    Of course, Heartiste only tells part of the truth. He focuses on the sinfulness of female nature (though he doesn’t call it that), and how a man can exploit it for his hedonistic advantage. Obviously, since he’s an unbeliever, Heartiste doesn’t believe in redemption. He mocks the concept.

    What Christian men need to do is to speak the unvarnished truth about sinful female nature, and also about how Christ redeems it and sanctifies it. That’s the Gospel. And I believe that (among many other subjects) is what Dalrock, Cane, Scott and others are writing about.

  63. OKRickety says:

    7817,

    “Classic concern trolling, 8/10.”

    I rather expected that. Another reason “Christian red pill” is misunderstood. Go ahead and keep your head up your backside.

  64. Scrutiniser says:

    That said, to be fair to bnonn (having actually read his thread now!), he’s right to caution against siding with unbelievers seeking to exploit sex differences in order to manipulate women into committing uncleanness with them. Such men must be told they are sinners and must repent.

  65. Novaseeker says:

    A big part of the problem is that truth about female nature is so difficult to find in the church.

    I heard more truth about female nature from the NCOs I knew when I was a young enlisted man (all of whom were hedonistic unbelievers) than I ever did in church. That should not be.

    This is, in fact, the core problem, and that’s why it’s a core focus of this blog as to why this actually is the case in the church.

  66. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    A more politically correct To Kill a Mockingbird comes to Broadway: https://www.artsjournal.com/aboutlastnight/2019/01/killing-to-kill-a-mockingbird.html

    Mr. Sorkin has taken Atticus Finch (Jeff Daniels), the idealistic small-town Alabama lawyer who dares to defend a black man (Gbenga Akinnagbe) falsely accused of raping a white girl (Erin Wilhelmi), and turned him into a naïve fool.

    Mr. Sorkin’s Atticus, it seems, is incapable of fully appreciating the total depravity of his racist friends and neighbors, a hookwormy gaggle of populism-spouting gargoyles (I’m surprised they weren’t wearing red MAGA caps with their KKK hoods) in whose underlying humanity he benightedly believes.

    Naturally, he must be set straight by Calpurnia (LaTanya Richardson Jackson), his sassy, wised-up black maid, and Jem (Will Pullen), his younger-but-woker son, who condescendingly assures the poor booby that “being polite is no way to win a war.”

    That sound you hear in the distance is Harper Lee turning over in her grave.

  67. Cane Caldo says:

    @Name (Required)

    Going a little off topic, has anyone heard of Voddie Baucham? He wrote a book titled “What He Must Be: …If He Wants to Marry My Daughter …”

    It says some of the things we read here, not much man-bashing, not much error except that in his final chapter, he calls racism a sin.

    Voddie Baucham has at least two sermons in which he quotes two different W.F. Price essays. One sermon is about Ruth, and in it he reads from Price’s essay on Disney’s Snow White versus Cinderella. My brain has failed me and I can’t recall the other Price essay, but Baucham included it another sermon this year; possibly also on the book of Ruth. It’s possible that he still sometimes reads in the Men’s Sphere since he quotes old Spearhead essays.

    As for racism…I have reason to suspect that Baucham’s thoughts are changing. He has said that he visited Africa and–when he came home–told his wife that the experience convinced he that he would die there, i.e., that was where he belonged. They have since moved to Africa.

    In the ten years that I’ve listened to some of his sermons (nowhere near all, or even half) I’ve never heard him talk about race. Now it comes up with some frequency. Sometimes it is of the reflexive anti-racism of the American Christianity strain…but more and more he is accepting of cultural differences. I believe he is struggling with what his eyes see and that’s a good thing.

    He definitely in his sermons addresses men’s sins and thinking far more than women’s. Let’s say nine out of ten rebukes and caricatures are towards men. Recently, it’s gone to more like seven in ten, and three in ten towards women. I wonder if Africa has influenced him in this, too.

    I don’t agree with everything Baucham says, but I do like his sermons and style overall. He loves Jesus like a man should love his lord and king; not with whining and pining, but with warning and power. And he has been consistently against divorce–God bless him. He has sermons where he says, jokingly, that “murder is on the table, but divorce is not.” He has even said (and I am wary to even mention this lest I rouse the rabble and give support for more Bnonn-sense claims about this blog) that there is more evidence for Biblical polygyny than for Biblical divorce. To be clear: His point wasn’t that we should allow polygyny, but that we have no Biblical support for divorce and remarriage.

  68. BillyS says:

    OKR,

    “Christian Cool” is neither (acting) Christian nor cool, whatever his claims. He is just as disobedient to God’s commands as my ex-wife. He uses similar reasoning to justify his rebellion. It is sad that someone could come here and think he is an example of Christian red pill application, but that would unfortunately not be surprising.

  69. feministhater says:

    It becomes increasingly more difficult to correct their beliefs when they come to this blog and find, for example, a recent commenter stating that he is Christian while also often trying to justify his actions of currently having sex without marriage.

    I do believe this gent was told to leave his unmarried sex outside of the blog, is that not correct?

    I bet it would be far easier to correct the more fragile if there weren’t such heated discussions on this blog. However, easier isn’t always better. The discussions should take place, they need to take place and since the Church, society at large and every, blue piller is so scared of a few naughty words that they would prefer to cover their ears; they cannot be helped.

    If you cannot correct their beliefs due to some anonymous person commenting on this blog, they really are not interested in changing at all.

  70. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scrutinizer

    That said, to be fair to bnonn (having actually read his thread now!), he’s right to caution against siding with unbelievers seeking to exploit sex differences in order to manipulate women into committing uncleanness with them. Such men must be told they are sinners and must repent.

    Then he should rebuke, say, Roosh or Heartiste then. His bitchiness at Dalrock is pathetic.

    Bnonn appears to be a young introverted and arrogant nerd who thinks he knows whats up because he believes he has the system all figured out in his head. He used to be an outspoken atheist nerd who felt the need to tell everybody what’s wrong with God. Then he met a nerd girl “who actually knew what the Bible says (unlike all the other Christians out there) and he was converted.

    He was raised Roman Catholic, then went New Age, then New Atheist, and now New Calvinist. It appears for all the world that what he really follows is the nerdy pleasure of rationalizing novel systems of thought.

  71. Gunner Q says:

    OKRickety@ December 31, 2018 at 9:01 pm:
    “Having just read ten or more posts by Bnonn on his blog, it seems he is adamantly pro-patriarchy, anti-feminism, anti-complementarian, and, most importantly, pro-Scripture. Thus I have concluded that his blog is quite deserving of my readership. Perhaps others would agree if they give him reasonable consideration.”

    Fair enough. I confess to not having looked at his other writings yet. *looks*

    Whoa. He is explicitly anti-patriarchy, approves women having authority over men and has this unBiblical theology of “households” as the source of all authority. God has ultimate authority because His was the first household, and personal households (families) combine together into bigger households (clans and trbes) and then into nation-households.

    This theology allows women to hold authority over men so long as they aren’t at the top of the top household because the men are her “children”, so to speak. Sort of a white nationalist reading of Scripture. Bnonn did take the Red Pill but then spat it up in horror of telling women No. More on my blog:

    https://gunnerq.com/2019/01/01/bnonns-household-theology/

  72. Nate says:

    @BillyS
    I didn’t say we had strictly enforced monogamy today. But it is fact that we have had it for many generations in the west. Strict monogamy IS what forces women to marry and breed with these weak men who’s only advantage is being wealthy. We know this from their promiscuous behavior now that they are mostly released from this social contract and from genetic testing that shows women’s historical breeding habits are completely opposite to that of a strict monogamous society. To claim there is no genetic component in the reduction of western mens sexual dimorphism is shortsighted and opposed to observable science. Sexual dimorphism and testosterone levels are lower in males in ALL societies, such as India and China, that had historically rigid class systems which fostered strict monogamy among the lower classes. We see the genetic reality breeding plays in domestic animals everyday, yet refuse to apply it to ourselves. By every biological marker, men in the west are getting smaller, weaker, more timid, and produce less testosterone with every generation. This cannot all be laid at the hands of chemical castration, soy, and sedentary lifestyle. Marriage as defined by the society in which it is applied absolutely shapes the genetic profile of men. Ancients knew this and often used forced breeding to shape societies.

  73. BillyS says:

    Scrutiniser,

    That is not what his Tweets focused on. They claimed this was a cult, etc. He is in error. The focus her is on dealing with reality, not exploiting women. He is dishonest to claim otherwise even if one frequent responder glories in exploiting women for his own benefit.

  74. Oscar says:

    To echo, and springboard off Cane’s post, Voddie Baucham moved his large family of adopted kids* to Zambia because he accepted a position as Dean of the Seminary at African Christian University (ACU) in Lusaka.

    The perpetual victim mentality of America blacks is uniquely American. Even wildly successful American blacks play the victim. It comes as naturally to them as breathing. It’s the water in which they’ve swam their whole lives.

    Although American pop culture has spread this mentality, it’s still rare among blacks outside the U.S. I haven’t traveled extensively in Africa, but I never saw it in my limited travels there. By contrast, a few minutes spent with a group of American blacks is usually enough to bring out the victim mentality.

    This is particularly galling to me, as an immigrant.

    *The Bauchams have nine children (like me!). The youngest seven are adopted. Mrs Baucham had her tubes tied after the first two. They repented of that, but it was irreversible, so they adopted. They’re big proponents of big, father-led, home schooling families, adoption, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, all things I love.

  75. JRob says:

    As re: Voddie Baucham

    https://blackchristiannews.com/2014/11/voddie-baucham-ferguson-racism-plight-black-men/

    Recommended reading for those new to Mr. Baucham and wonder where he’s coming from. An older incident spurred the comments, but he dropped timeless un-PC truth all over.

  76. JRob says:

    re: Bnonn’s silliness

    What better way to increase traffic to and possibly deliver a Wilson-esque Trojan horse on your upcoming site than to poke the most frequented hornets’ nest?

  77. Anonymous Reader says:

    RPL’s OT reference to Broadway concludes with:
    That sound you hear in the distance is Harper Lee turning over in her grave.

    More likely it’s Truman Capote gleefully cackling.

    “Red pill / blue pill” has problems beginning with Matrix-nerd-spergs. Dalrock coined a term: The Glasses taken from a different SF film that is more useful, but not as popular.

  78. Scrutiniser says:

    Cane, Billy;

    Fair points, I’d be interested in Bnonn’s reply, if he’s reading this blog and thinking of commenting (or tweeting further).

  79. ray says:

    https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2019/01/01/pope-francis-the-human-family-is-built-upon-mothers/

    Pope Whoever has sure got his New Woman Order rap down!

    He’d make a good co-beest.

  80. ray says:

    Jack Russell —

    Thank you, I will check out that link.

    Like Jesse Lee, these men are few and far-between, so we should promote those who are on the right track.

  81. BillyS says:

    Nate,

    Strict monogamy IS what forces women to marry and breed with these weak men who’s only advantage is being wealthy.

    This is still a key error you make. This situation existed throughout history. God set marriage up as one man and one woman, not one man and multiple women. He allowed the latter, but it was never the plan and thus is not the cause of modern woes, however much you may wish it was.

    The issue is that women have to deal with their tendency to want to sin by controlling men. Also idealizing another relationship is another thing they must work against. We all have to reform our minds into His image and oppose errant thinking. Most people were monogamous throughout history, even in cultures that allowed otherwise. Polygamy is only sustainable when more men die than women early in life, and that is not the normal case, especially not in recent history.

    Rebellion is sufficient to explain what you want to blame on God’s plan.

  82. Anonymous Reader says:

    I heard more truth about female nature from the NCOs I knew when I was a young enlisted man (all of whom were hedonistic unbelievers) than I ever did in church. That should not be.

    “Is” vs. “ought”…

    Novaseeker
    This is, in fact, the core problem, and that’s why it’s a core focus of this blog as to why this actually is the case in the church.

    Bonus: Nova’s assertion is testable. One test: discuss divorce with any churchgoing man who claims to be a conservative, traditional Christian. Mention the fact that 70% of divorces are filed in the US by women, up from 60% just ten years ago.

    See how many excuses he can come up with for this hateful fact. See how long it takes him to blame men.

    Shorter test: ask any man what “hypergamy” means.

    Riffing off of the quote from Red Queen above, chivalry was/is a way to obscure the nature of women in the eyes of men.

  83. Oscar says:

    As others have rightly pointed out, one of the biggest problems in the church is the disturbing number of soft, mama’s boy pastors. There’s a big difference between a mama’s boy, and a man who disciplines his body, and brings it under subjection.

    https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/43199581_10156346224307550_2582474877722165248_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=35fb0a917035a59b1d5bfbb362b024c1&oe=5C9859A2

    https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/43878509_10156364263462550_2312284863157239808_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=c8f49e2c2d3b753fdaf8752159506579&oe=5CD9EC7C

    So, discipline your body, and don’t be a soft mama’s boy.

  84. Oscar says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    Bonus: Nova’s assertion is testable. One test: discuss divorce with any churchgoing man who claims to be a conservative, traditional Christian. Mention the fact that 70% of divorces are filed in the US by women, up from 60% just ten years ago.

    See how many excuses he can come up with for this hateful fact. See how long it takes him to blame men.

    I’ve done this, and response (“what are men doing wrong to make their wives want to divorce them?) was instantaneous. The rot goes deep.

  85. Ray6777 says:

    I’m 48 and most of the men in my local gym are over 40. A young man would be more attractive to women if he worked out but you won’t hear that in church.

  86. farmlegend says:

    “There are lots of folks calling themselves red pill Christians.”
    Been a lurker and occasional commenter on manosphere sites since 2007.

    This exposure, along with the life experiences of my 62 years of life, resulting me in accepting what we call “the red pill”, and, as many guys here will surely attest, it did not go down pleasantly. Accepting this knowledge has been quite a journey – it explained a lot of things I’ve observed in life that were previously difficult to fathom. And, I must admit, it was troubling to my faith.

    During 2018, I undertook, for the first time, reading the entirety of the KJV from Genesis to Revelation. Doing this has been a restorative process for me. “Red pill Christians”? Heck, the entire bible is red pill.

    Shoutout to Mr. Dalrock – this blog is a treasure. I am indebted to you.

  87. farmlegend says:

    “resulted in me”

  88. AnonA says:

    and the more embarrassing problem with him using gossipy Queen B* tactics to promote his upcoming website on masculinity.

    This sounds like his website will merely be a Quistianized version of the The Good Men Project. In other words, a mangina website.

  89. Anon says:

    Cane Caldo,

    He used to be an outspoken atheist nerd who felt the need to tell everybody what’s wrong with God. Then he met a nerd girl “who actually knew what the Bible says (unlike all the other Christians out there) and he was converted.

    Any man who completely changes his ideology based on a woman he started dating, is by definition a mangina with no substance.

  90. Paul says:

    @ray : the sermon is to be found at
    http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2019/documents/papa-francesco_20190101_omelia-giornatamondiale-pace.html

    Not surprisingly, his take on mothers is DIRECTLY coupled to the adoration of Mary, “Queen of Heaven”, “co-redemptrix”, etc. etc.

    As I’ve argued elsewhere: there’s a DIRECT connection between worship of Mary and wife worship.

    Some quotes:

    “Thus we come to understand more fully God’s love, which is both paternal and maternal, like that of a mother who never stops believing in her children and never abandons them.”

    “Faith is a bond with God that engages the whole person; to be preserved, it needs the Mother of God. Her maternal gaze helps us see ourselves as beloved children in God’s faithful people, and to love one another regardless of our individual limitations and approaches. Our Lady keeps us rooted in the Church, where unity counts more than diversity; she encourages us to care for one another.”

    “Mother of God, teach us to see life as you do. Turn your gaze upon us, upon our misery, our poverty. Turn to us thine eyes of mercy.”

    “Especially in times of need, when we are entangled in life’s knots, we rightly lift our eyes to Our Lady, to Our Mother. Yet first, we should let ourselves be gazed upon by Our Lady. When she gazes upon us, she does not see sinners but children.”

    “God himself needed a Mother”

    “Jesus himself gave her to us, from the cross: “Behold your mother!””

    “Mary, take us by the hand. Clinging to you, we will pass safely through the straits of history. Lead us by the hand to rediscover the bonds that unite us. Gather us beneath your mantle, in the tenderness of true love, where the human family is reborn: “We fly to thy protection, O Holy Mother of God”. Let us together pray these words to Our Lady: “We fly to thy protection, O Holy Mother of God”.”

    “Our Lady embraces any number of concrete situations; she is present wherever she is needed.”

    Yes, you know she is not only omniscient, but also omnipresent, and our shield and protector.
    No wonder some people think Mary has achieved the status of goddess.

  91. Anon says:

    I think he has passed away. He stopped posting for this reason.

    Possibly. Anonymous Age 72 and Zed may both be gone for this reason.

  92. Luke says:

    Semi-OT:
    The ultimate short slam against Peterson, from Vox Day’s forum:

    “… the pedos have adopted the intentionally-cutesy-but-actually-really-creepy term MAP (Minor Attracted Person) to refer to themselves.”

    Is that the “meaning” behind “MAPs of Meaning”?”

  93. 7817 says:

    @OKRickety:

    If I can keep a few guys from being led astray by the teachers you keep trying to point them too I will be well satisfied.

    I’m sitting here holding my newest child, loving every minute of it. If not for Dalrock, The Rational Male and Roissy, there’s a good chance I’d be divorced now.

    The test has been completed, the results are in. The three guys I mentioned tell more truth about male female relationships than most pastors. A good chunk of what those three say about what IS lines up with the Bible too. Any Christian man really wanting to follow God would do better to listen to those three instead of OKRickety’s feminist uncle tom’s.

  94. 7817 says:

    @OKRickety:

    If I can keep a few guys from being led astray by the teachers you keep trying to point them too I will be well satisfied.

    I’m sitting here holding my newest child, loving every minute of it. If not for Dalrock, The Rational Male and Roissy, there’s a good chance I’d be divorced now.

    The test has been completed, the results are in. The three guys I mentioned tell more truth about male female relationships than most pastors. A good chunk of what those three say about what IS lines up with the Bible too. Any Christian man really wanting to follow God would do better to listen to those three instead of OKRickety’s feminist uncle tom’s.

  95. 7817 says:

    @Scrutiniser:

    It follows that “red pill men” (or “unshackled Platonic cavemen”!) are not claiming secret knowledge/gnosis, but to have correctly perceived events so as to inform themselves about the true nature of certain things.

    This is an important distinction, I think.

    You should post more often, that clears it up well.

  96. 7817 says:

    @Oscar:

    A big part of the problem is that truth about female nature is so difficult to find in the church.

    I heard more truth about female nature from the NCOs I knew when I was a young enlisted man (all of whom were hedonistic unbelievers) than I ever did in church. That should not be.

    This is exactly right. Something is bound to happen to shake up the church as it presently exists. You can’t have so much of the church being actively dishonest about something before there is some kind of major realignment towards truth.

  97. Luke says:

    women for his own benefit.

    Oscar says:
    January 1, 2019 at 1:58 pm
    “The perpetual victim mentality of America blacks is uniquely American. Even wildly successful American blacks play the victim. It comes as naturally to them as breathing. It’s the water in which they’ve swam their whole lives.
    Although American pop culture has spread this mentality, it’s still rare among blacks outside the U.S. I haven’t traveled extensively in Africa, but I never saw it in my limited travels there. By contrast, a few minutes spent with a group of American blacks is usually enough to bring out the victim mentality.”

    I think if you did even a cursory reading of what blacks in South Africa apparently think these days, you’d come to a considerably different conclusion. In the middle of (medium- and ever-increasing speed) genociding the remaining whites there, the blacks in SA continue to screech about how they’re “oppressed”. It’s very much akin to how liberals of any race here “cry out in pain while they strike you”.

  98. Oscar says:

    Here we go….

  99. freebird says:

    I have evidence Zed is still alive,but hasn’t written in 9 months.
    I wish him well in the New Year

  100. Luke says:

    surprising.

    feministhater says:
    January 1, 2019 at 1:34 pm
    “It becomes increasingly more difficult to correct their beliefs when they come to this blog and find, for example, a recent commenter stating that he is Christian while also often trying to justify his actions of currently having sex without marriage.”

    “I do believe this gent was told to leave his unmarried sex outside of the blog, is that not correct?

    If you’re referring to me, Dalrock (the only person on the planet with that right) has done no such thing of which I am aware. Anyway, if you are referring to me, you are misrepresenting my position.

    I believe:
    1) that the Bible is correct, within the limits of my knowledge;
    2) that Catch-22s (where you’re SOL no matter what you try or decide) are never legitimate or acceptable, that only a moral monster could say that they are;
    3) that Biblical marriage is by far preferred for having sex;
    4) that BM is tragically unavailable for > 9 out of 10 American men now (whereas > 8 out of 10 U.S. women could have one with a finger crook);
    5) that odds are overwhelmingly that any given male reader here is one of them;
    6) that most men are called to marriage and fatherhood, rather than celibacy;
    7) see line #2.

  101. CreationKing says:

    I also never noticed the pattern with Lancelot (and I’m a medievalist). The red pill has some issues (particularly in regard to how one ought to compose themselves — the amorality of the philosophy bothers me, and seems to create pain for people. This is from reading stories on Reddit). I thought that masculine virtues like strength, independence, and healthy detachment were attractive. If you’ve seen otherwise, I’m interested to hear it. Also, if marriage/relationships require the manipulation of game, is it better as Paul says to be like he was – celibate? Enjoyed this post and found it thoughtful.

  102. Anon says:

    I have evidence Zed is still alive,but hasn’t written in 9 months.

    Oh, good.

  103. Oscar says:

    @ Luke

    I believe:
    1) that the Bible is correct, within the limits of my knowledge;
    2) that Catch-22s (where you’re SOL no matter what you try or decide) are never legitimate or acceptable, that only a moral monster could say that they are;

    When Christians in the Roman Empire were told to deny Christ, or die, was that a Catch-22 (where they were SOL no matter what they tried or decided)?

  104. info says:

    @Luke
    ” It’s very much akin to how liberals of any race here “cry out in pain while they strike you”.

    And that’s the result of leftist ideology. Its no coincidence that the Govt of SA is communist.

  105. info says:

    @Oscar
    Well we certainly didn’t see this coming since “homophobia” /sarc

  106. Luke says:

    Oscar says:
    January 1, 2019 at 7:11 pm

    When Christians in the Roman Empire were told to deny Christ, or die, was that a Catch-22 (where they were SOL no matter what they tried or decided)?

    Not at all. They got to go to heaven, after making a decision that (even for fallen people, as we all are) was within their powers. Tell me how 100 million men in America today can obey Genesis 9:7 or 1:22, whichever the commandment about “going forth and multiplying” verse is, without taking measures unthinkable to our great-grandparents (such as my preference for egg donor + gestational surrogacy – legal/habitational relationship with any U.S. woman or any woman in the U.S.), and I’ll read it all the way through.

  107. Anonymous Reader says:

    freebird
    I have evidence Zed is still alive,but hasn’t written in 9 months.

    Good news. He distanced himself some from the manosphere way back on the Spearhead.

    I wish him well in the New Year

    As should we all, from all, to all.

  108. BillyS says:

    Luke,

    Most people do not “go forth and multiply” today in the US, especially not Christians. The exception would be the many invaders and that doesn’t bode well for the future.

    I believe they were referring to ChristianCool, but if you also advocate having an active sexual relationship outside of marriage, and allowing multiple of those over time, then you are equally deluded.

  109. Oscar says:

    @ Luke

    Not at all. They got to go to heaven, after making a decision that (even for fallen people, as we all are) was within their powers.

    All who receive salvation get to go to Heaven, and martyrs don’t choose martyrdom “within their powers”. They do so in the power of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, chastity is a choice all can make in the power of the Holy Spirit. Are you saying that being tortured to death is preferable to choosing a chaste life?

  110. Anon says:

    He distanced himself some from the manosphere way back on the Spearhead.

    This was mainly due to Rob Fedders, as Boxer can confirm (if Boxer comes back).

    Now that Rob Fedders no longer pollutes these parts, Zed should consider returning.

  111. Luke says:

    No, Oscar. I’m not saying that being excecuted for refusing to disavow Christ is preferable to lifelong celibacy.
    I’m saying that the former is more doable. Most people that attempt the latter will fail at it.

  112. Micah says:

    I bet he will violate Ephesians 5 with eagerness, by downplaying submission of wives to their husbands like so many others do.

  113. Luke says:

    Is Zed the same guy as ZenPriest?

  114. info says:

    Relevant about Bnonn:

    So mired in effeminacy. Their attempts at masculinity are simply parodies and not the real thing.

  115. Sharkly says:

    @Oldrich
    People who give advice only take credit for the successes, that is clear.
    LOL So true! I have heard it also said this way:
    Success has a thousand fathers, but failure is always a bastard!

    When things were going my way, and I was a phenom of success, so many people would talk about how they gave me some bit of free advice or bit of encouragement, and surely they thereby were a big part of why I was so successful. However when a confederacy of evil dunces brought me low through treachery and unethical dealing, not a soul laid claim to any of my failure, not even Mr. Obama who had claimed “you didn’t build that”. Everybody insisted it was 100% my own fault for the entirety of the failure. Apparently even Mr. Obama is OK believing I failed on my own, although he refused to see that I had succeeded largely on my own, fighting for every single opportunity, sacrificing everything on the line repeatedly, persevering despite constant opposition, and refusing to accept defeat numerous times before the success ever began to materialize.
    Oh, and I’d like to thank all of you who were such a big part of my successful years. And If I ever find anybody who admits to being a partner to my downfall, I’ll likely die from the shock.

  116. sipcode says:

    Bnonn is a legend pop-up theologian in his own mind. Unfortunately Lori Alexander has taken to quoting him.

    Thanks for sticking to your guns Dalrock, and proving all things …not that I ever doubted you.

  117. Oscar says:

    @ Luke

    No, Oscar. I’m not saying that being excecuted for refusing to disavow Christ is preferable to lifelong celibacy.

    That doesn’t answer my question. I asked; are you saying that being tortured to death is preferable to choosing a chaste life? I did not ask about celibacy. I asked about chastity. Do you understand the difference?

  118. Sharkly says:

    Very good comments Charles & Scrutiniser!

    Ray, I agree, this Antipope sucks!

    Cane Caldo says: Bnonn-sense
    LOL Name jokes usually aren’t funny, but you rolled me with that one.
    the “b” is silent.

  119. Sharkly says:

    Pedophobes!
    Thanks Oscar. I’ll have to use that one when the churchians get their dander up and start laying the Feminist talking points on me. Apparently only misogynists want their wives to stop sinning. I’ll give them a snapshot of where they’re headed. They were laying the Feminist talking points on thick this last week, as I sought their help to call my wife to submission. No takers yet. Apparently living with me must be like “slavery” they claim, because for once in my marriage I finally want help getting my wife to submit to save the marriage. She really never has submitted in anything she didn’t want to, in 16+ years, of my “slavery”. I got no answer back when I pointed out that they were just repeating the old Feminist talking point that all traditional marriage is slavery. So then I was accused of “dominating”. LOL Cucks! Sometimes it seems that Satan controls them, but they’re just too fooking Stoopid to be his crack troops, they must be his cannon fodder. They don’t know the Bible, they deny they’re of this world, they’re in transition and don’t know who they belong to. They know I’m right when I point out that their departed parents knew their Bibles better, and hadn’t swallowed this crap. That should bother them, but I think their apathy about Christ is why they don’t bother to read His word.(the church leaders) I can only imagine what a mess of “cliché worshippers” the pew-warmers must be.
    If I’ve only read the Bible a few times, and I know it far better than their church leaders, how many times have those Biblical ignoramuses read it? Is that not scary?

  120. Chivalry Courtly Love. C/L is a parody of chivalry. Reading commentary on the old books is good, but is no way a substitute for actually reading the older works themselves.

  121. Luke says:

    Oscar says:
    January 1, 2019 at 10:40 pm
    @ Luke

    “That doesn’t answer my question. I asked; are you saying that being tortured to death is preferable to choosing a chaste life? I did not ask about celibacy. I asked about chastity. Do you understand the difference?

    Perfectly. That is why I chose the word “celibacy”. A virtuous man who obtains faithful, fulfilling Christian marriage (where he gets laid 10x a week by his wife, and only by his wife) is chaste. A man who now holds out for a genuinely Christian (Ephesians, Titus, Timothy, Deuteronomy, Proverbs, etc. are in her Bible) young virgin woman of anywhere near his own SMV before having sex will almost certainly die a virgin, hence celibate. That isn’t natural, how it’s supposed to be, or generally sustainable (most men would fail if they tried to be that way).

    Re your original question: I would not trade having a long, pleasant, childless, atheistic life with an easy death for a much shorter life where I still had my children and was a Christian, and died very badly. Does that help you understand?

  122. Both Launcelot and Tristram are inextricable from the Courtly Love cult, and the things Dalrock ascribes to chivalry are pretty accurate descriptions of the <launcelot du Lac version of it. But it is my contention, contra Dalrock, as a man and a lifelong Arthurainist (with as long a repulsion for the glorified adultery of Lancelot and the queen!) that there is far more to chivalry than keeping “milady’s” good graces, and always has been.

    See The Aristotelian Mean on my own blog.

  123. Anonymous Reader says:

    is far more to chivalry than keeping “milady’s” good graces, and always has been.

    That’s a fedora in your gravatar, isn’t it? It should be.

  124. feeriker says:

    Bnonn is a legend pop-up theologian in his own mind. Unfortunately Lori Alexander has taken to quoting him.

    Fortunately, Lori should be easy to set straight.

    They know I’m right when I point out that their departed parents knew their Bibles better, and hadn’t swallowed this crap. That should bother them, but I think their apathy about Christ is why they don’t bother to read His word.(the church leaders) I can only imagine what a mess of “cliché worshippers” the pew-warmers must be.

    If I’ve only read the Bible a few times, and I know it far better than their church leaders, how many times have those Biblical ignoramuses read it? Is that not scary?

    As Brother Sip Code repeatedly reminds us, it’s all over for the non-profit pseudo-corporations that are today’s “churches.” The charlatans-for-hire who run them know this. The pig-ignorant pew warmers who gulp down the charlatans’ New Age Modernist faux-gospel nonsense know it too, even if they can’t articulate it or admit it. No one cares, though, because no one is convicted of the Holy Spirit because no one fears God, not having borne witness to a sufficient dose of His wrath.

    It’s past time to stop pretending that these people are Bible-believing Christ followers. Trusting in them accordingly will lead to nothing other than loss, betrayal, heartbreak, suffering, and being led astray. As some here have declared, THIS virtual assembly of men of opened eyes is their new church. This body and others like it are replacing sand and darkness with salt and light.

  125. feministhater says:

    If you’re referring to me, Dalrock (the only person on the planet with that right) has done no such thing of which I am aware. Anyway, if you are referring to me, you are misrepresenting my position.

    I wasn’t referring to you. However, if you’re having sex outside of marriage, I would tell you to repent and stop doing so.

  126. freebird says:

    If you’re referring to me, Dalrock (the only person on the planet with that right) has done no such thing of which I am aware. Anyway, if you are referring to me, you are misrepresenting my position.

    I wasn’t referring to you. However, if you’re having sex outside of marriage, I would tell you to repent and stop doing so.
    —————————————————————————————————————-
    Haha!
    Good one!
    Ziiip!

  127. Ron Tomlinson says:

    I wonder if it was Augustine’s sexual activities prior to his conversion that were responsible for his later views about sex in marriage.

  128. info says:

    @Ron Tomlinson
    ”I wonder if it was Augustine’s sexual activities prior to his conversion that were responsible for his later views about sex in marriage.”

    Yes and also the existing philosophical schools that despise marriage,reproduction and sex that he was involved in.

  129. Oldřich says:

    @Sharkly – I suggest tactical forgiveness. Resentment might have worked in small comunities, where the oportunity to get back at whoever wronged you often manifested itself sooner or later, nowadays it is simply silliness, you know.

    Sincerely best of luck.

  130. JFP says:

    “distinctive aroma of pleasure to God”

    Wilson sounds like he is coming out of a Greek/Roman orgy cult worship session of any number of Goddesses or Gods.

  131. Bargus McFinn says:

    I may be wrong about this, as it’s been a while since I read The Screwtape Letters, but I could swear the sections he quotes refer to social justice, not patriarchy.

  132. Paul says:

    @info, Ron

    And not only the philosophical schools, but more specifically the Gnostic sect he was part of (Manichaean Gnosticism).

    He literally believed that original sin was tightly coupled to sexual desire; that sexual desire itself is at its core evil and causes hereditary sin.

    He lamented he could not control his penis to get erect or flaccid according to willpower, but had to live with evil sexual desires that had control over the erectile state of his penis.

    Clearly this is rooted in the Gnostic dualism which declares all material (and hence bodily and sexual) manifestations are evil, whereas all spiritual manifestations are inherently good.

    Unfortunately Augustine’s teaching became deeply embedded within the Christian church.

  133. ys says:

    Luke-
    Are you saying that you will dishonor God, live an atheistic life, and then when you face judgement before the Almighty, you will lecture Him on what a moral monster He is?
    He won’t buy your excuses, and will damn you. Repent.

  134. Lexet Blog says:

    New Calvinism is very dangerous. Thanks for making this point. I have seen a lack of Protestants and reformed folks on these walls. If there are any out there, let’s get together.

    Dalrock holds the line, but there are distinct theological lines at play here that go unnoticed by many

  135. Lexet Blog says:

    I think a reductionist explanation of what the RP is is taking ownership of your life, accepting responsibility, and not being naive.

  136. BillyS says:

    Wow, I agree with FH again!

    (Just kidding. We likely agree on more than we disagree on.)

  137. Lexet Blog says:

    I’m not sure the misunderstanding can be corrected. However, I think the red pill sphere should be able to accept that there are different communities within it that hold to different values.

    The only concern I have is for the Christian RP community, where RP is a rejection of worldliness, in the favor of obedience to God.

    Most of the RP community is backlash against the prevailing worldliness, in favor of another form of worldliness. The RP community and feminism is highly informative as to our sin nature played out

  138. Lexet Blog says:

    Spot on

  139. 7817 says:

    Bnonn has come out with a new twitter thread with more of the same.

    On the one hand it’s to bad he is determined to do all this, but on the other hand, it’s always good when people demonstrate who they are.

    His first point in the thread:

    D Bnonn Tennant@bnonn

    1. Don’t be anonymous. The prophets, the apostles, Jesus himself risked a great deal by open discourse. Everyone knew their names. Everyone knew their faces. Have you yet resisted to the point of shedding blood? Don’t be weak. Don’t be a coward. Don’t be anonymous.

    So much shaming language directed to the purpose of getting men he disagrees with to expose their identities. People lose their jobs and livelihoods these days for telling the truth around these parts, and Bnonn wants his critics to expose themselves to all the ire of the feminist culture, to be destroyed.

  140. Lexet Blog says:

    Low blow and unnecessary. Don’t stoop to doxxing

  141. theShield220 says:

    I have met Michael Foster and visited his church. Solid man; a little young in my opinion for an elder, but a good preacher. He had a polemical slant that I appreciated. Decent and in order was his church to a tee.
    If he suffers from one problem, it is going to be his Presbyterian arrogance. Presbyterians have issues letting people have their own opinion and tease it out for themselves. The very nature of the their church government assumes conformity, even though it does not really deliver. In this regard, they live with a significant cognitive dissonance: “We are the REAL Presbyterian reformed.” Not sure what bnonn’s story is, but I would wager their out-of-the-gate belligerence stems from the foregoing.

  142. Lexet Blog says:

    They follow Wilson

  143. Lexet Blog says:

    They are literally already doing this on Facebook. It’s so predictable

  144. Cane Caldo says:

    @JFP

    Wilson sounds like he is coming out of a Greek/Roman orgy cult worship session of any number of Goddesses or Gods.

    Wilson meant to invoke St. Paul’s imagery from 2 Corinthians 2: 14 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. 15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? 17 For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

    Wilson’s error is to impute the wife’s attitude with the power of God’s judgment; to make wives into household idols. Here I mean idol in the sense which an ancient Roman or Canaanite would recognize.

  145. ray says:

    Nate —

    Yep. Another soft-looking pseudo-pastor. Perfect for New Amerika. A picture parade of the ‘pastors’ featured on this page over the years would reveal the same untested, soft, weak look in almost all. Ain’t a mystery why women choose them to be ‘spiritual leaders’. And of course other weak men hire them. Wouldn’t want an actual MAN to get behind the pulpit. The rest of them would be exposed as what they are.

    I wouldn’t let this guy mow my lawn much less tell me about God. Probly went right from high-school to Bible College or equivalent, got zero experience in the actual world.

    Oh and, he’s got a daughter. So that’d be two females (at least) in the household to rule over him.

    Yeah good luck steering this guy off the Feminism Express. Whatever else he’s doing with his life, the one thing he shouldn’t be doing is pretending he is a spokesman for the LORD.

  146. Pingback: Feminism is the parasitic rider chivalry longs for. | Dalrock

  147. Mountain Man says:

    Ray,

    I share a bit of your disdain for him. But I also feel it is good to be accurate in our disdain. This Bnonn fellow is from New Zealand, not America. He describes himself as a former atheist who found God through his wife, so I doubt he went to bible college. Not sure about his real-word experience, but at least he has experience as an atheist arguing with Christians.

    I’m not sticking up for the guy, just encouraging us all towards accuracy.

  148. 7817 says:

    And there it is:

    D Bnonn Tennant@bnonn

    10. Judge yourself soberly. You have pet issues—know them; know why; deal with them; don’t air them (e.g. hammering on 1 Cor 7 tells us about your sex life). Balance your concerns with the full counsel of God; train yourself to slowly conform your perspective to his full view.

    This is the church equivalent of shrieking “Incel!” that those they disagree with.

    So now pointing out the truth of the Bible in 1 Cor. 7 is just going to get you laughed at as a sexless loser by these self appointed christian teachers of godly masculinity.

    Way to demonstrate how to have an honest discussion guys.

    It is to laugh.

  149. Mountain Man says:

    Also, I don’t think he is a pastor. I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like he is just a blogger who likes to blog about theology.

  150. ChristianCool says:

    @Cane Caldo

    Doug Wilson, after at least 2 (maybe 3) failed marriages, still sees the world through rose-colored glasses. That IS the definition of the Blue Pill.

    You would think after 2-3 divorces, the guy would see the reality of the situation and adjust (“take the red pill”). But he continues on.

    Think about the case of Michael Strahan, the former NFL defensive end who spent his entire 15-year career with the New York Giants. You would think this guy was “pretty Alpha”, right?

    LOL

    Nah, despite his success and charisma on TV, Strahan is a colossal Beta, who swallows blue pills on a daily basis.

    2 failed marriages and he is working on failed marriage #3 right now…. he got divorce raped brutally the second go-around, since the first divorce Strahan was poor and still had to give ex-wife the house.

    Second divorce, ex-wife Jean Muggli got Judge to give her a $15 million in a divorce settlement + $18,000 monthly child support. The 2nd ex spent money so absurdly she spent $22,500 on photo shoots, $27,000 on clothing and endless expensive clothes for herself. Wife #2 took more than half of his $22 million in assets (68% of his total assets and income!!!!!). ❗

    Feeling she did not get enough….. ex-wife #2 continued the divorce rape so in March 2007, the court ordered the Strahan’s Montclair, NJ mansion to be auctioned and the sales money split evenly 50/50 with Jean (the house was valued at $3.6 million).

    Wife #2 never put $1 Dollar into marriage. Not $1 single buck. Think Courts care? 🙄

    Think Michael Strahan learned his lesson. Nah. This clown got engaged for the 3rd time and he is working on failed marriage #3. -_-

    This guy does NOT learn…. he is a Blue Piller, like Doug Wilson. No matter what past experiences dictate, this clown will continue to believe in something that does not exist.

    It is like a normal human being believing that gifts that appear under your tree come from Santa Claus at age 40! 🙄 That is being blue pilled.

    Just as Strahan does not get the reality of divorce rape in America, Doug Wilson does not understand (or refuses to believe) in the true nature of the female psyche and mentality in a modern, corrupt society we have today.

  151. 7817 says:

    I can’t find any information on Doug Wilson being divorced. I’m not a fan of his, but that doesn’t sound right to me. Got a link to share CC?

  152. Dalrock says:

    I’ve never come across anything suggesting that Wilson has divorced either.

  153. Anonymous Reader says:

    Perhaps Christian Cool is confusing Doug Wilson with Dennis Prager?
    Prager has been divorced twice and is currently in his 3rd marriage. He’s also Jewish and Wilson is not.

  154. ray says:

    MM —

    Much obliged. Not interested in him enough to go look myself.

    On the Red Pill term, agree with a poster above, it derives from ‘The Matrix’ which derives from Gnosticism. Right down to the Chosen One becoming the new solar god. Lucifer is a ‘being of brilliant light’ too. Damn! the Tenth Fretensis would luuurve them some American Christianity!

    RP is easy short-hand, but I don’t use it because current Christianity is already far too mixed-up in non-Christian (and even anti-Christian) thought and personages. For the same reason I opposed Game and the Game Boys from the get-go; it’s secular, it’s personality-cult, and it’s encouraging of sexual libertinism.

    Paul —

    Ok. Thank you for the link.

    Yes the Mary/wife worship is all bound up together. It doesn’t appear per se for a century or so after Christ, but soon the various early-A.D. gnostic schools (there were many, of many types) began folding their prior forms of goddess-worship (what’s often documented in the OT as ‘worshipping the high places’) into the hot new religion, Christianity.

    It was easily done, because the baseline religious model for the prior millennia was pagan-deity worship, typically of the mother-goddess, recently ‘revived’. Usually Big Mammy had an eternal son/sun, so ‘course she remained the Boss. The peeps had no problem glomming onto yet another version, with Jeshua replacing the usual cast of Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus, etc.

    A woman rides the beast, I’d be v surprised if the center of the New World Order religion isn’t the New Woman Order, with of course the various neo-Marxist attendant trappings, the environmental (goddess planet) obsessions, all the rest. I can’t think of any other major catch-all that’d gather the bulk of the planetary populace. Because the Almighty People DAMN sure ain’t gonna circle around King Jeshua. They’ll take pretty much anybody else tho! :O)

  155. Cane Caldo says:

    I’ve never heard that Doug Wilson is divorced.

  156. ChristianCool says:

    @BillyS says: “Most people do not “go forth and multiply” today in the US, especially not Christians. The exception would be the many invaders and that doesn’t bode well for the future.”
    Do you know WHY that is? Because illegal aliens get a complete welfare package worth over $50,000 from American taxpayers each year for dropping a kid in US soil. Most Americans, especially ones form the dying middle class get to PAY for the illegal aliens to have a “free kid” in America, while getting NO benefits at all for the taxes they pay.

    Trust me, it is NOT by choice. I was married 12 years, my wife wanted to have a kid badly and we could not afford it at the time…. well, at least could not afford it if she was gonna be a stay-at-home mom and homeschool as we had planned. I could have worked 80h a week, still would not be enough. Kids are very expensive… just the Obummercare deductible to have a kid these days in her “premium insurance” was $6,900… that is not including fees, extras, co-insurance, etc. That is for a “basic birth”.

    Meanwhile Fatima form Pakistan and Carmelita, from Guatemala, who “jumped” the border the day before and both popped a kid on this side of the “fence” get FREE Medicaid birth and all “free” pre- and post-natal exams WIC, kid gets “free” public education, free college tuition as an adult, free school lunch k-12, free preschool, lifetime food stamps, section 8 housing, EIC (Earned Income Credit), and deferred from deportation… for life.

    Why do you think illegals worldwide are rushing here to drop a kid? They KNOW Americans are morons who allow this to go on indefinitely. They know about Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi… they know rich donors like Tom Styre, George Soros, and the Kochs want this to go on forever. Cheap labor and a poor voting underclass is key to their globalist vision of a weak America under a global Chinese rule.

    Turned it out worked out for the best in my case not having a kid, since she passed away. The trauma for a child to lose a parent is horrific, so I am relieved in that sense.

    BTW, I am seeing less and less hope for the future in our country anyway and have serious doubts about having a child(ren) anyway, as I once wanted before. I am wondering if it is even worth having a child (and its massive expenses) to grow up in a 3rd world country that America is becoming.

  157. ChristianCool says:

    Sorry, I stand corrected. 😉

    I wrote that comment in two parts, I had was interrupted a few times and had to run a work-related errand, then after I got back and started writing again and I incorrectly typed “Doug Wilson”. My mistake. Ooops. -_- You are correct to point this out; Doug Wilson is the wrong guy I was referring to.

    I had 3 examples of dudes on their 3rd marriage who are blue-pillers:

    1. One was indeed Dennis Prager, “Mr. Moralist” whom I conflated with Doug Wilson, who is listed on this OP. He shares a lot of the same nonsensical opinions we get from the National Review crowd do about marriage at Prager U: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/02/20/will-wilcox-and-the-men-of-national-review-respect-you-in-the-morning/

    Prager is in his 3rd marriage. I would have quit while I was ahead, but hey, each to their own. But Dennis Prager, whom I like on a few conservative topics (and yet vehemently disagree with regarding about marriage and mass immigration), should have quit while he was ahead. Prager U has some videos telling men to basically man up and “marry up some slut/random woman” because marriage is a “societal good”, so men can work extra hours, which such people call a “marriage premium” 🙄 and because wedding stimulate economic activity. The whole thing is asinine. 🙄

    2. The second one was Michael Strahan, the NFL/morning show blue-piller gearing up for his 3rd divorce (soon, it is coming, folks). His 2nd divorce was a doozy… wife walked away with almost 70%, took 1/2 his mansion in Jersey, spends tens of thousands on absurd stuff like child portraits and gets tens of thousands per month in “…. and Strahan is ready for a 3rd try. LOL 😀 Read about it, Strahan should have taken the red pill, but no, he was on his way to a 3rd marriage.

    3. The third was this Christian writer (I have his name at home, will get it later tonight); he is writing books on “staying married” when he has acknowledged 2 divorces, likely a 3rd seems possible from some of what he wrote in his book.

    That is like an obese men writing and teaching others about self-control or about fitness.
    🙄

    I will correct the record later when I get the author’s name I intended to mention…. But you are right, the “Christian” book author that is now in his 3rd marriage I was referring to is NOT Doug Wilson.

    Ps. Wilson is still a Blue Piller…. That is a fact regardless of whether he has been divorced before or not. Anyone who is re-writing/re-interpreting Biblical passages to fit “Christian feminism” instead of acknowledge the damage it does to the Church is a daily fan of the Blue Pill.

    Being a “blue piller” is denying reality, refusing to see the truth right in front of them.

  158. 7817 says:

    Another aspect of this Bnonn/Foster swipe at Dalrock and his blog:

    It is interesting to note that Bnonn says that he has read The Rational Male book, and Foster interacts somewhat regularly with Rollo on twitter. Rollo regularly calls out the church, the whole church, as feminized. Yet I have not seen either of them attack Rollo.

    Who do they choose to attack? Dalrock, who regularly and specifically calls out pastors who invert Scripture in a chivalrous/feminist way. Bnonn and Foster are both followers of Doug Wilson, or at minimum agree with Wilson in many things. Foster even names Wilson as an influence.

    So it is quite interesting when they took that swipe at Dalrock they talked about people being too attached to leaders, in a cult like way. It is probably safe to conclude that this is projection on their part, based on the fact that the ONE person they’ve called out is a blogger who not only tells the truth, but is also Christian, and who points out the failure of even the most conservative pastors to resist feminism in some forms.

    For my part, I enjoy reading Dalrock, but if he was to begin compromising with feminism in order to monetize his content, it would be sad but I would move on. The fact that he has not done so is exceptional, especially given the business opportunity there, with church men obviously hungry for masculine leadership, so starved for it in fact there is a good chance Bnonn and Foster may succeed in their effort.

    Relevant tweet:

    D Bnonn Tennant@bnonn

    4. Avoid bad company. It corrupts good morals. Those you surround yourself are a mirror of who you are. Don’t eat rotten fruit, and don’t make for yourself fathers of men infested with fruit flies. So they preach Christ? Okay, but envy and rivalry is still rotten fruit (Phil 1).

  159. Oscar says:

    @ Sharkly

    So then I was accused of “dominating”.

    The root word of “dominate” is “dominus”, which in Latin means “lord”, and in Christian history is often a reference to Christ, because, after all, Christ is Lord; right?

    Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord [Dominus ~ O].

    1 Peter 3:6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord [dominus ~ O], whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

    Genesis 18:12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my lord [dominus ~ O] being old also?”

    Funny how that works.

  160. sipcode says:

    “When husbands undertake the assigned responsibility of loving their wives in such a way that they grow in loveliness, they need to understand that the results will be visible.”

    Using Wilson’s logic, then Jesus Christ, the Bridegoom of His bride, is obviously fucking up, based upon all the condemning that Scripture speaks of His people, including saying “I never knew you” to “many” in the church.

    It is absurd that Wilson noted in a June 2016 post of his that the church does not hold the wife accountable …as he does not hold the wife accountable.

  161. Oscar says:

    @ Luke

    Re your original question: I would not trade having a long, pleasant, childless, atheistic life with an easy death for a much shorter life where I still had my children and was a Christian, and died very badly. Does that help you understand?

    No, because it doesn’t answer my question, nor does it address your original statement that prompted my question, nor does it make any sense of your current behavior.

    Let’s try this again. You excused your disobedience this way:

    Catch-22s (where you’re SOL no matter what you try or decide) are never legitimate or acceptable, that only a moral monster could say that they are;

    Because obedience to God (chastity) is too costly. Here’s what the Apostle Paul’s obedience cost him.

    2 Corinthians 11:22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. 23 Are they ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. 24 From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26 in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27 in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness— 28 besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches.

    And that was before the Romans imprisoned and executed him.

    Would obedience to God (chastity) cost you anywhere near what it cost the Apostle Paul?

  162. Luke says:

    Oscar asked:
    “Would obedience to God (chastity) cost you anywhere near what it cost the Apostle Paul?”

    It would not come up, since I was meant for marriage and family, not having the gift of celibacy, so I would not have succeeded in maintaining celibacy for a lifetime.

    For those misunderstanding my earlier post, an easy childless atheistic well-loved life would not be one I would choose over my current taxing but fecund trying-to-live-Christian yoked-to-a-faithless-woman life.

  163. ray says:

    It was Charles who made the original observation here about The Matrix and Gnosticism, including one of its institutional forms. Although that form, broadly, is still within Christ’s Church, i.e., Thyatira.

    Charles also is correct about this male/female thing not resolving until Parousia. In fact I expect it’ll take a little longer, as there will be immanent matters to attend.

    If you can suffer the truth of Scripture, including about man and woman, then you will be both spiritually and psychologically prepared for that radically different aspect of His Kingdom. If you read Scripture with understanding, esp the OT, then you’ll likewise be prepared for many other abrupt changes. Welcome them. For example, the chief fear of every female will be that they are unattached as helpmeet (of some type) to a male. You can dream from there, and many of your dreams will come true.

    Between here and there is a v short period of time, but it’s a nasty bit of business, and His people already are busy at war. If they’re His people.

  164. PokeSalad says:

    3. Until the industrial revolution, the household was the typical unit of production. As such, through the mid-19th century most marriages were still based upon consideration of property, influence and wealth.

    Interesting. This leads me to think of the dichotomy between the industrially-oriented North and the agriculturally-oriented South in the antebellum period.

  165. MKT says:

    “Doug Wilson, after at least 2 (maybe 3) failed marriages”

    Citation or this is simply lying and maligning him. I’m about 99% sure this is a lie.

  166. That Brotha Pedat says:

    @MKT

    We’ve already established that it’s Dennis Prager that is being mistaken for Wilson. Wilson is indeed the husband of one wife.

  167. ChristianCool says:

    @Sharkly said: “So then I was accused of “dominating”.
    Listen to this carefully if you hear/read nothing that I say: WOMEN WANT TO BE DOMINATED BY MEN. Period.

    Even the non-lesbo Feminists want to have a man in their life who is strong, competent, Alpha, and yes dominating. No matter how much they “hate the patriarchy” or consider men to be “rapists”, all women, no exceptions, even if they put up a b!tch shield up about this, want their man to be dominating, ESPECIALLY in bed.

    The “feminist” actress Olivia Munn had her text messages hacked. Here is what she demands of her man, actor Chris Pine (not only sexually, but also in her personal life with him):

    https://gawker.com/5890506/olivia-munns-super-dirty-alleged-naked-pics-lick-my-tight-asshole-and-choke-me

    (warning, graphic and sexy content).

    How about feminist goddess/icon Lady Gaga? She not only wants her man to take charge and dominate and make the decisions at home, she says she is “submissive” to him:

    https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/news/lady-gaga-submissive-boyfriend-taylor-kinney-says-hes-173000523-us-weekly.html

    The term “manhandling” exists for a reason… I am not saying go “manhandle” some random woman. But your woman/wife, she needs this to know her man is the head of the household and he is as alpha as her instincts and subconscious need you to be. When you take charge at home, make decisions, and “manhandle her” the way you want, as areal man should, she gets totally turned on.

    This dominating male/husband also a clear textual, Biblical concept as Sharkly pointed out.

    Be alpha or get cucked by women. That is the bottom line.

  168. ChristianCool says:

    @Ray says “It was Charles who made the original observation here about The Matrix and Gnosticism…”

    The “Red Pill” concept is just an allegory from the movie The Matrix. It has NO connection to Gnosticism.

    Here is the scene they are talking about:

    The red pill vs blue pill is simply a way to explain men who choose to accept the truth for what it is, no matter how ugly it is… or pretend everything is just fine. It is creating an image of a choice – ugly truth or blissful ignorance.

    Blue pill men hear rumors of men who have had their lives destroyed by divorce court or imprisoned falsely or fired from his job under false pretenses or get abused/mocked/used by women. These blue pillers know something is wrong and yet you ignore the reality or choose to ignore it. They say things like “divorce rape is a myth” or “it can never happen to me”. 🙄 They deceive themselves about it. That is the path of the blue pill. The red pill is accepting the reality of the situation so you can adjust and overcome it. It is a path of self-improvement.

    Think about how America is already an well-established feminist society today, filled with laws designed to imprison men, steal from them, destroy them as human beings, and take away his children. That is reality. And yet some men choose to pretend it is all fine (take blue pill)…. they deny actual facts like the reality of unfair divorce laws or the unfairness of the criminal justice system. Men who take the red pill see this and adjust. These are the ones that thrive even in this harsh reality and unfair environment.

    People who were born in oppressive societies (i.e. North Korea) and know nothing different are “blue pilled” naturally, they live in “blissful ignorance” that this is life and all there is to it. Once they leave and see the world at large and come back and see just how horrible their country is, they have been “Red pilled”. They see both sides and see the truth.

    In the Matrix movie one of the Red Pill men regret taking the red pill as he now sees the truth…. Because it is easier to pretend all is fine then accept reality and adjust/improve oneself to succeed.

    Taking The Red Pill (seeing and accepting the truth and the reality of life, outside the fake news media portrait of “good things” like totalitarian communism or feminism) is hard. And sadly, there is no going back. When you change your point of view about something and see a situation/reality from a different angle, you can never go back.

    Biblical case in point: Paul/Saul of Tarsus… he has his “Red pill moment” on the road to Damascus and he could never go back. Scales came off his eyes and he saw Christ and took on the task he was given. Paul was changed forever by the truth. This is what “taking the red pill” means = seeing the truth and removing scales from your eyes. Ity is a hard journey as we saw with Paul, but it is the only way forward.

    Bottom line: red pill/blue pill has nothing to do with Gnosticism.

  169. MKT says:

    @That Brotha Pedat

    Thanks. I saw the first post suggesting he meant Prager, but not ChristianCool’s follow-up where he acknowledged his mistake.

  170. ChristianCool says:

    @MKT

    I issued a correction. The reason you did not see my response is because all my comments are moderated so there is often many hours of delay in them appearing. As a Red Pill Biblical-literalist Christian who is MGTOW on marriage matters only, some have complained I am too Alpha and too red-pilled for their tastes. I understand the true nature of the modern woman and the blatant unfairness of our legal/judicial system.

    I see the world as it is, not as I want it to be and I adjust accordingly. So I come under judgment for doing things like immunizing myself from false accusations of “Sexual harassment” in my work environment (which staff is at least 80-90% women). That is because I chose to live on, refuse to be defeated by a setback in life, and choose succeed in a hostile country for men. That is what being Red Pill is all about.

    The issue with me and moderation is that I worked in legal field for years and I am now a law school student. I refuse to re-marry after becoming a widower a couple years back and allow myself to be divorce raped senselessly like some men already have in our discussions. Just ask around and see what they have to say about marriage 2.0. The problem is that when you go partial MGTOW on a single issue (Marriage 2.0), some associate that with “living in sin”. 🙄

    The issue is that you can be Red Pilled and you can have knowledge of Game and not use it for nefarious purposes. It works same way with a gun… you can become very proficient with a firearm and carry one concealed for self-defense and NOT go killing people just because. Knowledge and how to use it is the key here.

    Knowing something and using it judiciously is a balancing act that bring huge rewards. One of my fav Biblical verses is Proverbs 24:3: “A wise man has great power and a man of knowledge increases strength”. Just knowing stuff is not the goal; it is knowing how to apply it as well… that gives you power and success.

    But in America we are a country of extremes. We are either going at 100MPH or stopped completely. It is either total open borders or total shutdown. It is either radical feminism or radical conservatism. There is hardly a middle ground anymore.

    That is why so many Christians (sadly, and to their own detriment) associate Red Pill knowledge and Game with evil or ill-intent. 😦 It is very unfortunate. It could benefit them tremendously, even in their own marriages.

  171. OKRickety says:

    ChristianCool,

    “As a Red Pill Biblical-literalist Christian who is MGTOW on marriage matters only, some have complained I am too Alpha and too red-pilled for their tastes.”

    That’s rather a spin on the truth. I’m not surprised as you have been and are in the legal field. At least for me, and I presume I am one you think complained that you were “too Alpha and too red-pilled”, my complaint was your argument that it was okay for you to sin sexually because … ‘Marriage 2.0’.” By the way, I did not request any action from Dalrock.

    Here is what Dalrock said when he <a href="https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/11/26/gamers-vs-thots/#comment-293306“>announced your moderation:

    “Assuming you don’t continue bragging about sexual sin your comments will still come through after a delay.”

    Your bragging about your sexual sin is the stated reason. Not your Alpha or red pill status. I recommend you stop the deflection about the real reason you are or have been on moderation here.

  172. Luke says:

    ChristianC, you said you were in law school. Do yourself a huge favor, and DROP OUT RTFN, never resuming law school. Odds are low you’ll make a justifiable return on your investment of time, sweat, money, and forgone opportunities. Look up the MEDIAN (NOT average) salaries and employment situations for recent law school graduates now. The truth is easy to understand and the course of action obvious, once you see the data.

  173. BillyS says:

    CC,

    You are not a Biblical literalist if you are not obedient to clear commands. Sex with a series of woman, unless they all have literally died before you move onto the next one, is not consistent with what is written.

    You are free to do that and believe whatever you want, but you are not following what the Bible says, which is implied by your claim of being a literalist.

  174. MKT says:

    “You are not a Biblical literalist if you are not obedient to clear commands. Sex with a series of woman, unless they all have literally died before you move onto the next one, is not consistent with what is written.”

    Yep. If you want sex outside of marriage, you’re either a progressive/liberal or have wretched Biblical interpretations like Artisanal Toad and David Koresh types.

  175. Oscar says:

    @ Luke

    Oscar asked:
    “Would obedience to God (chastity) cost you anywhere near what it cost the Apostle Paul?”

    It would not come up, since I was meant for marriage and family, not having the gift of celibacy, so I would not have succeeded in maintaining celibacy for a lifetime.

    Again, nobody asked you about celibacy. You’re married. For you, chastity means having sex with your wife and no one else.

    Now, please answer a direct question directly, for a change. Would obedience to God (chastity) cost you anywhere near what it cost the Apostle Paul?

  176. Luke says:

    Oscar:

    I will type this slowly, in the hopes that you will fully understand it.
    Not being called to celibacy, I could not maintain it lifelong. Hence, I would never find out the answer to that question, so do not know it, and could never know it.

  177. Luke says:

    Oh, and I am in a 2.0 marriage, which I bitterly regret having entered into.
    I don’t regret my children at all; they’re via egg donor/gestational surrogate, so my (SAH so incomeless) wife’s value WRT getting and raising them is at best that of a longtime contentious nanny whom I cannot easily fire.

    Tell me where a non-Alpha, nonAmish, nonorthodox Jew, nonMuslim American man who does not expatriate can get one of those Marriage 1.0 (or “real”, e.g., possibly actually Christian) marriages, so I can go get one, please.

  178. Paul says:

    @CC This dominating male/husband also a clear textual, Biblical concept as Sharkly pointed out.

    The references you give to feminist “celebrities” wanting to be sexually dominated in private do not really prove your point. Did it not appear to you that these indicate degenerate behavior in women, over-compensating their rebellious feminist ideas?

    I fully support male headship, and think men should take the lead, but we cannot let our sexual ethics be dominated by these degenerate feminists.

  179. Pingback: Fifty shades of Lancelot. | Dalrock

  180. ChristianCool says:

    @ OKRickety says: I’m not surprised as you have been and are in the legal field. My complaint was your argument because … ‘Marriage 2.0’.”

    Your lack of even the basic understanding of how America’s legal system (courts and law enforcement) actually works is the reason you misunderstand why a Biblical Christian would go MGTOW on marriage matters ONLY (well that and being a “hero type” for strangers – which is a quick way to being sued and unfairly imprisoned).

    You were defending a female cop that EXECUTED a man on live TV (and was later acquitted for being a woman and not being able to do her police officer job, so she executed a clearly unarmed man with her firearm).

    Until you are falsely accused of a crime or get divorce raped, you will NOT get it, my friend. 🙄 The whole world is against you. The Prosecutor holds all the cards. All Constitutional “rights” are simply irrelevant when you face the full power and almost limitless budget of the government all against you.

    How many men do you think come for a firt consult and say how “hopeful” they are to get some “middle aged divorced guys in the jury”…. in a DIVORCE/child custody case….. Huh?! What jury? 🙄 The Family Court Judge is Caligula with all her powers and you are an “evil” 1st century Christian whom must be severely punished.

    A Roman-style flogging would be merciful to what I have seen over the years done to innocent men, who only wanted to “do the right thing”.

    Because you claim to be Christian, I truly hope you are never sitting in the defendant’s box falsely accused of a crime by a woman….. Or are bent over “Pulp-Fiction style” in a divorce situation because I can never wish harm on fellow Believers.

    In Italian, we have a saying “hot pepper not in your eyes feel refreshing”. Basically, until your own eyes are burning, you will not feel that type of pain.

    But at the same time, I know you will never going to fully understand Marriage 2.0, Duluth policing, Prosecutorial gross power abuse, and police abuse of force (often “following orders”)….. unless that is you there – at their mercy, you will never going to feel this personally.

    And these people are as merciful as death camp guards… maybe less. Explaining this to you is pointless, unless you or someone very close to you goes through it and you are there with them, every step of the way for “the ride”.

  181. ChristianCool says:

    @Paul says: The references you give to feminist “celebrities” wanting to be sexually dominated in private do not really prove your point. Did it not appear to you that these indicate degenerate behavior in women, over-compensating their rebellious feminist ideas?

    My late wife of 12 years was hardly a “feminist degenerate”. She was extremely turned on my aggressive/Alpha/dominating bedroom game. No won der she was always sexually satisfied and always sought me out for more. Pleasing your wife in bed is CRITICAL to having a good marriage. Yes that is “romantic love” or whatever…. but welcome to the real world.

    A woman is often a reflection of her man’s actions and behavior – but a reflection that is amplified in intensity her intensity. Please her, she pleases you back much more. That type of thing. Marriage is a “give and take” with a willing partner.

    Here is a little Alpha strategy for you guys:

    make sure this is a “normal day”, not a day after a fight or during her period, for instance. Wait for later in the day…. hopefully after kids go to bed, if you have kids. make sure you have eaten, showered, and put on something nice “to go run an errand”, for instance. Then you start off by pulling something you want her to wear, something that pleases you, the man. Before she even says anything, say to her “I picked something for you to put on tonight. I will be back in 15 minutes and want to see you trying it on”. DO NOT ASK. Tell her. If she protests, it is a shit test. Pick up the outfit, put it against her while she is standing there and say “yeah I like that. You will look amazing in this, so go ahead, put it on”.

    With my wife, she had “bedroom high heels” (not to get dirty on street), so she could wear it inside for me. I often would pull the shoes and pout them on the bed and she knew what time it was and got all excited about it. I would wear a typical blazer jacket and t-shirt under it and pants, simple and nice and say “I have to “run to office”… make it “role play” if you want. 😉

    Once you are back, she better be wearing the outfit you picked. If not, she will need training…. maybe a little Dread Game to get her back on level with your male authority. I am someone who believed Dread should be DOSED and used only when really needed, so be careful here.

    If she complied, good news, she will not be Dreaded too much. Take charge now, you are the man that is your job!!!!!!
    Switch from gentle and passionate kissing and holding her waist to grabbing her hair from the base of her skull (handfull of hair), pull her head back, kiss her neck and gently bite her neck. Kiss it intensely, move behind her ears, then slide back down to the base of her neck and chest and bite it gently again.

    Look her in the eyes and make sure you look intensely. Kiss her and then while still grabbing her hair (as long as she has long hair, and if she is a feminine Christian woman, she should have long hair), walk behind her, put her facing the wall and her hands against wall. Move your hands towards front of her body and careless her.

    You are the man, dominate her, manhandle her. This is for your enjoyment as a man as well. Your dominion over her is proof you are a quality, powerful strong man.
    She is gonna get so wet, she could probably drown a baby in her panties by now. 😀 lol

    This stuff works. Variation is great too. Routines in bedroom are sure way to have marital problems. The key is to never let her know if you will be “romantic” and “make love” to her or grab her and have your way with her and manhandle her. Look for cues from her too… this is a give-and-take, which should be a win-win situation.

    Bottom line: you cannot prove your strength/value as a man to her hunting with a spear or in battle, so do it with your actions. This is why today we have s#it tests…. she needs a way to see if you are the real deal or a faker Beta.

    Women have not evolved from their solipsistic and utilitarian nature since humans were Created like 6,000 years ago. Her basic instincts and brain still work as it did 5,000 thousands years ago when she needed a man for protection from enemies and wild animals….

    If you do not dominate your wife, she will see a dominant man to do so. She wants this, almost every woman, with extremely few exceptions, unconsciously needs and wants this.

    Just because you are a Christian are you not “excused” from being a real man and dominate your woman and please her in bed. This should be obvious, but to some, it is not, clearly. 😦 It is amazing how some guys today (Christian or not), with all the info ot there, still do not understand the basic nature of women. 😮 Wow…. no wonder so many guys are divorced around here. A little Game would really help here…. *sigh*

  182. ChristianCool says:

    @MKT says: “You are not a Biblical literalist if you are not obedient to clear commands. Sex with a series of woman, unless they all have literally died before you move onto the next one, is not consistent with what is written.”

    You ASSUME, incorrectly, that I am having sex with a series of women. Currently and since about Sept/Oct of 2018, I have been abstaining from even doing my 80/20 system of in-person approaches with a little online game on the side. I need a break from all the efforts and focus more on myself again.

    It is a lot of work doing approaches and women cost money and takes up a LOT of time. I have been feeling unfulfilled with dating anyway. One problem with “dating” is that since I do not plan to get married (short of a miracle at this point of my life), there is “long term future”, so dating just seems pointless and a huge waste of my time and energy.

    I am someone who likes purpose and a reason for things. So I have been busy with school and work projects. My hobbies of weight-lifting and cars take up the rest of my free time.

    Right now, I have written a bit here on the comments while I am waiting for a meeting to begin. Years of drafting motions and pleadings made me a great typist. 😉

    Do not assume anything about me, MKT. Assuming = judging. Unless you know facts, it is judging based on appearances or whatnot.

  183. BillyS says:

    Luke,

    Some eunuchs were made eunuchs by man. You don’t have an out. You may be forced into it, but you do not have the option to partake without marriage.

    Until you are falsely accused of a crime or get divorce raped, you will NOT get it, my friend.

    I wasn’t treated as bad as many, but I got plenty of the short end of the stick. That still doesn’t give me a right to stick it into a series of women because “I have needs.” I can either sin and do that or stay chaste and follow Him.

    Someone else,

    You were defending a female cop that EXECUTED a man on live TV (and was later acquitted for being a woman and not being able to do her police officer job, so she executed a clearly unarmed man with her firearm).

    I didn’t see anyone defending this cop here, but maybe I missed that conversation.

    Either way, it is mostly a problem of cops having no accountability in most cases today. She may have gotten a bit of extra benefit for being female, but most of it was because she was a cop. That is bad for a society, but many people are idiots in that area too.

  184. Novaseeker says:

    Some eunuchs were made eunuchs by man. You don’t have an out. You may be forced into it, but you do not have the option to partake without marriage.

    I thought Luke was saying he was married but unequally yoked.

  185. MKT says:

    @ChristianCool

    “Do not assume anything about me, MKT. Assuming = judging. Unless you know facts, it is judging based on appearances or whatnot.”

    You were actually quoting and replying to BillyS. I quoted him and falsely assumed it was what I said (not that I disagree with him). In the future, I suggest brushing up on reading comp before you write 6 paragraphs addressing the wrong person. Between that and falsely accusing a pastor of being divorced 2 or 3 times, you’re on quite a roll here….a roll downhill.

  186. OKRickety says:

    ChristianCool,

    ‘Your lack of even the basic understanding of how America’s legal system (courts and law enforcement) actually works is the reason you misunderstand why a Biblical Christian would go MGTOW on marriage matters ONLY (well that and being a “hero type” for strangers – which is a quick way to being sued and unfairly imprisoned).’

    I understand why a Biblical Christian would go MGTOW on marriage. I don’t think I have advocated that you marry (state-legal or Christian or …) unless you “burn with passion” and wish to avoid sinning sexually. That is, marry if you think you must, but don’t sin with sex outside of marriage.

    “Until you are falsely accused of a crime or get divorce raped, you will NOT get it, my friend.”

    Oh, I get it. I have been divorce raped. It’s not just the courts and law enforcement, it’s also very much the church leaders and regular attenders as well. (Note: There’s a long way to go before we can be friends.)

    “Do not assume anything about me, MKT. Assuming = judging. Unless you know facts, it is judging based on appearances or whatnot.”

    Ironically, you seem to have assumed that I have not been divorce raped, and that I have not even a “basic understanding of how America’s legal system (courts and law enforcement) actually works”.

    “You ASSUME, incorrectly, that I am having sex with a series of women. Currently and since about Sept/Oct of 2018, I have been abstaining ….”

    A Biblical Christian knows that sex outside of marriage is sin (and I think you agree). So, you have been abstaining for the last three months or so. Did you have sex with a series of women between your wife’s death and three months ago? If so, are you simply taking a lawyer’s approach and focusing on the fact that you are not currently sinning in this fashion, so you can avoid admitting that you have indeed sinned this way and you currently have no moral compunction against sinning this way again in the future? Or have you decided that you are going to follow Christ and flee from that sin?

  187. Oscar says:

    @ Luke

    I will type this slowly, in the hopes that you will fully understand it.
    Not being called to celibacy, I could not maintain it lifelong. Hence, I would never find out the answer to that question, so do not know it, and could never know it.

    For the fourth time now; nobody asked you about celibacy. Here’s the question I actually asked, again: Would obedience to God (chastity [i.e., sex with your wife, and no one else]) cost you anywhere near what it (i.e., obedience to God) cost the Apostle Paul?

    Tell me where a non-Alpha, nonAmish, nonorthodox Jew, nonMuslim American man who does not expatriate can get one of those Marriage 1.0 (or “real”, e.g., possibly actually Christian) marriages, so I can go get one, please.

    You already have a marriage. You don’t get another one.

    Matthew 19:9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for [b]sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery

  188. BillyS says:

    MKT,

    I have no idea who supposedly wrote about the cop. I was just responding to the claim someone was defending her. Her actions were indicative of the problems in the modern “justice system.” They are not a good sign at all. It probably helps CC feel better to go after straw men though. (Or straw women in this case!)

  189. Luke says:

    Oscar, my “wife” has torn out of the Bible and wiped her rear with virtually every verse of which I am aware. I have a marriage only in terms of my legal obligations to me. Any duties to me she recognizes, or faithfulness on her part to what God deems marriage, I cannot come up with any.

    So, if I have a marriage (those things are supposed to carry reciprocal obligations in both God’s and Man’s laws, last I heard), would someone please inform my “wife”? It would be news to her.

  190. Luke says:

    Every verse on marriage. Sorry.

    Oh, she was previously married, and married me before her last husband croaked.
    Guess that makes her a bigamist, and me a victim of same.

  191. Bee says:

    Luke,

    I am not picking on you, just trying to learn. I am going by memory of your comments from several years ago, so I may get some details wrong. My apologies to you if I get some details wrong.

    Your wife was a career girl who was in her late 40’s and now wanted to be a SAHM and raise kids. Because of her age you two went the gestational surrogate route and she raises them.

    What red flags did you miss? She was older, more mature, what caused her to go off the rails?

    Did you investigate her divorce before getting engaged to her?

  192. Pingback: Whose Morality Have We Been Teaching? | The 96th Thesis

  193. Pingback: Chivalry and Sodomy - The Chi Files

  194. Pingback: Rank your Patriarchy level | Christianity and masculinity

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.