No wonder they hate Christmas

Dalrock on the special Hell that is Christmastime for feminists:

As I explained in my first post of the new year, feminists are ugly because they are miserly with love.  But the year is almost over, and as the seasons change so do feminists.  This is the time of year when a feminist’s thoughts turn from resentment of the toil and drudgery of everyday life, to resentment of the toil and drudgery of Christmas.  Jessica Valenti at The Guardian speaks for ugly feminists everywhere with her heart felt Christmas missive "No, I will NOT wrap all the presents. Why are women still responsible for the holiday joy?"

    …jingle bell time aside, it’s a goddamn clusterfuck.

Of course Christmas is a special Hell for feminists. It is the celebration of the triumph of hope, joy, and love over their father, the devil. Christmas is, like the Word whose birth it celebrates, the great divider. As long as a man or a woman loves Christmas, there is hope for him. As long as one's soul, however withered and grey, feels even a modicum of the season's good cheer, there is an ember of joy that is a reflection of the Eternal inside.

Evil and all its servitors and minions hate Christmas because it is a constant reminder that although the night is dark, men are sinful, and the world is fallen, hope and joy remain, in the symbol of the little child in a manger, who is Christ the Lord.

Il verbo si fece carne e venne ad abitare in mezzo a noi.

Read More

Truth and the Resurrection

There are those who say that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth is merely a story. They will claim, falsely, that the Risen Lord is derived from an agricultural myth. They will assert, wrongly, that "Easter is originally the celebration of Ishtar, the Assyrian and Babylonian goddess of fertility and sex." They will declare, contra the historical evidence, that Jesus Christ never lived or was crucified on a cross by the Roman authorities.

It is strange, is it not, that they should tell so many palpable lies in the service of that which they say to be truth?

The Apostle Paul once said that if the story of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ is not true, then we Christians are the saddest and most pathetic of all men. Everything we do, everything we believe, everything for which we hope and strive, is a lie.

It is strange, is it not, that so many observable and long-lived truths should stand so firmly on such a flimsy foundation of falsehood?

From Plato to Zelazny, men of letters have written of the purer things, that in their perfection spawn lesser shadows and imitations that reflect but an aspect of the true essence. From where does truth come, if not the Truth? And did Jesus not say that he was the Way, the Truth, and the Life?

Those who are Aristotelian devotees of reality stand by the Lesser Truth that A is A, and that A is never Not-A. But the Lesser Truth, and all other truths, descends from, and depends upon, the Greater Truth, which is this:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Yesterday the light shone in the darkness. Today the light shines in the darkness. Tomorrow the light will shine in the darkness. And the darkness will never, ever, overcome it.

It is not a story, it is The Story, it is the oldest story, it is the true story from which all other stories flow. Light versus dark. And despite the darkness that surrounds us, that pervades us, that haunts us, the light of all mankind is winning.

That is why, all around the world this morning, there are millions of men and women who will greet each other with three simple words of hope and truth and triumph.

Christ is risen!

Read More

Cane Caldo is not Chesterton

Neither am I, for that matter, but I thought it was important to point out that Cane Caldo's post, entitled Vox vs Chesterton, is really not an accurate characterization.

It’s also said–particularly by those of the Vox Day Alpha Game Plan persuasion–that an understanding of Game unlocks the secrets of a contented existence; not just in marital or sexual relations but across the human experience. In other words, it would open one’s eyes to the various things that the Neoreactionary and Dark Enlightenment folks have been going on about. With that in mind, let’s look at his definition of Game; written in response to my very first post in the Men’s Sphere, and hosted by my friend Dalrock.

Vox Day: "A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them."

So, Game–in it’s broadest sense–is about looking at men who have found success in the world, calling that worldly success good, and then imitating it to the point that these habits of worldly success are internalized and then realized.

Who said anything about "success in the world" or "worldly success"? Cane Caldo is playing exactly the same game as Peter Boghossian and other atheist apologists who redefine faith in order to attack Christian faith. And in the process of doing so, he's made the same mistake as Karl Marx did with the labor theory of value. Success is not objective. It may be worldly or it may be spiritual. Success is subjective. It is defined by the one who seeks it. In the case of Game, it is literally in the eye of the beholder.

If you want to be rich, imitate the self-made wealthy naturals. If you want to date beautiful women, imitate the natural players. If you want a healthy marriage, imitate the happily married.

I’m not the first to see this contrast between the story of Christ and the stories of worldly success, but I just wanted to lay it out very clear....

Which is fine, but Cane is committing a simple category error here. Chesterton may have stated the foolishness of calling success good, but I simply haven't done that. I mentioned success. Cane is the one who called it good in order to attack it. Now, I do think that knowledge of Game is good because I think that Game is true. And if it is true, then it behooves the Christian man to know it, so that his actions are in accord with reality rather than with indoctrination to which he has been subjected.

Read More

Mailvox: a response to GBFM

Yesterday I was asked how I would respond to this surprisingly legible rant from GreatBooksForMen entitled "True Christian Women do Not Need to be Gamed: Dalrock & Vox’s Christianity is not the Christianity of Jesus Christ". A selection:

Dalrock states that Christians need “Game,” and Vox writes, “I’m neither the first nor the only one to notice the intrinsic relationship between Biblical Christianity and the foundational concepts of Game: Women are fallen and women are inherently different than men. Being truth, Game is a subset of Christianity that happens to relate to an area of particular importance and interest to men.”

Vox states that Game is Truth and that it is a subset of Christianity. The most-respected, most-read, and most-profound blogger on Game is Heartiste. His “Sixteen Commandments of Poon” summarize Game:

Heartiste makes no claims of being a Christian, but he may well be, as there are those who say they are not going, who go, just as there are those who say they are going, who do not go.

Dalrock and Vox are stating that the teachings of Heartiste are the same as those of Christ, who, by all accounts, defines Christianity.

First, I'll point out that GBFM is being dishonest. He quotes me pointing out that Game is truth, then in the very next paragraph, falsely claims that I state "Game is Truth" when I specifically distinguish between small-t truth, things that happen to be true, and capital-t Truth, which is the Word, Jesus Christ.

This is clearly a purposeful lie, as in the very post GBFM quotes, I wrote: "Game is not Christ. Game is not Truth. But Game is truth, and he who comes to love truth will, in time, come to love Truth as well."

GBFM: "Vox states that Game is Truth"

Vox: "Game is not Truth"

So, GBFM is lying. He also lies when he claims that we are stating the teachings of Roissy and Heartiste are the same as those as Christ. Because both teachings are rooted in the truth, there is necessarily an intrinsic relationship between them, which account for the similarity between the Christian concept of all women being fallen and the Game concept of all women being observably prone to a panoply of unedifying behaviors.

This does not mean both teachings are equally truthful nor does it mean they are the same. Indeed, it is not at all hard to identify the differences between them. However, it must be admitted that the Bible gives considerably less in the way of direction to Man concerning how he should behave towards women in specific circumstances than the Chateau does. It is silent on recommendations concerning text messaging, just to give one example.

I am a Christian. If you want my absolute core advice, it is this: Fear God. 

Now, I could simply post that every day, and it would certainly be easier to do so, but I don't see how it would be of much use to anyone. I could also limit my subjects addressed to Christian evangelism, but I don't really have much more to say on that than I already say. However, I have seen that there is a tremendous amount that needs to be said, and that people have not heard before, concerning intersexual relations and their effect upon our society. That's why I started this blog. And so that is what I address here.

I have great respect for Roissy, for Heartiste, and for Dalrock. I even have a fair amount of respect for GBFM. We are all part of the same great cultural battle for the mind and soul of the West, which has been deeply corrupted by Marxism, by equalitarianism, by secular humanism, by atheism, and by feminism. But the fact that GBFM's heart may be more or less in the right place does not excuse the abandonment of the truth.

There is only one Christianity and that is the one defined by the Lordship, not merely the teachings, of Man's Savior, Jesus Christ.

Read More

Game vs Churchian Idolatry

The Hawaiian Libertarian answers a question that plagues many Christian newcomers to Game: how is Game compatible with Christianity?

Discovering "Game" was my game changer. It gave me a language to describe and think about so many things I previously could not even name, let alone comprehend. It provided a schema for grasping the larger concepts bereft in my emasculated upbringing. And ultimately, it has also  eventually brought me around full circle into belief in the truth of the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

For this, I have the degenerate scumbags, the cads, the God Awful P-U-A to thank. Oh promiscuous manwhores who proclaim your proficiency in fornication and adultery, it is your discussions and note-sharing on how to commit these debased sins of hedonistic nihilism by exploiting the fallen, sinful nature of women, that helped me come to understand the primary sin that has infiltrated and subverted Christianity in the West, the sin of IDOLATRY.

I believe that is the real subversion of Christian doctrine in so many Churches today - pedestalization of the pussy...which is really just another manifestation of the ancient, pagan religion of Goddess worship.

From this idolatry flows many other sins and corruption of faith and family.

Anytime a Preacher, Pastor, Elder or some other Churchian authority promotes the Female Imperative by exhorting the men to man up and marry the sluts single moms in the congregation, or cut Husbands and Fathers off at the knees in their sermons, or praises  (worships) and the superior spirituality of Christian women, he is committing the sin of idolatry.

Any church that declares unchaste women "born again virgins," or any particular woman is excused and accepted by a church and it's congregation for destroying her family via frivorce, or preaches mutual submission by husbands to their wives or any other translation of Ephesians 5:22 that undermines a Husbands Patriarchal authority in the home, is a church laying it's offerings on the altar of that ancient, pagan goddess bitch.

Without discovering the red pill of game, I doubt I ever would have came to this realization and recognize this idolatry for what it is, nor broken free from it's ritualistic worship.

Let's not forget Phillipians 1:15-18: "It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."

Now, Game is not Christ. Game is not Truth. But Game is truth, and he who comes to love truth will, in time, come to love Truth as well. At the very least, the truth-seeker has set himself upon the rocky and difficult path that leads to the Kingdom of Heaven.

"By their fruits you shall know them." And as Keoni demonstrates, the fruit of Game is a sweet one that is beneficial to men.

Read More

The feminization of Christianity

William Lane Craig addresses a woman who objects to the Bible's instructions to and about women:

My observations about the peculiar attraction that Christian apologetics has for men involves several claims. Let’s tease these apart to see which of them are objectionable.

First is my observation that apologetics seems to have far more interest for men than for women. That observation is based upon an enormous amount of experience in speaking on university campuses, at apologetics conferences, and in classroom teaching. It is a realization that gradually and unexpectedly forced itself upon me. It became very evident to me not only that the audiences which came to these events were largely male but that in event after event only the men stood up to ask a question. These facts seem to me to be undeniable.

Second is my hypothesis that this disparity is to be explained by the fact that men respond more readily to a rational approach, whereas women tend to respond more to relational approaches. Of course, this is just my best suggestion, and if you’ve got a better hypothesis to explain the disparity, Alexandra, I’m open to it. But there has to be an explanation.

My take is very straightforward. Cut off a plant from its roots and it will die. The Bible is very clear on the different spiritual responsibilities of men and women. If you reject them, you are rejecting both Biblical authority and a non-insignificant aspect of Christianity.

Everyone is fine with Christianity except for those aspects that directly address things that they want to do. Women are no exception. No doubt there are many murderers and fornicators who find the instructions to and about murder and fornication to be difficult too. The difference is that the male leaders of many churches have allowed women to corrupt the Biblical teachings they don't like and thereby corrupt their churches, while still holding strong against the murderers and fornicators.

It is not for the pot to question the pot-maker. The title of this post is a misnomer. Christianity cannot be feminized, because once feminized, what remains is no longer Christianity.

Read More

Happy Thanksgiving

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor - and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be - That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks - for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation - for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war - for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed - for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted - for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions - to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually - to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed - to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord - To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us - and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

George Washington

Read More