Everyone’s a Genius

On the internet—and perhaps in meatspace too—everyone is a genius. Consider this non-Christian’s claim (with almost a million views):

Had this one taken about 15 seconds to Google check his own claim, he might have found the “Five Suns” creation myth of the Aztecs:

In the Aztec and other Nahua creation myths, it was believed that the universe had gone through four iterations before the current one, and each of these prior worlds had been destroyed by Gods due to the behavior of its inhabitants.

Bloodthirsty? Brutal? It turns out that the Aztec gods have destroyed the universe some four times already. The current iteration of humanity is scheduled to be destroyed by the Aztec gods.

What a genuis!

This one is just too easy. The Pirates of the Caribbean ride was first opened in 1967. But that didn’t stop one person from stating a factually false statement as if it were true.

What a genius!

Back in April, there was “A Dalrock Update” over at Full Metal Patriarch. As most everyone knows by now, Dalrock’s site is now private. When this happened, I pointed out that this isn’t the only reason why a site can go private. For example, had Dalrock’s credit card expired, WordPress would take the site private for lack of payment. This is what happened with v5k2c2, Boxer’s old blog:

Dalrock’s site is also private:

The two are, obviously, exactly the same.

What happens if you log in to WordPress? You get this option:

And so FMP did just that:

I’ve requested access. Unfortunately, I have not been granted it. I believe the reason why is because Dalrock has decided to scrub his material from the Internet.

At the risk of stating the obvious, why would the author of an abandoned site bother to grant private access to it? Clearly, FMP simply assumed he was a genius and couldn’t possibly be wrong.

 …Begin sarcasm… 

Dalrock must have scrubbed his content!

 …End sarcasm… 

 

FMP did manage to find some evidence to support his position:

Now, that’s certainly interesting. Why would the site be excluded from the internet archive? FMP gives one possible explanation:

And here is his commentary:

They say that the reason for this can be due to the owner of a URL requesting its removal. All the links to Dalrock’s materials are basically worthless now. They all redirect to the Private Site page. And you can’t get around that by pasting the link into the Wayback Machine either. It’s all gone. If you didn’t go out of your way to download your own personal archive of his website, then like most people, you’ve completely and totally lost access to everything he wrote. And that’s sad.

Can you all spot the problems with this hysterical overreaction? I’ll highlight the problem:

Some sites are not available  because of robots.txt 

Did Dalrock configure robots.txt to exclude his site? Nope. You can see for yourself that Boxer’s robots.txt is the same as Dalrock’s robots.txt. Both disallow robots from archiving their pages, but only Dalrock’s site is excluded from the Internet Archive. Dalrock’s site could only have been excluded from the Internet Archive by robots.txt if it was always excluded. We do not know when Dalrock’s site was excluded from the archive. It could have been done years before. Perhaps his site was never included at all? Nope:

# If you are regularly crawling WordPress.com sites, please use our firehose to receive real-time push updates instead.
# Please see https://developer.wordpress.com/docs/firehose/ for more details.

Sitemap: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/sitemap.xml
Sitemap: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/news-sitemap.xml

User-agent: *
Disallow: /wp-admin/
Allow: /wp-admin/admin-ajax.php
Disallow: /wp-login.php
Disallow: /wp-signup.php
Disallow: /press-this.php
Disallow: /remote-login.php
Disallow: /activate/
Disallow: /cgi-bin/
Disallow: /mshots/v1/
Disallow: /next/
Disallow: /public.api/

# This file was generated on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:24:13 +0000

That’s Dalrock’s robots.txt from January, 2020. Notice that it had been generated in 2019. So Dalrock’s site was allowed to be archived by the robots.txt. It could only have been deleted for some other reason.

Such sites may have been excluded… at a site owner’s direct request .

Who is the site owner of  dalrock.wordpress.com ? Anyone? The hint is in the name. That’s right, WordPress. Dalrock isn’t the site owner, it is WordPress. Only the owner of the domain—WordPress—can prove ownership of that domain. Dalrock isn’t the owner of  dalrock.wordpress.com . He never registered his own domain.

Dalrock is anonymous. It is rather unlikely that Dalrock would have—or could have—proven his real-life site ownership to the Internet Archive or that they would have accepted his claim over the actual domain owner. Do I know this for sure? No, I do not, I am speculating. But if the Internet Archive has loose identity verification standards, then it is just as likely that someone unrelated to Dalrock—but impersonating him—requested that the domain be excluded. Now, there are technical ways to prove you control a (sub)domain, but there is no published evidence that Dalrock used any of these methods. FMP’s speculation is no better than my own, except that I acknowledge that there are a number of other possible explanations and so draw no definitive conclusion.

Did WordPress, Dalrock, or a third-party request that Dalrock’s site be excluded from the Internet Archive? Given the evidence presented so far, we have no idea. In particular, we lack sufficient reason to conclude that Dalrock recently decided to scrub his content. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. You just don’t know. After all, the much more mundane explanation is that Saint Dalrock abandoned his (or her?) site and doesn’t care about it anymore. That’s an instance of Occam’s Razor: Dalrock’s site went offline—automatically—because nobody did anything.

But that’s not all that FMP got wrong!

All the links to Dalrock’s materials are basically worthless now.

UPDATE: Turns out there is an alternative archive of Dalrock’s blog at TheRedPill Archive! And it’s searchable as well! https://theredarchive.com/blog/Dalrock

The point of this analysis isn’t to find out why Dalrock’s site went offline, but that FMP simply assumed he was a genius. Not only didn’t he have proof for his claim of why Dalrock’s WordPress site went private, but he also didn’t even bother to find out if there was a functional archive of Dalrock’s site! He simply published whatever popped into his mind, even though it was either unfounded speculation or just plain wrong.

FMP isn’t the only one. This happened at Sigma Frame too when The “Right 99% of the Time” Deti leaped to conclusions:

Comment by thedeti
That means something’s happened. Someone’s trying to dox him. Either that, or someone found him.

This is one of the ways that conspiracy theories start. If these masters of patriarchy can’t get basic facts correct, they are almost certainly getting their views of more complex topics—theology and patriarchy—wrong as well.

Over at Spawny’s Space, Sharkly rightly notes that certain people are almost always wrong:

I remember when I had been on the TV news about four times. Each and every time they got parts of the story wrong, made dumb errors, had showed up with their story already in mind and just came to get some clips to bolster their predetermined narrative. I was amazed at how poorly the “news” reporters performed and how poor their “journalistic integrity” was, in those four situations in which I knew the full story. But yet somehow, I still wanted to trust everything else I heard on the news as if it were all correct “facts” and the stories were all assembled by honest folks without any predetermined narrative.

I had been raised to believe the TV news was all mostly true, with maybe just a bit of biased slant to it. So, in my mind I realized that all four times they dealt with me, their end product was unreliable information telling a story they had preplanned, and told me about, before I agreed to participate in it, and they ever began to film their “reporting” of it. Yet somehow, I imagined that surely the rest of their news must all be done to those far higher standards I was taught about as a child.

I’ve been interviewed on half a dozen occasions (or more?) and, invariably, the interviewer portrays things incorrectly in their final product. This happens even when the interview is positive coverage. It must be dramatically worse when the interviewer gives a hostile interview. I’ve fortunately never been the subject of a hit piece where I had been interviewed.

The failures of interviewers to get things right apply also to the residents of the Manosphere. People simply make stuff up and say what they believe, not what can be verified. Even when many bother to attempt to verify details, they rarely get it all right. And yet they are sure, with the blind faith of a true believer, that they are right and reliable.

Everyone’s a genius.

Nobody’s a genius.

55 Comments

  1. Lastmod

    Been guilty of that myself a few times in my life, probably more.

    With that said, when wrong, I have said “okay, I was wrong”

    That for some reason in todays culture (and for awhile) is considered “weak” or whatever.

    I have called it the “apology with conditions syndrome”

    For example. Someone wrongs you. They apologize (a good thing) then they lay out the “conditions” of their apology (I guess they are not apologizing).

    “Im sorry for (insert what they are apologizing for) but I wounld not have done what I did if YOU had not done this and that”

    I have said to many people over the years since getting cleaned up; when they use this type of apology “So, you’re not really sorry then.”

    Major offense, the “how dare I” statements, or just plain four letter word smear thrown on me. In today’s world, “you gotta be right, no matter what!” If you are indeed wrong, you’re standing up for others or some other weak excuse to still justify your incorrect or perhaps wrong stance. EVerytime I have witnessed this, there is a piece of truth buried in there. People like this use that one piece to justify why they are still “right” and you of course are “petty / bitter / blue pilled / pedestilizing women / a cuck / a chump”

    Its tiring, and over-educated college women argue this way for the most part. And apologize like this as well.

    Its even more cringe when men do it and claim “masculinity”

  2. professorGBFMtm

    i thought Dal Rock had been planning his exit from the ‘sphere long before late 2019.

    And that robots.txt. from Wed 20th March 2019 essentially proves it.

    ”Its even more cringe when men do it and claim “masculinity””

    Once a very quiet commenter some 12 years ago, got into a slight war with a few others about what was “masculinity”.

    Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:
    July 22, 2012 at 9:24 am
    greyghost writes:

    “GBFM
    Empathy is a natural characteristic for a beta type male. ”

    See this is what the Feminists and Bankers Want You to Believe, as they define alpha as beta and beta as alpha.

    All the great heroes from Clint Eastwood’s Man With no Name to John Wayne were marked by the same empathy for the innocent and the downtrodden that were Odysseus, Aeneas, Moses, and Jesus.

    The banker elite deconstructed the classic clint eastwoodian western, exalted buttcocking cownboyz in brokeback mountain, and the neocon weekly standardth hails butthexter and secrteiev taper of butthext tucker max rhymes with goldman sax as a successful hero, while ignoring those true heroes who die on foreign shores in their foreign fiat wars.

    Empathy, nobility, charity, goodness, cheerfulness, honor, duty, piety–all these are alpha traits.

    In Virgil’s Aeneid, Aeneas was heralded as the “Pius Aeneas.”

    When his Troy burned, Aeneas carried his elderly father upon his back to safety, along with the statues representing his gods. Aeneas had empathy for his elderly father.

    greyghost — sorry the bankers and feminists got to you and deconstructed and debauched your soul, possibly through your buttholoiol even as does tehir favorite hero tucker max whymes with goldman sax lzozlzolzozlzooz ”

    Yeah ‘they’ say that they want MEN who take duty for civilization while extolling the ”virtues” of the same guys(the ones who helped it fail) who the bankers and feminists exalt.

    ”they” should try Empathy, nobility, charity, goodness, cheerfulness, honor, duty, piety–all these are alpha traits.

    Instead of being bullying betas, their natural habit, they show off with betatuditic pride.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “And that robots.txt. from Wed 20th March 2019 essentially proves it.”

      No. Here is the current robots.txt from Sigma Frame, which is identical to Dalrock’s in 2019/2020. Let me restate this: prior to Dalrock’s departure, the robots.txt on his site was the default. When his site went private, WordPress automatically changed his robots.txt to exclude his subdomain completely (because it wasn’t public anymore!).

      I don’t think Dalrock was particularly tech savvy. From my evidence, he never even touched the robots.txt, assuming WordPress even allows it to be customized on a per-site basis which I don’t take as a given.

  3. professorGBFMtm

    ”I don’t think Dalrock was particularly tech savvy.”

    Yes, but he knew how to ”protect” them from the real image of game among the young
    on the street doing it, while trying to claim it as Christian for those that were supposedly unplugging from the feminist matrix- when it was to please the feminists that they supposedly detest while blaming Men for not being well-pleasing to them.

    Here:
    Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:
    July 21, 2012 at 5:36 pm
    hey dalrock

    a lot of my comments aren’t being set free

    is there a reason for this?

    please do let me know what i must do so as to be treated equally as others.

    for are we all not equal in jesus’s eyes, endowed by our creator with the same natural rights?

    if there is some reason why you consider me a lesser man, please do let me know! i’ll be happy to tell god all about it! 🙂

    thanks! lzozozlzoz

    [D: You have a tendency to overwhelm any site you comment on. Also, while I appreciate the method to your madness there is a limit to how many graphic references to buthex I’m willing to expose my readers to. If you can dial it back a bit I would appreciate it.

    lzozozlzoz] ”

    I appreciate Dalrock a whole lot more now that I have seen the latter-day ‘sphere’s failure to improve on Dalrock’s known blindspots-at least Dalrock didn’t selectively (while excluding others who stopped supporting him such as Wintery Knight and Farm Boy from Spawnys)claim -blame other MEN for supposedly actively persecuting him as to why his blog wasn’t as popular like it had been years earlier like some ”red pillers” have in recent times.

    In other words? Dalrock was more of a genius than them in hindsight.

  4. For the sake of argument, and since you have used the word, how would you define “genius”.
    I have seen it placed at an IQ score of anywhere from 130 on up to 160. Is there some percentile of the population, or some absolute measure, or feat of intelligence, that would allow a person to qualify?

    Before y’all go saying who is or isn’t a genius, it might be helpful to explain what exactly you’re talking about, unless you want to keep it purely a matter of personal opinion, where y’all get to decide based upon how you feel about the person’s comments.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “For the sake of argument, and since you have used the word, how would you define “genius”. I have seen it placed at an IQ score of anywhere from 130 on up to 160.”

      “Before y’all go saying who is or isn’t a genius”

      In the OP I said this:

      “Everyone’s a genius.”

      “Nobody’s a genius.”

      Obviously this can’t mean that everyone has an above average IQ while simultaneously nobody has an above average IQ. This was—rather obviously—a figure of speech: specifically a hyperbolic tongue-in-cheek rhetorical device.

      This isn’t complicated. When a True Believer™ is faced with a statement they believe to be true, they typically uncritically accept it as being true, even when it is not. Such persons can be provided all the evidence in the world (and even proof!) that their unquestioning belief is unjustified (or even wrong!) and it will have no impact on their belief.

      So when I look at the Manosphere, what kind of people do I see? Those rare truthseekers who are able to take criticism and focus on rational debate on the ideas? Or are they True Believers™? Consider:

      Obviously not everyone is not a genius. That’s the point of my post! People dramatically overestimate their own ability in trivially demonstrable ways (e.g. choosing inductive inferences over deduction, as info did above; choosing ad hominem over reason; plain, unfounded assertions; basic errors, like not fact-checking).

      The naivete on display is thinking that the godless heathens (including mass media, as you correctly demonstrated) get almost everything wrong while the “sainted” members of the manosphere are 99% correct. This is a patently absurd premise.

      My example of FMP is especially on point, because what he was discussing was of the “low complexity, relatively easy to get right” variety and he still got it wrong. If he can’t be trusted with the little things, I’m certainly not going to trust him with the bigger issues of theology and patriarchy. This applies to almost everyone in the Manosphere.

      Remember when Jack made five demonstrably false claims in his short statement on persecution and then refused to retract any of them? His reporting was just as inaccurate as any other hit piece done by members of the mainstream mass media, arguably even worse!

      Remember when you claimed—multiple times—that I was lying about you, even though I provided multiple citations and proofs that I was not? For the most part, rather than addressing the accuracy of my presentation, you simply doubled-down on your ad hominem, including going to at least two other blogs to make non-constructive personal attacks.

      This is what I call “immunity to reason.”

      In my time I’ve interacted with a great many people who disagree with me, but are willing and able to engage with my ideas. These are among the most fruitful discussions I’ve had (and the source behind my recent series). But, in the last couple of years the manosphere has, by and large, shown to be full of those unequipped to do this. The “geniuses” contained therein are too entrenched in their ideology and behave just like political progressives, including feminine-coded social coercion, censorship…

      ad hominem, and fallacious reasoning.

      The ultimate irony is that the manosphere is almost certainly full of men with above-average IQs. What a waste.

      1. Derek,
        Your hypocrisy is showing again. You claim you prefer people who “engage with my ideas”.
        And you claim my ad hominem is unacceptable, but then you yourself deal in ad hominem instead of directly addressing FMP’s theological ideas.

        “If he can’t be trusted with the little [computer technical] things, I’m certainly not going to trust him with the bigger issues of theology and patriarchy.”

        You’re basically saying that because you are more tech savvy than him, and he made some assumptions that you wouldn’t have made, that you can disregard his theological ideas. LOL

        I’ve said you are a liar because you still stubbornly claim that I used circular reasoning in a situation where I just made a single unidirectional statement, and you also claimed I fell prey to the logical fallacy of survivorship bias in a situation where there was no survivorship bias. And then you tried modifying the definitions of both circular reasoning and survivorship bias to try to make them apply. Furthermore, then you use your false claims as a basis to make further false claims that my ideas are based upon fallacies and that you’ve proven them to be false, when you only repeatedly misapplied the name of a logical fallacy and are yourself the one in error.

        After repeatedly claiming that I should have been following Matthew 18’s steps of church discipline with you, I finally switched tactics and offered to take the disagreement over whether or not my original statements were instances of circular reasoning and survivorship bias to the elders of your church, giving you home field advantage. In order to give you the opportunity to show us how you might “mutually submit” to them if they ruled in my favor. LOL
        But, No! Suddenly they were Covid Cucks and you refused to give me their contact emails. Apparently not wanting to submit to whatever their decision might be in the matter.

        So, I sense that you realize that a normal church elder wouldn’t likely think that my original statement was an example of circular reasoning, nor that the other statement was an example of survivorship bias. Nor would they probably agree to let you set the definitions of those terms to be whatever you needed them to become.

        Ultimately that episode showed me that you had no intention to “mutually submit” to the elders of your church if they disagreed with you, which you apparently seemed to think was likely, and that your desire was to force me into a Matthew 18 protocol that you yourself are unwilling to be forced into. You never came at me privately with your disagreement/”correction”, but instead first posted it publicly, and yet you asked that I only disagree/correct you in private. LOL

        May I ask if you first approached FMP privately about your disagreement/”correction” of his presumed error?

        Lies, stubbornly clung to, and hypocrisy are what I have observe in dealing with you. You dodged a possible route to resolution to be presided over by your own church elders, for fear that you might then be asked to submit to their ruling and drop your wrongheaded lies against me. You want to remain your own final arbiter, to be free to label folks’ ideas with the name of whatever logical fallacy pops into your head, and to then dismiss their ideas as “proven fallacies” based upon your own misguided assertions. Not only were you not open to sensible correction, but you weren’t even open to risking the possibility of correction by your own church. LOL And you think you can sweep all of that away with walls of textual excuses and redirection.

        Nor will you set a bar for “genius”, lest I surpass it. Kind of like Dr. Scott who claimed only he was qualified to diagnose a genius because he has a degree in fingering people’s feelings. You both seemingly want to insult the intelligence of folks who disagree with you, and not offer them a realistic opportunity to score their way out of your insult to their intelligence.

        It is difficult to debate ideas with a snake who refuses to even define his own words and also wants to change the definitions of logical fallacies to apply to whatever he disagrees with.

        1. Avery Ramsey

          Matthew 18:15 (ESV) states:

          If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

          Sharkly asks:

          May I ask if you first approached FMP privately about your disagreement/”correction” of his presumed error?

          The response from Matthew 18 doesn’t work here because FMP didn’t sin. There is no wrong being done here to anybody.

          For the sake of argument, let’s pretend FMP did sin with his words. Even in this case, Matthew 18 still wouldn’t have been warranted here because FMP didn’t sin against Derek. If you look at the verse, it requires Matthew 18 only if “your brother sins against you”.

          Sharkly’s question here is a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow from the topic being discussed.

          –Avery Ramsey

        2. Derek L. Ramsey

          Sharkly,

          You claim you prefer people who “engage with my ideas”. And you claim my ad hominem is unacceptable, but then you yourself deal in ad hominem instead of directly addressing FMP’s theological ideas.

          My post is discussing metaphysics, specifically epistemology, not theology. Discussing theology would be an ad hominem in this context. But maybe I’ll do that in another post.

          You’re basically saying that because you are more tech savvy than him, and he made some assumptions that you wouldn’t have made, that you can disregard his theological ideas. LOL

          Can you see how FMP’s actions demonstrate his epistemology?

          To be tech savvy is to be informed enough to judge the truth or fiction of various related claims. FMP showed himself to be unreliable. His epistemology is such that he’s willing to assert as fact things that he cannot know or cannot prove, even things that are actually false.

          In particular, he’s willing to use inductive inference—barely better than pure opinion—rather than take the time to use deduction. This is, to use an analogy, how pseudoscience is produced. Just as I don’t discuss science with the propagandists pushing pseudoscience, there is no reason to discuss theology with someone with this epistemology.

          Here again is what FMP said:

          “I believe the reason why is because Dalrock has decided to scrub his material from the Internet.”

          This isn’t a lie, because while it isn’t rationally justified, it’s just his personal opinion—derived from a weak inductive inference—and he’s entitled to his own opinion. The problem is his explanation:

          “They say that the reason for this can be due to the owner of a URL requesting its removal.”

          Dalrock, objectively, does not own the URL dalrock.wordpress.com, WordPress does. Thus, it does not logically follow that Dalrock decided to scrub his material. FMP’s argument is logically invalid.

          Now, tell me, if a person is willing to assert falsehoods—or leap to conclusions—on a simple topic where the truth can be trivially known by a single Google search, should they be trusted to handle far more complex topics?

          Or to put this in simple language: FMP—and also Deti—didn’t do even a minimal amount of research and showed that he’s quite wiling to skip that step and go straight to his preferred conclusion.

          The issue under discussion is with metaphysics: the way that they handle ideas, not their ideas themselves.

          “you still stubbornly claim that I used circular reasoning in a situation where I just made a single unidirectional statement”

          This is just like FMP and Deti. You are making this statement without doing the minimal amount of effort to understand if what you are saying is actually correct. Had you evaluated the evidence from six months ago, you’d understand your error.


          I adhere to logic. What you are saying is plainly and unambiguously false and will always be false, because the logic of a thing isn’t dependent on one’s personal preferences or protestations. It does not matter if I am stubborn or flexible (that’s another one of your ad hominem fallacies). Your only option would be to prove that I am wrong, which you’ve categorically been unable to do. I can cite my proof over and over again, but you have nothing. Nothing!

          “…are yourself the one in error”

          Cite your claims or else kindly stop making empty assertions.

          I believe I have sufficiently responded to each and every one of your claims, so much so that you complain that I’ve written too much! Which is it? Too much or too little?

          “…finally switched tactics and offered to take the disagreement over whether or not my original statements were instances of circular reasoning and survivorship bias to the elders of your church”

          You did so in bad faith, as you admitted here. The fact that you put tactics over truthseeking also highlights that aspect of your epistemology.

          “I sense that you realize that a normal church elder wouldn’t likely think that my original statement was an example of circular reasoning”

          The purpose of Matthew 18 is to bring repentance for sin and restoration of relationship, not to resolve differences of personal opinion. I’ve pointed this out before, you know, but you have ignored this each time.

          “your desire was to force me into a Matthew 18”

          I’ll say this for the umpteenth time. Jesus demands this of you. Jesus does. This is not a matter of what I desire, which is completely irrelevant. Your obligation, your debt, is not to me. What I desire is for you to forgive without condition, to restore what is broken.

          “You dodged a possible route to resolution to be presided over by your own church elders”

          No I didn’t. You were acting in bad faith, and there isn’t anything to resolve. I’m logically correct in my assertions. Would you prefer that the elders also agree with your falsehoods? There is nothing in the world that could convince me to induce the church elders to embrace a lie. I will not be a willing participant in deceiving them. Moreover, you had no intention of yielding to their judgment anyway, so only harm could have come from it.

          “You want to remain your own final arbiter, to be free to label folks’ ideas with the name of whatever logical fallacy pops into your head”

          I’m genuinely curious. Are you actually unable to address ideas without assuming another person’s motivations?

          “Nor will you set a bar for “genius”, lest I surpass it. [..] It is difficult to debate ideas with a snake who refuses to even define his own words”

          Sir, you have missed the point.

          In the Bread of Life narrative, Jesus said his flesh was bread from heaven and that everyone must eat his flesh. Was Jesus a lying snake for failing to define his words so his audience to understand? Of course he wasn’t. He was being intentionally obscure so that only those with ears to hear would hear.

          If you wanted to understand what I was saying, you could do so. You don’t need my explanation.

          I’m genuinely curious. Are you actually unable to address ideas you hate without insults?

          Peace,
          DR

          1. It appears I’m wasting my time trying to deal with you, Derek. And I’m not sure if that is your wife or your kid commenting up above, but I have no interest in trying to turn them against you, so, I’ll just leave things for now.

          2. Derek L. Ramsey

            “trying to deal with you”

            That’s a questionable motivation right there, and is almost certainly the source of your difficulty. You should fix your motivation. How about instead of dealing with me you try dealing with my ideas? Dealing with me as a person will be as fulfilling as talking to a wall. Dealing with ideas is more like riding a roller coaster.

            Did you see how my son calmly, rationally, patiently, and concisely refuted what you wrote? You had no response! A child is better at sticking to the ideas and making a logically sound argument than two full-grown adults! He’s learned from your negative example. I’m proud of him.

            “I have no interest in trying to turn them against you”

            The time for you to start respecting a man’s patriarchal rights was back when you still had credibility. Before the following happened when you spit on the very patriarchy that you claimed to support:


            The damage you’ve done to Christian patriarchy—by your own example—is incalculable. The only way you’d have even the smallest chance to undo the damage and convince my family of the righteousness of Sharkly’s Holy Patriarchy is if you admitted that you crossed a line when you criticized my patriarchal right to run my family however I choose.

            There is no risk of you turning my family against me. None at all. What you fundamentally do not understand is that I manage my family just fine, thank you very much, and your criticisms just make you look completely foolish. My kids—who respect me—think you are ridiculous and find what you say to be funny. You did that to yourself by committing one spurious ad hominem after another spurious ad hominem and by steadfastly refusing to wrestle with the ideas. Let’s emphasize that: You did that to yourself by committing one spurious ad hominem after another spurious ad hominem and by steadfastly refusing to wrestle with the ideas.

            They can read what you write and see how shallow your claims are. When I cite your own words where you make claim A⇒B and then in another location you make the claim B⇒A, they see the plain circular reasoning (i.e. A⇒A and B⇒B), even if you do not. Your claims that I’ve misrepresented you simply fall flat based on your own testimony. You’ve condemned yourself by your own words. You protest and protest and protest and protest and it’s all pointless effort, because you can’t take back what you’ve already said publicly.

            You could write volumes and it would not turn them against me, because your viewpoint is fundamentally irrational. You don’t have truth on your side. You have no choice but to either engage in ad hominem or else leave. That’s literally all you have.

            Do you think I’m afraid of what you write? I actively encourage them to read what you write (including what you say elsewhere), because it illustrates how not to behave in an online discussion. We have meatspace discussions about what you write.

            When I make an error, they see me fix it. They learn from my positive example. If you had actually refuted something I wrote and refused to correct it, they’d have pointed it out and called me out for it. You almost succeeded when you cited all those Hebrew words for “human.” Too bad you neglected my response.

            But, you showed yourself to be a clown when you self-refuted patriarchal authority and then, rather than admit your error, you doubled-down. It took months of me badgering you before you admitted your error on Genesis 1:27. Months! If my kids can see that, so too can all the people that you imagine are persecuting you.

            Your biggest problem is that you are completely unable to admit your numerous errors, no matter how many times I point them out. You say “…unidirectional…” and I refute it. Your “response” is just to repeat “…unidirectional…” again, because you are unable to refute what I presented and act as if I hadn’t already responded. You don’t respond to anything I say, you just double-down on what you said previously. That’s not debate, that proselytizing.

            My family is not susceptible to your propaganda. They can see right through it for what it is. You may buy into your own propaganda, but you won’t find any devotees here.

        3. Derek L. Ramsey

          Sharkly,

          “May I ask if you first approached FMP privately about your disagreement/”correction” of his presumed error?”

          Although the explanation above sufficiently answers your question, more can be said.

          First, who would I confront? FMP is anonymous. FMP might be a person, or a group of persons. They may or may not even be Christian. In anonymity, FMP isn’t accountable to me or anyone else, including the church at large. Being anonymous may be itself a sin that requires repentance! Regardless, by his own actions, he has placed himself outside of Matthew 18 by placing himself outside the domain of the church—the body—of Christ.

          Second, you again spoke hastily without doing even a basic amount of research. If you had bothered to check, you’d have realized that there is no way to contact him (or her? or them?) privately:

          Are you surprised that an unaccountable, anonymous person rejects private confrontation and replaces it with passive/aggressive threats? Anonymity—being an inherent falsehood—defiles.

          Peace,
          DR

  5. professorGBFMtm

    Before y’all at sigma frame go saying who is or isn’t actively persecuting, it might be helpful to explain what exactly you’re talking about, unless you want to keep it purely a matter of personal opinion in a poorly written, confusing, and voluminous way , where y’all get to decide based upon how you feel about the person’s comments.”

    Thank you for being the brave dude in the echo chamber sharkly

    It’s about time somebody brought that up to jack .
    Somebody mentioning mike davis(which he admitted ended months before) and not sigma frame or who deletes multiple links to multiple sites is actively persecuting. Yet, one who took down only the SF link at their site in late ”21 (after mike davis post which was conveniently not discussed) or some guy on the farm who quits giving your site post advertisements at the same time are not actively persecuting?

    ”where y’all get to decide based upon how you feel about the person’s comment”

    That does seem to be the jackian answer (it was based on feels) Brother Sharkly.

    Again thank you

  6. Lastmod

    I never knew everyone in California was a legal expert and genius now…….Stanford, UC Berkeley, Chapman, UCLA, USC dont have anything on dude working at Starbucks who knows the law better than all of them!

    This same dude is the one who screams about our horrible, corrupt legal system. And now, after yesterdays verdict. It is functioning perfectly and has zero problems. Everyon is a genius 🙂

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “I never knew everyone in California was a legal expert and genius now”

      Scott Greenfield (from “Simple Justice” on my blogroll) is a lawyer who pejoratively calls them “Twitter Lawyers.” They are so certain they know what they are talking about, but, having no actual training, get the law wrong time and time again.

      1. Lastmod

        I know some basics on property law here in California concerning my work, and I know that when I have to contact or get legal paperwork done and processed…….

        Follow the instructions to. the. letter. Read it. Read it again. Again. Take notes. then proceed to implement

        One tiny slip up. One small thing done out order or not “properly” usually warrants the whole thing getting tossed.

  7. professorGBFMtm

    ”Nor will you set a bar for “genius”, lest I surpass it.”

    If someone is a genius why do they need a bar set by anyone?

    ”One tiny slip up. One small thing done out order or not “properly” usually warrants the whole thing getting tossed.”

    This sounds like the rules women have for dating and marriage and then they wonder why they’re so rare today.

    And people still wonder why the ‘sphere broke into various black pill(flag really )factions after years of ”you have to kneel to those who have set themselves up as your moral and ethical superiors in the red pill version of the Manosphere, just as once you had to obey the ”egalitarian ” MRAS who are morally and ethically superior to you just because- before the first MGTOW first wave in the 2000’s.

    the current mainstream ‘sphere knows another ‘sphere-wide break up into various splinter groups is only a matter of time now.

    Hence all that ”problems with the red pill” stuff when it should be called ”problems with everyone(namely Derek, LastMOD & professorGBFM) not kneeling at the feet of those who set themselves up as their moral and ethical superiors bros ”

    Yeah, the MGTOW(it starts and ends with MEN being on their own-outside of politics and society)=red pill ideas have won in the wider culture but those who see themselves as everyone’s superiors want whatever power they can get from it.

  8. professorGBFMtm

    Speaking of the ‘sphere breaking up yet again because of supposed ”betters”.

    Why hasn’t not some ”uniter”(like W. in the naughts) that comes here told jack that his ”problems with the red pill” series is doing just that(breaking it up instead of uniting it)?

    He blamed Deti,I and Derek for supposedly ”discrediting the ‘sphere” by Deti first saying ”MGTOW was dead”(which is never true) and then ”Game is dead”(then why does jack &Deti say it works?) at Spawnys and I was evilz for agreeing with his ”the Manosphere is dead” comment there too.

    i guess they’ll blame it on others as they did with the misunderstood ”headship” ”Lessons on Life and Marriage from Matthew 10”swinger mike Davis post in September 2021, which nearly destroyed sf at jack’s editorial dictatorial control, and somehow its epic failure is placed on the lamb scapegoats(who weren’t even at sf nor admins there then or ever) known as Derek and professorGBFM.

    While Deti does some gibberish comments about ”other” Men being evilz at sf like he used to at Spawnys ?As soon as he owns up to his, swinger mike davis and jack’s failures -he shouldn’t throw stones at ”other” Men being supposedly evil.

  9. Lastmod

    I dont know what form or what is next for the ‘sphere.

    A new “foolproof” version of Game, Frame, or word salad will come out form the high intellectual class in the ‘sphere. Little or no impact on the rest of men who are still stuck in “blue pill thinking” and “ruining” everything

    Perhaps still a general “disintergration” if you will. Marriage will indeed become a an “elite” thing, or for the very devout. Your Amish, Mormon circles, the very rich and powerful in society…….other circles like the church Oscar belongs to.

    I fully believe that “harems” so to speak will become a thing here in the West. Not super common, but it will happen and it will be allowed. Pushed by women and accepted fully by the “red pill elite” types, the intellectual class so to speak. It will still be the fault of “blue pilled / white knighting men / who pedestalize women” but they will actively have no problem with it. Remember too, it will be sold to men as a great thing, and many will want this but only a very few will actually have it. There will be books, podcasts and a whole cottage industry setup around it about how “its foolproof, perfect solution for men and women and of course……the bigger your harem equals being a “leader and alpha”

    I honestly think what we have now will continue to happen but widen further.

    Average men will have a live in girlfriend for a bit. More and more men wil never have one, or it will be so rare for them, it will be basically them “being single” or classifying as such. Fewer men will be fathers, but most women still will be a “mom” at some point in their lives.

    More people will be unhappy in this area and there will be little or nothing that can help the growing swath of “loser blue pill men” except of course to blame them for “blue pill thinking” and just “be Alpha” or “more to Bullfrog, North Dakota and join a bible believing church where all the women there are devout, hot and “looks dont matter to them”

    1. Malcolm Reynolds

      Women deem 80 % of men being unattractive as surveys by online dating services show.

      This has been the case since humans came into existence. As a result the genetic makeup of only 60 % of men ever born has been preserved in the human DNA. The remaining 40 % of men never had sex leading to a pregnancy with surviving offspring.

      Being part of certain legalistic circles like the Amish doesn’t change any of these facts. They have the same genetic makeup.

      So the next stage of groundbreaking Red Pill publishing will make the fact known that not all men are created equal. While the latter premise is deeply rooted in American Protestant Republicanism and its social justice gospel, it’s ultimately false. Men are born into a rank in the social-sexual hierarchy, which defines their societal role.

      1. Derek L. Ramsey

        Are you trying to respond to my comment here?

        Genetic ancestry is based on clans, not individuals. If the 40% share most of the same DNA as the 60% in the same clan, then their genes are transferred even if they don’t reproduce. It doesn’t matter, precisely, who actually has the children. This is the likely reason, for example, why homosexuality isn’t bred out of the population: it isn’t genetically detrimental to the clan.

        Also, the vast majority of coupling throughout history has been “cousin marriage,” which only highlights the above.

        As a result the genetic makeup of only 60 % of men ever born has been preserved in the human DNA. The remaining 40 % of men never had sex leading to a pregnancy with surviving offspring.

        It is not possible to determine genetic ancestry to this level of clarity and precision. The genetic pool is a pool where everything gets mixed up. Having surviving children does not imply preservation of DNA.

        1. Malcolm Reynolds

          > If the 40% share most of the same DNA as the 60% in the same clan, then their genes are transferred even if they don’t reproduce.

          The American Protestant Republic acts as if each man is being created equal and therefore being equally eligible for reproductive sex. That’s pretty much what the constitution says and that premise is deeply ingrained in American culture.

          That is of course a misconception that leads to all the disappointment of American males who get rejected by women.

          The only thing that changed on a societal level is that women no longer need transactional sex to survive, so they no longer marry for transactional sex. As the whole American Protestant Evangelical culture was based on transactional sex, it now breaks down.

          1. Derek L. Ramsey

            MR,

            What you say is coincides with the established Red Pill Theory of Women, but it isn’t particularly actionable. I’m unclear what point are you trying to make. Can you clarify?

            Peace,
            DR

          2. Malcolm Reynolds

            Actionable advice: Figure out if a woman is actually sexually attracted to you.

            If not and you are still in a marriage based on transactional sex divorce is unavoidable. This is pretty much only applies, if you are a boomer (most likely already divorced) or Gen-X (might still holding on to the straw).

            If you are not married (most likely Millennial and later) and no woman is attracted to you, you will never marry, because the product (transactional sex through marriage) is no longer on the market.

            As a result the whole discussion about “submission” is moot. Evangelicals sold transactional sex through marriage as their only product and still have not figured out what actual female sexual attraction is.

      2. professorGBFMtm

        ”So the next stage of groundbreaking Red Pill publishing will make the fact known that not all men are created equal. While the latter premise is deeply rooted in American Protestant Republicanism and its social justice gospel, it’s ultimately false. Men are born into a rank in the social-sexual hierarchy, which defines their societal role.”

        If that is true, there goes ”red pillers ” ever having the book sales, page hits, and comments in the range of 350-700 on certain posts as they did 12-14 years ago.

        Anyway the main problem with the ”red pill” Manosphere is it’s more on women’s comfort and worries than MEN’S so they should call it the womanosphere as i have said before.

        Everyone knows the vast majority of women are lazier, lustier, and greedier than most MEN and as that tfh/anon guy used to say at Dalrock ”that’s why society had to invent all kinds of customs to lie and hide female nature from MEN”

        Most ”red pillers” do this too by their b.s. lore of ”all you have to be is alpha(money, looks, status) and she obeys every time bros”, then Why are all the ancient laws on adultery bros?

        &
        Jason / LastMod withdrew from commenting because he failed to find an audience here (largely because of his own bitterness and overdosing on The Black Pill).

        Jack’s comedic chops are as good as ever as Deti has been more ”bitter and blackpill” than most.

        ”In todays muscled up uber-masculine Jesus and faith. Its only for about 15 people. Everyone else has been cucked and a somehow “not worth of it” unless they follow them….mere men instead of what Jesus taught”

        It started in modern times i.e. ’06/’07 with pastor mark driscoll-whose downfall in late 2014 made Dalrock ”the only real MAN in the room” by default in the ‘sphere😉

        The others like ”uniter” crap poster and the other crap poster(he thought it was funny when ”uniter” attacked i huh? is he still zlolzing now?) who called you ”bitter” now want Dalrock’s ”the only real MAN in the room” title and glory😉

        1. Lastmod

          I was at a decent sized vintage Lambreta / Vespa ride and party in Santa Rosa almost a month ago. Over a 100 guys. Some older like me, but a huge swath of younger guys (20’s and 30’s) with good hair. Fashion sense. No “mouth breathers” here. various careers from accounting, to mechanics, to muralists, graphic designers, and two record / studio producers. Various hobbies…scooters of course to music, dancing, soccer clubs

          Not one woman. No one had had a girlfriend. A few my age divorced.

          We piled into a brewery on the first night in Sebastopol. Almost 100 guys from our crew rolled in, the place was full of women. No IOI’s. No one coming over to “chat” and “flirt” and I noticed with the younger men, they were not making efforts either. They didnt seem too concerned, and I believe just about all of them at their age / generation have already been burned, cheated on, nuclear rejected enough to not even bother. If that is the case, I say good for them.

          Most were way better looking than I was at their age.

      3. Lastmod

        Oh, so now “we believe all women” from a survey from “online” dating sites, and we all know that is a metric and standard “worth trusting”

        The same sphere that says this and cites this will then call all women who use online dating as “carousel riders / soiled doves / skanks” and “not worth anyone’s time”

        Is the above statement true? I suppose it is. Not for you of course…..we all know that you are in the top 20% and dont have to worry about this. That “lower 80% can do the hard work and die in wars while I sit around and have sex all day”

        Post War USA and the West was I believe an anomaly. It did level a playing field for many men who otherwise probably would not have found a wife, but even prior to that most men were wed thru a family friend. A neighbor. An introduction at social function…chruch, supper club, civic organization. Many were indeed arranged, yes even in the USA. Most of the world still practices this in some form.

        We are not created equal. We, in the USA should be striving for a “equality under the law” but not one of us has equal looks, intellect, status, inherited wealth….and I mean, you are saying nothing that is “groundbreaking” here.

        You, like most Manospherians today….secular and sacred base your whole existence and life on “who is getting sex and who isnt”

        You do realize you sound like a woman who you speak like this, because that is all they seem to be concerned with in their “lunch date with the girls talk”

        1. professorGBFMtm

          ”Oh, so now “we believe all women” from a survey from “online” dating sites, and we all know that is a metric and standard “worth trusting”

          The same sphere that says this and cites this will then call all women who use online dating as “carousel riders / soiled doves / skanks” and “not worth anyone’s time”

          Is the above statement true? I suppose it is. Not for you of course…..we all know that you are in the top 20% and dont have to worry about this. That “lower 80% can do the hard work and die in wars while I sit around and have sex all day””

          All the lower 80% need do anyway is copy the ”holy” top 20%-who got us here with their ”geniusiness” by going to the internationally famous dal rock church complete with his buttlubes and Game manuals he ordered out of the back of Cosmo, as well as the furry hat and silk bathrobe Vox gave him for Christmas. 🙂

          lzoozozozzolzozlomglzozzlzozoozozozolzozoz ”

          ”da GBFM lzzzzzzzlzlz (TM) says:
          June 22, 2015 at 8:48 am
          One of the reasons that Dalrock was so happy about Mark Driscoll’s downfall was that now that leaves Dalrock as the “only man in the church,” complete with his buttlubes and Game manuals he ordered out of the back of Cosmo, as well as the furry hat and silk bathrobe Vox gave him for Christmas. 🙂

          lzoozozozzolzozlomglzozzlzozoozozozolzozoz ”

          Yeah, cosmo that’s where most top 20% scum thought we should go as a society, churches, and universities as they now supposedly try to save us from the same.

          The above was before the ”redpill” ‘sphere became an unfortunate and pitiful place mostly devoid of brotherly love and good humor as ”uniter ”and jack told I at spawnys.

          i hope they’re happy now.

          1. professorGBFMtm

            i think some of what MR speaks of of American evangelism is in this comment by the highly astute Regular Guy at Dalrock.:

            Regular Guy says:
            June 21, 2015 at 8:20 pm
            Slumlord said, “A lot of good men have been “blue pill brainwashed” and that’s why Game is so important. It’s the first step in reprogramming. The task ahead is how to reconcile Game with Christianity. Roissy’s hedonistic lifestyle is not an option, but his understanding of the insights of female psychology are.”

            Well, well… History may not repeat itself, but it certainly ryhmes.

            Heresy after heresy has been astutely called out by the commenters on this forum, but when a clever, secular lie with promises to fix the wrongs of feminism in the church rears it’s head, my how many have enthusiastically been deceived. Do you men believe this isn’t yet another Satanic attempt at butchering sound doctrine that has made inroads into Church teaching at critical moments of it’s history?

            Within the past 200 years, the Word of God has come under assault by those who would “improve” upon it with secular wisdom (ha!) or other sources of “authority”: Rastafarianism, Americanism, Anglo-Israelism, Community of the Lady of All Nations, Feeneysim , Modernism, The Downgrade Controversy, Positive Christianity, Reincarnationism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Word Faith Movement, Dominionism, The Prosperity Gospel, Jesus is a Communist, Jesus is a Republican, Personal McBadboy-Biker Jesus, Jesus-is-my-pal-and-he-loves-me-like-a-biscuit and so on and so forth.

            Isn’t this just a little too perfect to have this hidden knowledge (Gnosticism) to come about at the time when Christian men are crying out to God for relief from the biblical flood of sluts their sinful fathers and grandfathers gave them? I’ve been convinced GBFM is right about Game and Christianity. It’s yet another temptation of Christian men to churchianize and incorporate secular wisdom (read: half-truths) into our lives that we men on these forums loathe to see in our Churches when those very lies crush us.

            THE GBFM/GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN A.K.A. The knowledge MEN have gained from their creator over time is right on Game and Christianity.

          2. Malcolm Reynolds

            The RP is irreconcilable with WASP Puritanism, the thing Americans typically call “Christianity”.

            That’s not actually a problem.

          3. professorGBFMtm

            WASP Puritanism isn’t just a problem with protestants as most Catholic, Orthodox, and other religions love to think women are just heavenly creatures that will stop at nothing to please them.

            All the RP that most speak of is ”that women want what they want and are ruthless in getting it ” yet most Christian(the old secular ones were smarter in light of scripture) red pillers are sure they know the code to controlling this.

            64 million+ aborted babies since roe vs wade and they still think ”women just want me to be happy.”

            A woman could shoot or stab them and still”she’s so hot and want my penis bros”

            Also, 1869 isn’t the history i speak of-that is your republican redpillers.

            Is the scriptures that became later known as the Bible or Homer’s Odyssey or the Illiad from 1869?

            I’m not a right-left oligarchy holy roller supporter like most red pillers(who are offended to believe W. bush nor Trump nor any politician anywhere cares about them).

          4. professorGBFMtm

            Hey MR!

            You know the crowd over at SF was wondering why fertility rates are down so much in the West in 2021? So I told them that the big city lifestyle that’s dominant in the West had more to do with it as most began living in large cities by the early-mid 20th century just as fertility nose-dived heavily. Women also get more demanding in big cities and want more goodies like the rich -whom, cities were originally designed for. As Oscar has shown you, there they don’t like new ideas or people as they told me it was much much more complex than that- when as seen by the Amish and others that don’t live in big cities but farm areas it isn’t that complex as they said it was because they want their big city vacation fun.

            Also MOD

            “Jason / LastMod withdrew from commenting because he failed to find an audience here.”

            I wonder why Jack couldn’t mention your not wanting to interact with Oscar’s constant contrarianism as you have said here many times before?

          5. Derek L. Ramsey

            “Jason / LastMod withdrew from commenting because he failed to find an audience here.”

            “I wonder why Jack couldn’t mention your not wanting to interact with Oscar’s constant contrarianism as you have said here many times before?”

            Why? I presume that Jack doesn’t read most of the comments here, so he doesn’t know what Jason thinks.

            The articles I write here are not all that popular there, as some still seem to think the bulk of my articles are about Sigma Frame or its personalities, when the reality is that I did a 40-post series that was about something else completely and the bulk of my person-to-person interaction has been with Sharkly, not anyone at Sigma Frame. I don’t even remember the last time I wrote an article responding to a Sigma Frame article.

            Neither myself nor Jason have posted much of significance at Sigma Frame for the last two years (very short bursts for me, but way down by historical standards, despite claims of repeatedly “hijacking threads”), and yet Jack and others are still talking about us. That’s some staying power! Moreover, now neither of us post there. Other than the occasional drive by comment here, they leave us alone. The audience here is minuscule (which is why the “active persecution” thing was so absurd). What continuing relevance do either of us have?

  10. Lastmod

    This was sent to me from Jack’s recent post

    “Jason / LastMod withdrew from commenting because he failed to find an audience here.”

    I suppose I could agree with this, even if I didnt they all know me better than I do evidently.

    In the end, I just got tired. When I first started posting there, I suppose I was still thinking there was some “hope” for me in matters they talk / speak of.

    After being talked down to, was reduced to “stuck in Nice Guy thinking” or whatever the term of the week was, constantly being knitpicked at and frankly, understanding that I would never be able to be like them. Even if took their advice “go to the gym / just be Alpha bro / follow the awesome advice given you over the years (which was again, learn and practice Game, go to the gym, be a “leader” in the church) and if it still didnt work

    “you dont want help / god promises you nothing”

    I was wasting their time and mine. For real.

    What has been said about “female nature” has been said since 2012. Game has pretty much been debunked since that time as well, and it works great if your wife or women want to “f*ck you brains out” the second they meet you, otherwise its just a useless circle jerk and it was making me more sad……….and jealous, and envious and stuck.

    The posts there were not helping me, and my comments were not helping anyone there.

    I do find it ironic in a GenX 1990’s way…………..evidently I am so Blackpilled, bitter, angry, horrible, worse-than-the-mustached-man-from-Austria, Nice Guy and pedestalizer of women………….

    Have you read comments by a certain lawyer over there in the past year or so? He makes and made my “blackpill” tame compared to his own sufferings at the moment. Perhaps he should follow his legalism of “rejoice in your suffering” and “God promises you nothing”

    In fact, God DOES promise a lot. He doesnt make you suffer for his own glory or to “teach you a lesson”

    That’s bad evangelism. Really bad evangelism.

    He too had the greatest sorrow ever. He sent his own son to take the sins of this fallen world, that he created. That son DID suffer. He was truely 100% God and 100% human. The son knew the pain of this fallen world. The worry, the strife, the anger, the pain………he loved those twelve men he taught for three years. He knew they were imperfect.

    Many left their own wives to follow Him. Many left careers, trades and what little they had to be with Him. I mean, they all had skin in the game too. We like to believe all the disciples had perfect lives, and they were just dumb, and “always letting Jesus down” and we think so much more of ourselves “well, I would have / I would have never done what Peter or this or that did. I would never be a Judas! I would have never doubted!”

    They are a reflection of us all as well. Those who want to learn, and still….human. Imperfect. Sinful. Sometimes sad. Frightened. Angry. Jealous. Had worries. Had toubles. Jesus being 100% human could relate, teach, love and disciple them.

    This is something that is so beautiful, simple, and wonderful about “the way” and we have lost our way in many areas. Pimping the faith into “rules” and “laws” and codexing it with worldly desires like sex, power, status, atheleticism, and physical comeliness.

    Flipping the card on a whim and making a mans frustrations about him “nothing being a man enough” while telling us “Jesus is the way”

    And this man, Jesus wanted NONE to persih. He never told Matthew to “hit the gym” never once told Peter how to “game” his wife. Never once bragged of his status or career. Never played tackle football and had “manly” pursuits in our context.

    He had no army. No political power. All he had was a basic truth for those who would listen. “His Fathers house has many rooms” meaning, that kingdom was for all.

    In todays muscled up uber-masculine Jesus and faith. Its only for about 15 people. Everyone else has been cucked and a somehow “not worth of it” unless they follow them….mere men instead of what Jesus taught

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “Have you read comments by a certain lawyer over there in the past year or so? He makes and made my “blackpill” tame compared to his own sufferings at the moment. Perhaps he should follow his legalism of “rejoice in your suffering” and “God promises you nothing””

      It has been a sight to behold. And all those criticisms that they leveled at you? I don’t see them being leveled now. The only explanation I can come up with is a popularity contest.

      1. Lastmod

        Perhaps so.

        I just dont see the “you are so negative / you need to ask God for this or that” and usual Scripture quoted (as if that is going to fix) while at times I was pounced on for much less.

        They will never take their own advice. Why? Because they are and have deemed themselves “The Elect”

        They look down on most men they claim to love and frankly dont care about anything, and are more concerned about who is Alpha or isnt. Who got more, who is “better” and who is msarter and all unified by

        I get sex / IOI’s and you dont 🙂

        My dad (RIP) once while watching some televengelist on TV some Sunday mid 1980-something (the biggest UN-holy row in the USA at the time) said offhand “This guy talks more about sex and women than the monthly issue of Playboy does.

        Yup

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          “This guy talks more about sex and women than the monthly issue of Playboy does.”

          That’s interesting. I’m too young for that, just as I’m too young for Promise Keepers. I presume the latter also discussed that too, but I don’t actually know. Is the Manosphere just an extension of this?

          1. Lastmod

            Who knows?

            Still talking about sex, women and “what they want / their nature / what they like and dont like / a real man does x to get her to like you” and always new terms, new language, new packaging and new charts most men cannot comprehend.

            When I was in college, there was an English student from England. Soccer player. Sandy blonde hair. That gorgeous accent they have. Tall, lean, cut….the jaw. Had it all. His name was Clive.

            Never bragged. Never had to “one up” the rest of us less fortunate in the matter of love / sex. He had bagged every super hot gal on my campus and nearby Middlebury and Bennington. Never boasted. Never told the stories about how hot or great the particular girl he currently was with was in the sack.

            One night, he ended up in my dorm room, I was having a louder than usual party. Ten? Maybe fifteen people packed into my dorm room. My turntable spinning “The Who” or something like that. He came in with a six pack of beer, all the girls swooned. ALl of us guys had to just give the smirk and “life is not fair look” to each other.

            Anyway, a few hours later in a clog of cigarette smoke, empty bottles everywhere……..the turntable now spinning much more quietly The Beatles “white album” everyone gone except about four of us still drinking, shooting the breeze.

            The topic of PMS came up. I was just listening. Peter was going on how women change during PMS. Whatever. They are b*tches. Mean when PMS-ing. Sean agreeing with him.

            Clive looks up, drunk….looks at me and Peter and Sean and says in that BBC accent “What the bloody hell is PMS?”

            Right then and there I knew I was with a man who indeed was a legit ladies man.

            Clive and I were not best buds. We were different circle but I liked how he “didnt care” who he hung around with. BUT.

            I never hooked up with any gal. It was ALWAYS his choice. Not hers. The good looking have so few problems the rest of us have to deal with 😉

          2. professorGBFMtm

            ”Clive and I were not best buds. We were different circle but I liked how he “didnt care” who he hung around with. ”

            That sounds like the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN assembly and fellowship & feministhater(from Dalrock and a few other sites and also once in July ’12 didn’t approve of the way the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN roll i.e ”overwhelming” like Dalrock said further above)

            feministhater says:
            June 13, 2015 at 2:52 pm
            This is why MGTOW is so important. Man has but one life, who cares what is alpha and what is not. Just enjoy your one life and make it the best that you can. The rest, including the idea that only ‘p@ssy’ matters, can rot away. Live you life for heaven’s sake and leave the rest.”

            See? He had his priorities straight!

      2. Surfdumb

        Derek, Another possibility is something I mentioned before, which is, not getting involved in personal fights, or issues not pertaining to the OP (both of which I’m not following my own advice with this comment).

        As much as I enjoy correspondence with Jason, I don’t like the idea of him, or anyone, being the topic of comments, similar to being uncomfortable with Deti being a focus now.

        We are mostly on the same side, so I get troubled by this bickering. At least when you say you are commenting at Sigma Frame, it’s because you disagree with the biblical interpretation of authority and want to correct brothers. That seems to me a good setup for discussion .

        OTOH, I enjoy the informal posts with LastMod whether they are idea-focused or not. That reminds me, I saw Price is Right at Night last week, and the kid contestants got better prizes than on the adult show. Both showcases were over $60K each.

        I haven’t commented on the current SF post that mentions Jason yet, but hope I will. A lot of that content is from a comment of mine, and Jack did a great job rephrasing it.

        Is married life, or singleness so sanctified in the US currently that we can argue instead of encourage each other?

        I’m in a lonely marriage, and conversations with Jason are really helpful to me. I may put this on SF, at least that was the response in my head. Yes, conversation and prayer are needed, often not advice. But my assumption is that I actually am less manly than other men(which is okay to me because I stand before God as my judge, not others) and therefore must have a lesser amount of desire to take action. I hope sometimes it’s the fruit of the Spirit, patience, but I can’t get behind the desire to bark out advice on a blog that’s made up of folks hurting because of the sexual marketplace. There is a need for advice though, my church had a big role in my lack of wise vetting, and I acknowledge that many commenter are very grateful for the direct advice they get from other men.

        1. professorGBFMtm

          Derek, Another possibility is something I mentioned before, which is, not getting involved in personal fights, or issues not pertaining to the OP (both of which I’m not following my own advice with this comment).

          Heres’s another possibility! Men don’t want to tell their fave buttlube-promoting redpill pastors jack and Deti to stop blaming other MEN for their failure to get the ”swinger ”Christian” Game” movement going worldwide to save church, marriage, and state in September 2021!

          Jack should have never sneakily brought it up again in Jan ’24-where he and I supposedly had a row over Jack’s poorly written, confusing, and voluminous posts and comments.

          And then jack just as he said did start slandering I first through ”george”=”uniter” in December ’21 and then himself in May ’22-by saying ”he didn’t often agree with the GREAT MEN in history but he had a soft spot for grown fratboys being juvenile like himself”

          When they start blaming the MEN for anything, who are quietly AMENING that nonsense I’ll remember that holy Jack and Deti are above criticism from mere MEN.

          Once I get blamed for others’ failures,I don’t forget.

          1. Surfdumb

            GBFM,
            You quoted me, but didn’t leave a question and I don’t want to use my decent powers of educated guessing to assume, but will answer a question if you have one.

            The rest seems about you, Deti, and Jack, and that’s the kind of thing I like to stay out of. Though I’m not a professional arbitrator or facilitator, if the three of you ask, I will consider it.

            If the three of you have issues with each other, then I certainly would like to see them resolved and see peace reign. We serve a mighty God who has overcome the world, so why fight?

            For myself, it would take a direct comment from them telling me about my manhood to take offense. If they made such a comment to you, then I hope you could ask them about it, even if they are the offending parties. They did misconstrued a comment I made about the website and all liked a comment that I received as, “shut up about us, and just focus on being the best you can be.” But I worded my initial query poorly and made it more clear, and it was better received, but I considered their feedback for a long time before replying and in that time I came to make peace with the idea that SF is mostly about advice, at least in the comments. It’s funny, Jack is an academic guy wanting to help men, but ends up with advice commenters, and Derek is an ideas guy with lots of citations and ends up with a lot of story-telling commenters. Neither blog has comments that mirror the original post. Obviously, you think differently, no problem, I am not trying to start an argument.

            I have nothing concrete to offer GBFM, but will make some sin-addled prayers for your evening. That’s the thing about not being a genius, I often leave things as messy as I found them, which definitely can be the wrong tact at times.

          2. professorGBFMtm

            ” We serve a mighty God who has overcome the world, so why fight?”

            When I started caring about the ‘sphere again around late 2019 and then re-entered it in February ’21 I thought the ‘sphere was tired of the same old same old years of barely surviving and like Scott kept saying in mid-23,I thought it was going to be the brotherhood it should have been from the start .

            After Jack’s and Sharkly’s laf started getting some of the kind of success that the ‘sphere used to get around 2013/’14, I started noticing it wasn’t going to be the brotherhood I thought it wanted to be.

            And that was before I left either site(I originally thought I should leave SF in April ’21 but stayed instead.

            It was just too much tension over the golden age red pill(with a more original hopeful white-pillish- outlook versus the current ‘sphere age outlook that’s blackpillish to say the least.

          3. Malcolm Reynolds

            > It’s funny, Jack is an academic guy wanting to help men, but ends up with advice commenters, and Derek is an ideas guy with lots of citations and ends up with a lot of story-telling commenters. Neither blog has comments that mirror the original post.

            Unsolicited advice and talking about themselves are both primary gamma tells. It’s deeply ingrained into the self-concept of those commenters that

            1. their own life story is deeply important to other randos on the Internet
            2. they will give life-changing advice to other randos on the Internet

            They don’t perceive that the average comment reader just scans comments for new ideas and links to new ideas from new sources they didn’t know yet and ignore everything else. That nobody actually takes advice from random comment writers nor cares about random life stories from 1969.

            This misconception is rooted in the para-social deception the Internet can create for really lonely people, that their brain tells them random handles on the Internet are their friends. They don’t realize that this is not reciprocated. That there are people out there with real friends in the meat world to exchange stories with and get advice from.

          4. Derek L. Ramsey

            MR,

            “They don’t perceive that the average comment reader just scans comments for new ideas and links to new ideas from new sources they didn’t know yet and ignore everything else. That nobody actually takes advice from random comment writers nor cares about random life stories from 1969.”

            I mostly don’t care about the stuff you mentioned. I explained why I write here. Of all the reasons I gave, the least likely reason for writing is #8: helping others. It happens, but probably not too often.

            That said, if your attempt was to discredit Jason’s comments and their relevance to readers here, you’re making a fool of yourself.

            Peace,
            DR

          5. professorGBFMtm

            ” That there are people out there with real friends in the meat world to exchange stories with and get advice from.”

            I encourage everyone to get advice from the gamma-blue-pilled chumps they know as does your SMP/MMP hero vox day to his oh-so-humble credit while wearing his boomer dad’s prison silk robe. Then they come gamma blue pill chump crying on the net they were ”tricked” by boomers, parents, and other church chumps like the church ladies.

            My ”story-telling” is to show how people reject the GREAT MEN in history who built civilization and they only have themselves to blame for the gamma chump hoes they get ”tricked” into marrying.

          6. Malcolm Reynolds

            I was quoting Surfdumb and referring to the phenomenon of lonely people’s brains in nursing homes confusing the sitcom characters on their TV screen for their friends and writing in to the station with their life stories and suggestions for the plot.

            The human brain is understood to be able to interact with up to 150 people in total, with the 5 people most interacted with being close relatives (who actually care). Screens are just not having a good effect on that social heuristic.

            I should have written 1869 to make the hyperbole more clear.

    2. Derek L. Ramsey

      “Pimping the faith into “rules” and “laws” and codexing it”

      Many are those who think this who read what I write and presume that I also believe this. I do not. It’s why I’ve spent so little time over the years giving actual advice. Rules and laws do not save in faith, and they do not save in relationships. Codexing is just an instance of bureaucratizing.

      A month or two ago when I read Bruce Charlton talking about the Gospel of John, he noted that Jesus didn’t spend time discussing rules and laws, but rather talked of love and friendship.

  11. Surfdumb

    While reading chapter 4 of proverbs, I thought of this post’s title, “Everyone is a genius.”

    There’s a funny scene in the Three Stooges episode, “Arabian Nuts” where Shemp rubs the magic lamp and calls the genie a genius instead, which is a joke about his character’s lack of smarts. “Hey Larry, you gotta see this, I rubbed the lamp and the genius gave me this suit.” I’m starting to like Shemp more than Curly as I get older.

    Proverbs 4, ” Listen, my sons, to a father’s instruction; pay attention and gain understanding. I give you sound learning, so do not forsake my teaching. When I was a boy in my father’s house, still tender, and an only child of my mother, he taught me and said, ‘Lay hold of my words with all your heart: keep my commands and you will live. Get wisdom, get understanding; do not forget my words or swerve from them. Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you. Wisdom is supreme, therefore get wisdom. ”

    The title is supposed to be snarky I assume, because I don’t recall any red piller claims to being a genius, or perhaps it’s intended to be a chiding rebuke at comments that come off as if one thinks themselves like a genius? I like to think we are all in agreement that intelligence has its limits and that the above Proverbs 4 verses is discussing a quality not described as intellectual. Is there agreement with that? Do you think Derek that yourself, Deti, and Jack, since they were mentioned earlier , also agree? I do. I will be surprised if you say yourself, or they, value testing smarts over wisdom.

  12. Derek L. Ramsey

    Surfdumb,

    “I have nothing concrete to offer GBFM, but will make some sin-addled prayers for your evening. That’s the thing about not being a genius, I often leave things as messy as I found them, which definitely can be the wrong tact at times.”

    Whatever else I may say below, what I appreciate with both you and Jason is that you both lead with your humility. I find your comments are always thought provoking and valuable.

    “At least when you say you are commenting at Sigma Frame, it’s because you disagree with the biblical interpretation of authority and want to correct brothers. That seems to me a good setup for discussion .”

    Jack has put me into moderation, this time for my viewpoints. I will not be commenting there anymore. I have no tolerance for ongoing censorship. Whether my prior discussions there were good or bad is debatable, but I won’t be doing that anymore. I will now keep my responses (if any) to my own blog, with minimal chance for setting up a good discussion. I hope I’m wrong about that.

    Also, I think Sharkly may be done interacting with me, so our annoying comments should be minimized. I don’t believe I have anything else to say on that topic, which everyone should be happy about. I think the bickering on this blog in particular will be minimized moving forward, but I’ll still be writing about what others say elsewhere.

    “Another possibility is something I mentioned before, which is, not getting involved in personal fights [..] I don’t like the idea of [anyone] being the topic of comments”

    This is well said. I admit that I do not rightly know how to balance this. I try to focus on the ideas that specific people share without ever attacking them personally, but at the same time I also spend much of my time responding directly to what individuals say, and this will always be inherently confrontational. That said, this post is different than my other posts, as you noted…

    “The title is supposed to be snarky I assume, because I don’t recall any red piller claims to being a genius, or perhaps it’s intended to be a chiding rebuke at comments that come off as if one thinks themselves like a genius?”

    …and Sharkly noted above. This is more meta and more figurative than what I usually write. This will not be a trend.

    Both Jason and the professor understood what I was trying to say. It is intended as a rebuke of overconfidence, and is my primary criticism of the manosphere. In my opinion, many personalities view themselves as a kind of infallible pope. It’s why I talk of Saint Dalrock. I’m concerned about personality cults. It is difficult to talk about personality cults without talking about the personalities. It is inherently personal. Some ideas are also personal!

    A while back at Sigma Frame I was criticized for making my arguments too impersonal, without catering to feelings. More recently I was criticized for arguing that we should avoid using personal anecdotes. While I, like you, prefer to avoid personal fights and bickering, my attempts to do so have been met with bickering! I would like to do as you say—and have done so successfully outside the manosphere—but is that what people really want?

    “Is married life, or singleness so sanctified in the US currently that we can argue instead of encourage each other?”

    By “argue” I mean debate a series of logical propositions focusing on specific contrary ideas. I don’t see that as antithetical to encouragement. That said, it’s obvious that the comments here by others (i.e. not myself and Sharkly) are far more encouraging than the articles themselves. I continue to write about what interests me, and the comments here continue to be what is interesting to the people who comment. Sometimes there is overlap, sometimes there isn’t. Men need a community where they can interact, and this is just a landing zone for a very small few.

    “I like to think we are all in agreement that intelligence has its limits and that the above Proverbs 4 verses is discussing a quality not described as intellectual. Is there agreement with that?”

    Yes I agree with you. You have explained it well. I do not value intelligence over wisdom, though I do value both. Over decades in the church, I have interacted with Christian men who almost certainly have a lower intelligence than I do, and by and large they have been the ones who have helped me the most. I value any humble men who are deep in the Word of God. There is great wisdom there.

    Peace,
    DR

  13. Pingback: Mutual Submission

  14. Lastmod

    From Journal entry October 16th 1989

    “……Clive from England came uninvited and and unannounced to my dorm room party. To his credit he brought a six pack of decent beer (Becks). He kept pulling and nicking cigarettes from all of us which was annoying, I mean, they are over $1.00 a pack now. Yikes…..

    Jen and Peter I think are hooking up, but it didnt matter because when Clive came in, every gal at my party (Jen, Julie, Courtney, Kari, Jody, and Janine) all were very interested in Clive. I will admit, him showing up to my party did give me a boost I guess in their eyes “Ooo look, Jason is friends with Clive” I think the only reason he came was because he likes my music, and knows my connections to the “olde country” (Britain). It was cool to have him over. I like how he is friends with everyone on campus. He doesnt care. If you are that good looking, you can get away with that I would suppose….

    I am the only guy on campus with a turntable. Everyone is switching to CDs from cassettes. The RA told me that if I “have a loud party like that again, he is going to write me up” . He’s a jerk. Salty prick.

    My next party I’m going to hook up my Nintendo to the stereo speakers and broadcast it loudly into the quad at 2AM. I’ll wake the whole campus up!

    The Who and The Beatles are still the best for parties like this. I did spin that new XTC album, and people liked it. Gotta go!”

    1. Lastmod

      Yeah, they were pretty good on the alternative scene. They were from Swindon, UK (The Fresno of England)

      In 1989, their most “commercial” album was released “Oranges and Lemons” and its profound Beatle influence is apparent here from the cover art to the neo-pop-psychedelia that was gaining popularity at that time.

      I have several of their albums, many are very good!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *