Masculine Monday- #12

*Men Only*

Today’s brief post contains a brief message to men:

Stop apologizing so often.

Apologies should be given out sparingly. At the same time, they should be given out with full earnestness. A man should mean it when he apologizes for a wrong.

Saying you are sorry constantly takes a lot of the oomph from your apologies. They end up meaning little. And if it is really necessary, then it means you might not have really made up for whatever you did.

Also, and I don’t normally use this word… but saying “sorry” a ton comes off as incredibly Beta. It is extremely unattractive. Something to keep in mind.

[Note: there is an exception to the above- a carefully pulled off stream of melodramatic apologies can make for good teasing.]

So, in summary, watch it with apologies- seldom and meaningful should be the order of the day.


Filed under Uncategorized

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #114

In today’s post I want to examine the Fear of the Lord. Otherwise said, it can be scary to find yourself in the presence of God, or his actions. Here are but a few examples from the New Testament:

22 Then he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. 23 And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up into the hills by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, 24 but the boat by this time was many furlongs distant from the land, beaten by the waves; for the wind was against them. 25 And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. 26 But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out for fear. 27 But immediately he spoke to them, saying, “Take heart, it is I; have no fear.”

(Matthew 14:22-27)

11 Soon afterward he went to a city called Na′in, and his disciples and a great crowd went with him. 12 As he drew near to the gate of the city, behold, a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow; and a large crowd from the city was with her. 13 And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her and said to her, “Do not weep.” 14 And he came and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still. And he said, “Young man, I say to you, arise.” 15 And the dead man sat up, and began to speak. And he gave him to his mother. 16 Fear seized them all; and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and “God has visited his people!” 17 And this report concerning him spread through the whole of Judea and all the surrounding country.

(Luke 7:11-17)

28 Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And as he was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white. 30 And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Eli′jah, 31 who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep but kept awake, and they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. 33 And as the men were parting from him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli′jah”—not knowing what he said. 34 As he said this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!” 36 And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silence and told no one in those days anything of what they had seen.

(Luke 9:28-36)

Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Mag′dalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.

(Matthew 28:1-4)

When we think of God, and Jesus especially, we like to think of a comforting force. Of God as our loving Father, or Jesus as our brother. It is easy for us to forget that power, real power, as displayed by God, is a frightening thing.

Why so? I would wager it frightens us because it isn’t natural. It is supernatural. God’s power and presence defies the “natural order.” It forces us, creatures all too often locked into our material ways, to confront the very real fact that there are forces and powers that we cannot see and cannot hear, and above all else, cannot comprehend.

I am curious what my readers think about the subject. Also, I would appreciate any sayings of the Saints that anyone knows of that address this subject.


Filed under Selected Sunday Scriptures, Uncategorized

Saturday Saints- #115

We resume where we left off, and that means the letter H. Thus, our saint for today is Saint Hilda of Whitby:

Hilda of Whitby or Hild of Whitby (c. 614–680) is a Christian saint and the founding abbess of the monastery at Whitby, which was chosen as the venue for the Synod of Whitby. An important figure in the conversion of Anglo-Saxon England to Christianity, she was abbess at several monasteries and recognised for the wisdom that drew kings to her for advice.

The source of information about Hilda is the Ecclesiastical History of the English by the Venerable Bede in 731, who was born approximately eight years before her death. He documented much of the Christian conversion of the Anglo-Saxons.

More can be found out about here at her wiki, located here.


1 Comment

Filed under Saturday Saints

Feminism Is Comical


*WARNING: Spoilers will abound in this post, especially concerning DC and Marvel movies. You have been warned.*

Dalrock’s recent post “The real problem with the Ghostbuster’s Reboot” covered a wide array of feminism related topics. Among the areas covered were movies and comics, including the recent Suicide Squad movie. I had touched on that movie briefly in my post You Don’t Own Me. That particular post featured this class Cane Caldo gem:

It looks like a film about the government hiring a porn starlet and her prison groupies to kill a rapper.

Sadly, that was not what the film was about. Speaking of what films are “about”, that brings me to this post. I want to examine the role and impact on feminism in recent comic movies.

Now, I haven’t seen the new Ghostbusters movie (and hope to keep it that way). But from what others have indicated, it seems to be a Wave 2 Feminist work. This is quite different from the Wave 3 feminism I have seen in most comic movies. So lets cover them.

Suicide Squad

There are several characters to cover here: Harley Quin, Katana, Enchantress and Amanda Waller. Lets start with the crazy woman.

Harley Quin

Harley, as portrayed in the film, was the epitome of what Wave 3 Sex Positive Feminism is all about: Sexy, Strong, Smart. She uses her sex appeal as a weapon to get what she wants, and uses it to manipulate the men around her. She can hold her own in a fight. Oh, and did I mention funny too?

But here is the thing- that is a major shift from what her character was originally. In the beginning she was the poster child of DV- the Joker’s girlfriend whom he liked to abuse and hurt. Heck, the cartoon would show (sometimes off screen) her get struck by the Joker, and he once threw her out a window to her (intended) death.

If anything, she was a Wave 2 feminist icon at first- a sign of how evil and depraved men are.  How women cannot trust them and need to be in charge. But as people have pointed out, Wave 2 feminism doesn’t sell nearly as well as Wave 3. After all, Wave 3 women are empowered and hot, and who doesn’t like that?

So over time Harley Quin has changed as a character. Originally the battered GF of the Joker, she has becoming something else. Over time she became smarter (in the cunning variety). She was always smart (she was a shrink), but was easily manipulated. Now she is the one doing the manipulating.

Her sex appeal was upped, and she became more physically capable. In the movie the Joker couldn’t resist her, and it is implied that Batman could be swayed by her. Instead of becoming a punchline (hehe), she became an actual villain. Heck, she rose to be the “Queen of Crime.” Major promotion there.

Of course, that wasn’t quite right- she shouldn’t be a pure villain. No, just misunderstood . So now she is an anti-villian as much as anything, at least as portrayed in the comics. And the movie moved her along those lines too.

Also, in the movie she was said to be crazier than the Joker, and more fearless. Talk about “Girl Power” there. And of course, since she is hot, she can totally get away with crazy. There is a message there- women can be crazy if they want to. It is their female prerogative- especially if they are hot. And Margot Robbie really sold the role, too. Expect to see her in a solo film, or maybe DC Girl Power film, in the future.


Again, we have an attractive female who is quite physically proficient. Also, kind of sort of crazy in that she talks to the soul of her dead husband trapped in a sword. But it is all ok, because after all she is a kick-ass hot female.


This character has two kinds of hot going on- the crazed, kinky, fetish kind, and the sweet girl-next-door kind. Also, she is absurdly powerful. In fact, her power plays a significant part in the film’s plot.

Amanda Waller

Finally we come to the @&%#* herself. Now Waller is not exactly what one might call a “hot” character. Her character is known for being large and in-charge. And I mean that literally- she is normally portrayed as quite overweight. Naturally enough, she was not portrayed that way in the movie. Instead they had Viola Davis play her, and quite ably too. But again we see feminism slipping in. Since she isn’t really supposed to be hot, they didn’t or couldn’t pull that off. But they did manage to at least ensure she wasn’t ugly. Because for Wave 3 feminism, ugly is damned near a sin if it is assigned to a woman.

The Joker

I cannot leave this movie without covering the Joker. His character was quite different from The Dark Knight version. Frankly, I wasn’t impressed. Although from what I have heard they left much of his stuff on the cutting room floor. So perhaps the character would have been better with superior editing.

All the same, this Joker was very different from the normal way Joker is portrayed. How so? Simple- he actually loves Harley. Traditionally the Joker never loved Harley. She was a just a tool to him- one that he would use and abuse at whim. He never tried to rescue her unless there was something in it for him. However, the new Joker actually goes into an active hostile zone to rescue her. He risks his own life for her. Even more, there is nothing in it for him.

Not really a fan of that. Frankly, it weakens the Joker as a character. Now he has a redeeming quality, when his character is not supposed to have any redeeming qualities. A “soft” Joker just doesn’t have quite the right edge.

And that ends that movie.

Man of Steel

This movie was all about Lois Lane. And oh boy, where to begin. Lois Lane begins as a confident, powerful and respected/feared reporter who is herself fearless. No real character flaws that I could find anywhere. She, more than anyone, drives the plot in the movie. Now, I like Amy Adams as an actress, but she was a poor fit for Lois. Too old, wrong hair and wrong… flair.

Here is the thing- for the most part she was perfectly capable of taking care of herself. Only when Superman screws up does he have to rescue her. The thing is, I would argue that Lois, as originally envisioned, might have been a subtle swipe at earlier editions of feminism. If you look at the earlier works, she constantly got herself in trouble. And it was Superman who always got her out of trouble.  The confident, fearless and competent reporter Lois Lane only existed because Superman allowed her to exist as such. Without him she would have been dead many times over.

Here is a link to some of the old cartoons:

Watching through them it is pretty clear to me that Superman/Clarke Kent the force behind reporter Lois Lane. To me, that seems to be a subtle attack on Feminism. Namely, that women can only be strong and empowered if men enable that. Of course, I encourage my readers to offer their thoughts.

Batman v Superman

The same general pattern with Lois in this movie. But in addition we get Wonder Woman. If anyone is the stereotype of the strong, empowered and sexy woman, it is her. She basically runs circles around Batman/Bruce Wayne using her smarts. Then she does the same with her martial prowess. Basically, she leaves him in the dust.

Despite having only a small part in the movie, she played a significant role in the advertising- both before and after release.  Why? Because what she represents – Smart, Strong, Sexy- sells.


Finally, we come to the Marvel movies. There have actually been a fair number of complaints against Marvel for their lack of strong female characters. Certainly, for the most part, they haven’t let women steal the show like DC has. Of course, that will change over time. Captain Marvel will provide their counterpart to Wonder Woman. And expect other female characters to start to provide that same, much desired mojo.

Mind you, they do have some that fit the profile.

Black Widow certainly does. Very capable, quite smart, and of course lots and lots of sex appeal. I mean black leather, right? All the same, she doesn’t have her own movie, and probably won’t. But they did get her into a number of other movies instead.

Ironman 3 saw the rise of a strong Pepper Potts. She basically got superpowers towards the end of the film and in a way that pushed hot in an almost literal fashion. Her character was already smart, and she ended up running roughshod over the male antagonist. All the same, she hasn’t shown up lately.


This post has run on long enough. Time to wrap things up.

Marvel has done much better than DC for a number of reasons. One of them, I believe, is because they for the most part haven’t let female characters push male characters out of the limelight. I suspect they will take a hit at the box  office if this starts to change. Not necessarily immediately, but over time the audience will react. While Wave 3 feminism sells better than Wave 2, that doesn’t mean that audiences want to be overloaded with it. Certainly not at the expense of emasculating male comic heroes. [Which I suppose I will cover in my next comic related post.]

Studios are in something of a tough spot. On the one hand, they need to stick to the narrative or face a backlash. On the other hand, they risk losing money if they cater to feminist demands too much. It will be interesting to see how they handle these conflicting demands. My money is that Marvel will pull it off, while DC won’t.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments.


Filed under Feminism, Sexual Strategies, Uncategorized

Beta Farming

In my post Of Fighting And The West, blogger Rollo Tomassi left a comment which included the following gem:

The modern church is a Beta farm and only exists to produce the same masculinity-confused men that the secular world has perfected today.

I want to touch on that issue of “Beta Farming” today.

To start with, I agree with Rollo’s first contention- that the “modern” church is a “Beta farm.” What is taught and enforced in most churches these days is a theology which wrings the masculinity out of men. Most of the time this leaves the young men growing up in church as hapless, servile “Beta” males who exist to do whatever women want.

However, I disagree with the second part. I don’t think that most churches exist to produce these kinds of men. They have other purposes, and not necessarily good ones at that. For example, they often preach a theology which provides moral cover to women and places moral blame on men. All the same, some might have good intentions. Some of those within might genuinely intend to serve the Lord. All the same, the modern church’s purpose has been hijacked. While these churches don’t exist to create “beta males”, that is their functional end purpose at this point (or one of them, anyways).

This all leads to the interesting question of how this all came to be. Reader Lost Patrol left this speculation:

I wouldn’t say the modern church “only exists” to produce hapless men – I see it more as an unintended consequence of having ceded so much ground to secular feminism.

My view is somewhat different- I would argue that this has come about because we have ceded so much ground to women.  As I explained:

The more power women were given, the more natural this outcome was. Once you understand female nature, it is easy to see how this outcome was inevitable once women were given the power and control they were in our present system.

Lost Patrol responded by reaffirming that women were given this power. They could never have taken it from men. The why of men gave women that power I will discuss in another post. But before I close this one I want to cover why this ceding of power to women lead to our present troubles.

My theory is that the present “Beta farms” inside modern churches is a natural result of women influencing matters to reassure their native insecurity. This insecurity is something that I believe most men have no idea about, and even those who have some inkling of its existence usually fail to grasp its extent. I have covered this before, but to briefly sum it up:

Women are far and away more insecure in their lives than men.

Much of this insecurity comes from the gap in physical prowess between men and women. We men are much more capable of defending ourselves and imposing our will on our environment than women are- at least at the individual level. But whatever its source, it has a profound effect on female behavior. Women are constantly, and often at an unconscious or subconscious level, trying to alter their environment to make it feel more secure.

I believe that this behavior is responsible for the “Beta farms” in modern churches. As women were given more power inside the church and its environs, they began to exert their influence. This influence was used to shape how men were raised, and what they were supposed to be as Christians. The goal, whether realized or not, was to create the hapless Beta nice guys who populate most churches these days.

Why? Simple- “Betas” are far less threatening to women. They are safer and do things on women’s behalf. So women reinforce this system to create more and more of these “safe” men. As long as they have any degree of power in a church, they will keep it this way. [Of course, this has the effect of leaving those men as unattractive, but female nature is known for wanting two opposites at once.] If we want to shut down the “Beta farms,” we need to reassert masculine control over the church. Otherwise this wicked cultivation will continue, and likely only get worse.


Filed under Alpha, Beta, Blue Pill, Christianity, Churchianity, Feminism, Masculinity, Men, Red Pill, The Church, Women

Thoughts On Love In Marriage

[My post Background on the Nature of Man will be helpful to understanding this post.]

I have had a long-standing theory about how love works within marriage, although I am not sure that I have ever devoted a post to it on this blog. I doubt it is a new or novel theory, in fact I would be surprised if it was. All the same, I think it is finally worth getting down.

My theory is simple: the best marriages are those which encompass all three major types of love- Eros, Philos and Agapos. When all three are present in marriage- when both husband and wife  express all three towards their spouse, I believe that a marriage is at its healthiest.

To me, this makes sense because the relationship would then extend to all aspects of our being. Eros is connected to our Body. Philos to our Soul. And Agapos is the love of our Spirit. When all three are present, the fullness of our nature is in play.

At the same time, when one of these loves is not present, it is a sign of serious trouble in a marriage.

No Eros? Well then, that means no passion from one of the spouses (or both). [The phrase “I love you but I’m not in love with you” is a sign of a marriage where Eros is gone.] That can mean denial of sex, and the frustration inherent in it. An absence of Eros also leads to greater temptation and danger of leading to all kinds of immorality.

Philos not present? Well, that means there is no friendship and amity in the marriage (or at least from one side of it). Both spouses will likely quarrel, and if not, it will only be because the other is trying to preserve harmony. There will be a lot of hot and cold in this marriage- it will move from moments of great passion to indifference or even enmity.

Agapos missing? Well, for one, that means that the marriage is no longer Christian. Without the self-sacrificing nature of Agapos the marriage will not be able to endure all the trials and tribulations of the world. At least, not unless society gives the spouses no choice on the matter. But in our present age? Without Agapos it will fall apart, sooner or later.

Of all three loves, Agapos is the most important. Only it can withstand everything the world has to throw at a married couple. But just because a couple stays together doesn’t mean the marriage is as healthy as it could or should be. All three loves should be present for a marriage to be as strong as God intended it.

At least, that is how I see it. I invite my readers to offer their own thoughts.


Filed under Attraction, Blue Pill, Christianity, God, Marriage, Red Pill, State of Nature, Temptation

Of Fighting And The West

This post is a response to Vox Day’s post here, at Alpha Game. In his relatively brief post Vox criticizes both the MGTOW and PUA movements. A small snippet that conveys the principal themes of his post:

What MGTOW and PUAs have in common is that both paths are surrenders to the dyscivilizationists. Both paths are the result of literal demoralization, the MGTOW in the emotional sense, the PUA in the spiritual sense.

While the Red Pill is necessary for any Man of the West, there is only one effective way to fight for civilization, and that is to marry a white woman, have children with her, and raise those children to value and defend the West.

Summarized, Vox is making the following arguments:

  • The MGTOW and PUA movements are incompatible with a drive to save civilization
  • The West must be defended to save Civilization
  • The only way to fight for the West/Civilization is to marry (a white woman), have children and raise them properly

I have no fundamental objection to his first point, and so won’t address it. However, I will discuss the latter two arguments.

Give Upon on What, Exactly?

The title of Vox’s post is “They want you to give up.” Well, I get who “they” is from Vox’s post. But what exactly is it that they are giving up on? When Vox speaks of “The West”,  or “Western Civilization,” what exactly does he mean? Western Civilization as it stands now? As it did in 1950? Or 1850? How about 1350?
The truth is that you will likely find as many interpretations of “Western Civilization” as you will of the Bible. How does anyone agree on what it means? What happens if we disagree?

It is easy to call for a fight to save Western Civilization. But if there is no agreement as to what it means, than it will not be one fight but many. Because those who disagree about what Western Civ means will, sooner or later (and I predict sooner), start fighting one another. There is only one “West”, and we all cannot have our own version of it for it to remain the West for very long.

Married to the Fight

This brings me to Vox’s proposed solution to “fight” for the West: marry a white woman, have children, and raise them to value the West. Now, I happen to believe that history is won by those who show up, and so see some value in what he says. All the same, further examination is warranted.

Let’s start with his advocacy that the women be white. What exactly does he even mean by that? Before 1900 the Irish weren’t considered white. Neither were the Polish. Or many other Caucasian groups, for that matter. So which nationalities count? And how pure must such a woman be? 100%? To 3 generations, or 4?

In case it isn’t clear, I think Vox is being quite the fool here. While I am not one to argue that genetics and ethnicity plays no role in human affairs, at the same time I won’t give it the almost religious credence that some do. Genes ultimately are just markers of potential. If a man were to find a woman with a ton of good, positive traits, and her ancestors also had/have them, then that should be enough. Unless there are some other reasons why ethnicity would prohibit a good marriage (some exist, but are not universal).

In addition, there is also the problem that there aren’t enough good marriageable women out there. Simple fact. Marrying a poor choice of a woman is a fool’s move. Which means that some men out there are not going to be able to marry. Again, just a simple fact.

Does that mean that they are opposing “the West?” Or that they cannot help fight for it? I would respond with an emphatic No.

I believe that even if a man doesn’t marry he can be of great assistance to this struggle. For one, there are religious vocations (the priesthood, becoming a monk). Non-married men can also contribute to keeping “Pro-Western” communities going. Financial assistance is one way to do this- easing the burden on those who are married will help them have more children- which will benefit the community in the long run. They can teach and educate the youth (I believe it has been a significant mistake to have let this field be dominated by women). And so on and so forth.

In short, there are a lot of ways that they can help- if you approach it from a community level. I think it is a mistake to look at this only at the individual level. No man is truly an island. So long as the non-married men support their community and help build it up then they can still be a force for good.

And there you have it- my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to use the comments to voice your support, or shred my ideas.



Filed under Christianity, Civilization, Marriage, Red Pill, The Church