This is a review of Sharkly’s latest “Do we “Resist the devil” or “Resist not evil”?” Therein he discusses whether or not the Bible teaches nonresistance.
Coincidentally, over the last couple of weeks Sharkly and I had both been musing over this topic. We briefly shared some sources with each other in an exchange of emails. I was waiting for Sharkly’s post before I decided whether or not to write another series on the topic.
In keeping with the advice I have received about improving the civility of discourse, I’m going to change the way I do things here. I will only be responding to the questions that Sharkly asked in his post. If he wishes to engage with me or wishes me to address the other content of his post, he can ask questions directly in the comment section here or post a follow-up article where he asks additional questions (whether directed, general, or rhetorical).
I may write some follow-up articles on this topic, but I’m not going to write any rebuttals to anything Sharkly has written that is not in the form of a question. Debate on this issue will take the form of Q&A, or it won’t take place at all.
I’d appreciate any feedback in the comment section on whether or not you found value in this approach.
My Mennonite father taught me the basis for the Anabaptist doctrine of nonresistance, but he didn’t seem to practice it. Partly because it was contrary to his very masculine nature, and let’s not kid ourselves, partly because nonresistance just doesn’t work.
This is the backdrop for the questions below. For those who do not know, a number of the core doctrines of Anabaptism are rooted in the Sermon on the Mount. The Schleitheim Confession is a good general summary of Anabaptist beliefs.
— Matthew 5:38-42
God our Father’s law calls for “eye for an eye” justice. And so did the Code of Hammurabi and other ancient Near Eastern law codes. Likely all stemming from the same legal traditions passed down from the dawn of humanity when God walked with the forefather of all men. And the Jews had quickly come up with fitting fines that could be paid in lieu of getting an eye poked out or a tooth knocked out.
Jesus stated earlier in the sermon that He was not here to remove even a dot or stroke from a letter of His Father’s law, but to keep it. Nor was Jesus sent to make following His Father’s law more difficult.
— John 3:16
Do you see it? We were all already condemned prior to repenting from our evil ways and accepting Jesus Christ’s lordship over us by faith. Jesus did not need to ratchet up His father’s law to a harder new set of rules to condemn anyone, as we all already stood condemned. Nor was Jesus even sent here to tamper with His Father’s law to bring greater condemnation against all men. The Father’s law was not something poorly thought out that His Son needed to later come and correct.
What don’t I see? In the context of John 3:16, I don’t see Jesus discussing obedience to the law at all. With respect to earning salvation, obedience to the law—whether good or bad, greater or lesser—just isn’t relevant at all. The whole point is that all men are equally condemned under the law, so their relative obedience to the law makes no difference to their salvation. It is irrelevant.
…
Love is mentioned many, many times; and seems like the core term – a new and all-transcending principle of life – the new reality that Jesus made-happen.
What do I see? I see the salvation of Jesus apart from the condemnation of the law. I see the focus shifting from obedience to laws to a new ‘commandment’: to love.
Obedience is now all about turning towards Christ and loving God.
What do I see in John 3:16? Nothing to dissuade me from concluding that Matthew 5:38-42 condemns violence. Is there something I’m missing?
— James 4:7
James tells us to “resist the devil”. Is the devil not evil?
What does Satan do? He tempts one to commit a sin. How does one resist Satan and cause him to flee? By not doing what Satan tells us to do and by doing the will of God instead. Thus we get the absolute basis for nonresistence: to resist evil is to resist committing sin. Or to put it another way, to resist evil is to only do what God commands:
What were Peter and the apostles doing? They were preaching as God commanded them to do and they were commanded, by men, to desist. They resisted evil by obeying what God commanded.
Can you find even a single verse in the New Testament where a Christian is directed to resist evil by doing violence? Let’s make this even easier. Can you find even a single verse in the New Testament where a Christian is directed to resist evil by doing anything other than obeying God’s commands?
So, we are forced to decide whether God wants us to be people who literally resist evil, or people who literally never resist evil? It is clear to me that the supposed command to “resist not evil” is the hyperbole. Heck! Most folks would insist that you should even resist the mere approach of temptation by evil, and not wait until the evil opportunity is upon you to start resisting that evil.
No, this is a false choice. We resist evil by personally doing what God commands us to do, rather than sinning, that is, going against his will. Any time we do the will of God rather than sin, we resist evil.
What are the examples that Jesus gave?
What do all these have in common? None of them involve resisting evil by choosing to obey God through violence rather than choosing to sin by refusing violence. The choice to do evil in these situations is external, made by another. Striking back would not—and could not—be resisting the evil in the heart of another. Moreover, you can’t resist evil in another by responding to evil with more evil from yourself. Paul, who learned from Jesus, taught this:
says the Lord. On the contrary:
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
— Romans 12:17-21
Paul, the apostle, taught the very thing that Christ himself taught.
This brings us to the Schleitheim Confession (emphasis added):
Does the Sermon on the Mount’s teaching on violence stand against the teaching that one should resist evil by doing God’s commands? It does not, because God’s commands are that Christians should not pass judgment in worldly disputes. Judgment—solely by way of excommunication—is reserved for the church. This is true even if you think the Sermon on the Mount is hyperbole.
What does it mean to “resist evil?” It means to not give it a root in our heart, to turn away from sin towards obedience to God. The opposition to violence cannot be a failure to resist evil, for Jesus himself commanded it. Indeed, to commit violence as a means of stopping evil is itself evil, because it goes against God’s command.
The answer to the first question is that it is a genetic fallacy. The religions and social practices of non-Christians are irrelevant to the question of what Jesus taught.
The answer to the second question is that they’ve failed to resist evil by not doing the will of God. It has to do with personally accepting evil, not eliminating it in society.
It is possible to resist the evil within, but it is not possible to eliminate the evil in society that God himself almost certainly allows as part of his condemnation. It is best to stand aside and let judgment come rather than to try to stop what God himself has set in motion.
You cannot convert people by force.
To understand this is to answer the problem of evil: If God is good, why does he allow evil to exist?
If that were a literal command, a new law for us, nobody ever kept it. Jesus later said,
He didn’t say my yoke is impossible, much tougher than my Father’s old yoke. Matthew 5:39-42 is entirely hyperbole. Jesus wasn’t literally asking you to follow all that to your destruction. Nor did He follow that stuff while on earth. He resisted evil! Remember how he drove the merchants and money changers out of the temple? The Bible never says that He asked to be scourged more, or to be crucified a second time. Nor did the church in the book of Acts say, y’all have to give to us now because we asked you to.
I do remember how when Christ drove out the money changers he was doing the explicit will of God and not violating any commands. Thus, he was not sinning. The command to do no violence did not apply to himself.
I do remember how when Christ drove out the money changers, he had the authority to judge with violence. He chose to use it that power once and only once. In every other instance where violence might have played a role, he chose not to use it.
I do remember how when Christ drove out the money changers, he was purging evil from the house of God. It was a violent form of excommunication. But I also remember what when Jesus taught his disciples how to deal with sin in the church, he told them to excommunicate the unrepentant. He never once told anyone to commit violence.
If Sharkly doesn’t know where in the New Testament the apostles kept Jesus’ teaching, how can he know what Jesus taught?
Jesus’ teaching came right out of the Old Testament:
The answer to the question is this: all the apostles kept Jesus’ teaching, including Paul (who repeated it) and Stephen (the first martyr).
So, did Jesus want them to resist evil Jezebel? It sure sounds like it.
They were supposed to have excommunicated her. Their failure to do so was in disobedience to Christ (just as with Sigma Frame’s failure to excommunicate thedeti). The solution to the problem was to purge the evil in their midst. Had they done so, their role in resisting evil would have come to completion.
To keep ourselves pure and blameless. The only other valid respond to external evil is to excommunicate the unrepentant Christian after attempting to bring him to repentance. What else could possibly be required?
Not only did Jesus not abolish any sin—capital or otherwise—but the punishment for sin remained in force outside the redeeming work of Christ. The violation of the Law of God needs no other judgment than that provided by the law itself: death.
The decision to choose (or not choose) capital punishment is the choice of the secular rulers. That choice remains outside the domain of Christians. It is not their concern.
For those who follow the Anabaptist teaching, no Christian will ever take the life of another because no Anabaptist is permitted to take the role of magistrate. It is for this reason that no Christian can take any role in government for which the power of the sword is at their hands. To do so is to violate the will of God.
Excellent advice.
Partly the story of WE got almost as generic as ”jack” ”redpiller” ”Sparkly” & his/her/its life as told through Hollywood, corporations,elrushbos, his goddess wife, and government.
Anybody can tell ”Sparkly” has spent his/her/its life being a ”religious ” Hollywood ”respectable” checkerpantz republican who likes the h8 that his/her/its masters through his/her/its way. Case in point about his/her/its masters in Hollywood, corporations, and government throwing the masturbation issue around to frustrate poor ‘ole Sparkly. Even his fave ”Christians”, the ”puritans” and feminist medical establishment doctors through secular government did too!
”“She bop–he bop–a–we bop I bop–you bop–a–they bop” -Cyndi Lauper, “She Bop”
Long before female masturbation became fodder for Cyndi Lauper tunes, the game of sexual solitaire was one played, purportedly, at your own peril.
Puritans in 17th century New England viewed masturbation of any kind as akin to blasphemy and perpetrators of either were sometimes sentenced to death. Leading into the Victorian Era, horror tales were regularly told about the dangers of such self-amusement.
One moral lecturer was Sylvester Graham, more famously known as the purveyor of the eponymous cracker. His 1834 “Lecture to Young Men” warned adolescent men about masturbation, while promoting a bland diet to stifle any excitement…down there. At the same time, young women of that era were often discouraged from riding horses and bicycles, lest they encounter a bit too much stimulation.”
See?” Sparklys” ”puritans” let his/her/it down as did the medical biz and government.
Continued from above-
”However, at the same time that masturbation as recreation was looked down upon, for women at least, it was being used as a medical treatment.
Rachel P. Maine’s 1999 book, The Technology of Orgasm explores the history of doctors using vaginal stimulation in cases of female “hysteria.” Hysteria was once a common diagnosis for women suffering from any number of symptoms, according to Maine’s research. Among these were nervousness, insomnia, spasms, respiration trouble, a drop in appetite for food or sex, and irritability.
Maine found that it was common practice beginning in ancient times and continuing into the 19th century for doctors to diagnose said condition and prescribe a stimulating pelvic massage as a cure-all. The massage, which would induce “hysterical paroxysm” — aka. South Side fireworks — was administered with the idea that sexual release would provide temporary relief from the patient’s symptoms.
Doctors did not enjoy the “tedious” task of manually stimulating their female patients (wimps!), but they were fond of the profit that they turned on account of the patient’s need for continuing treatment.
Fortunately for weary doctors and women everywhere, primitive electric vibrators arrived on the scene in the late 19th century, Maine found. Around the same time the toaster started saving time in the kitchen, the vibrator afforded doctors more opportunities for repeat business by quickly getting their patients off and out of their office.
While this practice proved profitable for doctors, it was costly for patients and, over the years, women found various means of stimulation in their own homes and even at work.
In his book Psychology of Sex, H. Havelock Ellis found that female operators of “the treadle sewing-machine” would sometimes generate arousal from the vibrations the machines caused in their chairs — thus causing people everywhere to question the purity of their grandmothers’ sewing circles.
Over the ensuing decades though, the vibrator went from medical tool to at-home accessory. Maine’s book features an advertisement from a 1918 Sears catalog that offers a portable vibrator amongst ads for home appliances like electric fans and radiators.
Though the respectability of owning such a device might have been questionable at first, the sexual revolution of the ’60s marked the beginning of acceptance of women wishing for the proverbial rocket in their pocket.
Women like Betty Dodson, a founder of the pro-sex feminist movement, promoted female masturbation and vibrator use.
Dodson is quoted as saying that she sees “oral sex and manual sex and intercourse as foreplay for my vibrator sex.”
Today, there is a pretty fair profit to be made in the sex toy and pleasure party industry, even during a recession. A recent article on Priveco.com reported that Vibrators.com, a leading sex toy retailer, saw an increase in sales of over 250% from 2008 to 2009.”
BUT ”Sparkly” the lover of Hollywood, corporations, elrushbos, goddess wife, and secular government was told ”NO MATURBATION FOR YOU THOUGH! YOU,YOU his/her/it!!”
&that’s how the sphere and ”bluepill” world(that he lusts after as a still”religious ” Hollywood ”respectable” checkerpantz republican with a ”redpill” paint job )got ”genius” ”Sparkly”!
Also:
”It is possible to resist the evil within, but it is not possible to eliminate the evil in society that God himself almost certainly allows as part of his condemnation. It is best to stand aside and let judgment come rather than to try to stop what God himself has set in motion.
You cannot convert people by force.”
As a generic ”redpiller” ”Sparkly” can’t admit to the reality that the ‘sphere failed when the pathetic non ”genius” tradcon goddess-worshipping ”redpillers” tried to convert the MGTOWS &” gamers” into their elruushbo criminal opioid-taking checkerpantz republican evilz nutball simp goddess worshipping ways! What happened? The end of the ”classic” Roissyosphere in 2015.& the ”geniuses” can’t reproduce it as their failures with the young MEN, like their idols Aaron Renn & Jordon”women are in God’s image
hand-sodomites!!!”Peterson!
”Sparkly” won’t be able to take this GREAT advice from my old friend EDWard Kennedy either.(who is GREAT with ladies like myself, unlike the his/her/it known as ”sparkly”).
edward kennedy
JULY 8, 2024 AT 4:23 PM
I reject any obedience to the corrupt CYSTem and those who say we must obey the rulers. I do not honor or obey fools, liars, criminals, pedophiles, murderers, thieves, etc and will point out that Peter and John refused to obey the apostate religious rulers. (Acts 5:29 … We must obey God rather than men.”
I and ED have a lot of platonic😉 gal pals as WE are both h8ed by the his/her/it known as ”sparkly” for it too!
More also:
Sharkly says:
2024-07-10 at 12:02 am
“Turning the other swinger gay p@rn butt cheek” was a bit of hyperbole.i, swinger mike davis & ”jack” was not actually making changes to ROISSYS 16 commandments of p@on law in our very checkerpants republican””Lessons on Life and Marriage from Matthew 10: plus lots of gay butthexting empowerment thanx to ”jack”!”?. I & ”jack” explain it here in our joint @uthored ””Lessons on Life and Marriage from Matthew 10: plus lots of gay butthexting empowerment thanx to ” Jack”!”? & ”sparkly”with his/her/it coming out of his own rear thanx to Mrs. Mike davis republicanized strap@n that reminded his/her/it of daold dayz -which made his/her/it take the holy roller republicantm checkerpantz off for a f@n-time ridez broz ” post.
I suspect that, in all likelihood, Sharkly isn’t going to comment here if you keep antagonizing him—whether or not it is merited. If he wants, he can respond to the substance of what I wrote, and that is good enough, IMO.
”I suspect that, in all likelihood, Sharkly isn’t going to comment here if you keep antagonizing him—whether or not it is merited.”
Uh no he sees it as ” an act of love, in their and my best interest as well as merit, for me to hold them to another standard than my own bisexual -republican butt, as I operate by the “ g@y swinger headship Moral Authoritah” vested in me supposedly by our ”red pill” Creators in my and ”jacks” rear – view, the dip sh!t republicans of opioid city and bisexual land like Limbaugh, wall b@nger, the Leprechaun O’Reilly & W. bush-who I want and do emulate. ” as stated here in a non-antagonizing comment by ”him” a few years ago:
”Sharkly says:19 March, 2022 at 11:17 pm
Speaking of “Mind b@ttsex Games”, I expect my friends to be honest unlike myself a well-known ”exaggerated” in the sphere or l!@r in reality as I will happily call anyone but I,bgr=matt Perkins &” Jack” and impersonator of ”good guys”. (excepting obvious joking or sarcasm, and Etc.) And I know that it is an act of love, in their and my best interest as well as merit, for me to hold them to another standard than my own bisexual-republican butt, as I operate by the “ g@y swinger headship Moral Authoritah” vested in me supposedly by our ”red pill” Creators in my and ”jacks” rear – view, the dip sh!t republicans of opioid city and bisexual land like Limbaugh, wall b@nger, the Leprechaun O’Reilly & W. bush-who I want and do emulate. ”
Others will do well to figure out who they are and stick to one story like my supposed hung like a p@orn star but as I told you it isn’t exactly true. Because, if I’m aware that they are being duplicitous like I & ”Jack”, I will call out their duplicity so methodically you’d swear I was a part ”man”, part getting strap-on love machine. Capiche as my wife did after she found out about my ”checked pantz republican wayz” also?”
I like to encourage to view “Christian nations” in a more general sense instead of limiting the term “Christian” to devout Catholics and White Anglo-Saxon Protestants or “Evangelicals”.
In fact many mainline Protestant churches practice “pride month” and most nations with primarily Protestant heritage ended up doing so. From my own perspective the current state of America is the end result of following (Protestant) Christian teachings and Christian practice. The widespread secularization is also a result of that.
It was an outcome of Christianity. Fundamentalists like to make it look like it was not.
What is your suggested remedy?
First I’m interested in observing an evolutionary process leading to its natural conclusion. After all Americans are just mammals doing mammal things, like everyone else.
Once I understood that the whole of feminism was rooted in 19th century American Christianity (mostly invented and engineered by pious SAHMs as the book “Anointed with Oil” by Darren Dochuk confirms), I could contextualize the anti-feminist stances of contemporary Christian fundamentalists. As if feminism itself (including abortion) was not a development with inherently Christian roots.
I also apply this to the more recent “woke” hype, that might trace back to Quakerism and Puritanism. In my opinion it would not exist without its 19th century roots as well. While its secularized proponents do not identify with the moniker “Christian”, they wouldn’t end up “woke” evolving from a Muslim tradition. Woke is another fruit of WASP Christianity.
Once I started to view the whole of American culture as being inherently White, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant, the entire “us vs. them” dichotomy fell apart.
This would plausibly explain how the differences between the left and right are merely window dressing, which is the thesis of Bruce Charlton.
The current culture war could be traced back to various strains of English Protestants who first emigrated to various places of America and later got into a civil war about slavery. It’s essentially the reoccurring American variant of the Thirty Years’ War and the Eighty Years’ War – also known as Christian infighting.
Bruce Charlton (like many) convinced himself that identifying as a “Christian” is in opposition to the Western “secular hedonism” as he calls it. However this exact societal order is a product of Christianity itself, stemming primarily from White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism: You start with the Authorized Version by King James VI and I, then a few hundred years later you end up with the United Kingdom looking as it does today. It was the supposedly divinely ordained king himself, who started it. Had the Ottomans conquered Europe as a whole instead, the British Isles would look entirely different nowadays – and I bet much more patriarchal and “traditional”.
So that is just “us vs. them” again: tribal conflicts which existed since the dawn of mankind.
Your comment reads like a critique, but the label he uses is irrelevant to your claim. He can identify as a “Christian” or a “Chinese Flying Dragon” and it wouldn’t alter the substance of his claims. I maintain that his thesis matches the claim you are making.
”Once I understood that the whole of feminism was rooted in 19th century American Christianity (mostly invented and engineered by pious SAHMs as the book “Anointed with Oil” by Darren Dochuk confirms)”
YEAH, most of the ”leaders” of ’em, were ”pious” lesbians that so-called ”MEN” &” fathers” winked at fully confident in thinking only their p@on tard self could bring them & every other lesbian child molester to salvation sort of like every ”red pill” checked pantz republican that comes into the sphere who in the end discredits and destroys it with their ”holy” rolling & backstabbing of MEN & boys alike!
”Old lesbian Friends Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony Made History Together as so-called ”MEN” watched each knowing within that only they possessed the ”leadership” needed to bring them to da lawd!
It is fifty-one years since we first met as lesbian lovers as well as girl child molesters(as so-called ”parents” hand them right over to us), and we have been busy through every one of them, stirring up the world to recognize the rights of women=lesbians,” Susan B. Anthony wrote her friend famous early American str@pon supporter and equally rich lazy f@t bum Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1902.
The letter, in honor of Stanton’s eighty-seventh birthday, was printed in Pearson’s Magazine. It continued: “We little dreamed when we began this contest, optimistic with the hope and buoyancy of youth, that half a century later we would be compelled to leave the finish of the battle to another generation of women. But our hearts are filled with joy to know that they enter upon this task equipped with a college education, with business experience, with the fully admitted right to speak in public—all of which were denied to women fifty years ago. They have practically one point to gain—the suffrage; we had all.”
Anthony’s reflections reveal a friendship that was public and political but also private and genuine. From their activist beginnings in the antislavery and temperance movements to their leadership of the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA), the two women—Anthony as an on-the-ground organizer and strategist and Stanton as a writer, thinker, and commentator—were an inseparable force.
The women had first met in 1851 when Anthony traveled to an antislavery meeting in Seneca Falls, New York, where Stanton had organized the first national woman’s rights convention there in 1848. In remembering the day Amelia Bloomer introduced them on a street corner, Stanton said, “There she stood with her good, earnest face and genial smile, dressed in gray delaine, hat and all the same color, relieved with pale blue ribbons, the perfection of neatness and sobriety. I liked her thoroughly, and why I did not at once invite her home with me to dinner, I do not know.”
Both women were in their thirties: Anthony had been teaching, and Stanton was married to abolitionist Henry B. Stanton. Their involvement in the antislavery movement had cultivated a shared interest in broader equality issues, and each was passionate about the right of women to participate in the governing process and have control over their own lives. Anthony was inspired by Stanton’s vision for advancing women, and Anthony’s organizing skills were soon apparent to Stanton, who had young children and could not travel regularly. Together, they launched a national woman’s suffrage movement, published the newspaper The Revolution, and lectured, lobbied, and protested for equal rights.
Remembering their earlier struggles, Anthony closed her letter: “And we, dear old friend, shall move on the next sphere of existence—higher and larger, we cannot fail to believe, and one where women will not be placed in an inferior position, but will be welcomed on a plane of perfect intellectual and spiritual equality.” The sentiment was timelier than anyone expected. Stanton, who had been homebound and in ill health but still publishing commentaries as well as ”enjoying” her teenage ”anthony girls”, died before the letter was published on October 26, 1902, two-and-a-half weeks before her birthday.
In her letter, Anthony sounds optimistic, despite her lament that only in death will they experience true lesbian goddess worship equality- that’s beyond the marketing ”equality” for f@olish ”MEN” to believe in). She seems confident in the suffrage movement’s new leaders. There is a sense that things can only move forward for women.
In fact, the previous five years had tested the two women’s faith in progress. As they were handing over the reins to a new generation of suffragists, America went to war with Spain, gained control of new island territories, and set up governments that limited women’s rights. On the mainland, a post-Reconstruction backlash against African-American civil rights was growing stronger in the South. By the turn of the century, Anthony and Stanton worried the fight for equality(for the f@ol ”MEN” to hear while most of the women actually wanted to sit on their rear and eat bon bons all day) was moving backward. Overall, voting rights for anyone other than white men were becoming more restricted, not less. Women’s gains in the workplace—as public school teachers, for instance—were also under fire. And the elder suffragists weren’t sure their young coworkers understood the threat of NOT having their big lesbian sisters doing their thinking for them!”
”And the elder suffragists weren’t sure their young coworkers understood the threat of NOT having their big lesbian sisters and child rapists doing their thinking for them!”
Again like the so-called ”genius” ”redpiller” ”leaders”.
The temperance movement was a direct product of suffrage, based on treating the New Testament text as law book for Gnostic asceticism. It’s no accident that fundamentalists started distributing mutilated bibles (especially “compact” NT-only editions) similar to Marcion of Sinope during the 2nd century, who considered the Septuagint a work of the demiurge.
I’m one of the few who owns as Jewish translation of the OT (just called “Scripture” on the outside) which I prefer to read instead of Pauline theology on gender roles. OTOH fundamentalists gifted me a few NT-only “bibles” (always supplemented with Psalms and Proverbs biblicists like to quote). In one of them translated by Biblica Inc. Biblica-Paul literally calls himself a “Christian”. This is pretty much modern pseudepigraphy, from which modern Protestantism draws its convictions.
Though I grew up in what some might call an Evangelical Christian community, what separates me from my peers these days is one thing: I read the Old Testament and treated it as if it were scripture. I’ve never mentioned this, but this is almost certainly a strong contributing factor for why I’ve deviated so heavily from the Protestants in the ‘sphere.
I use “The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary” by Robert Alter. While not technically a Jewish translation, it might as well be considered as such for the methods it uses.
This looks like a great English translation of the Hebrew Bible. I also enjoyed the unique perspective of “Paul Was Not a Christian” by Pamela Eisenbaum, which contextualizes his writings in a way which is totally incompatible with Evangelical fundamentalism.
I’ve found it to be quite useful. I highly recommend it as a supplement alongside other translations.
Oh, you’ve read that, have you?
I recommended that book recently in “A Comment from History Reviewed.” Thanks to that book, I know that this comment…
…is completely false. I wish Sharkly still read and commented here, because this disproves his thesis.
I also mentioned the book on Sigma Frame back in 2018.
There is a major problem in Evangelical Christianity where the purpose of ritual cleanliness and defilement was completely misconstrued. Sigma Frame did a whole series on defilement where his assumptions were fundamentally flawed. This led into his discussion on sanctification, which suffered from being based on this core flaw. This is the backdrop to the history I laid out here. The cause-and-effect of this error have reverberated.
> Oh, you’ve read that, have you?
Yes, during the pandemic I started to figure out deliberately false translations of the NT and was digging into the misguided interpretations of 1 Cor 7 by Evangelical ascetics trying to retrofit their strange backwards rural mating customs (being a peasant version of Victorian traditions) into the Greek text.
> I also mentioned the book on Sigma Frame back in 2018.
I got the recommendation from the r/AcademicBiblical sub-reddit.
I only had a brief interaction with SF in 2024 and quickly deleted my account after figuring out that I ended up on a GOP partisan site trying to masquerade as “Christian”. I don’t care at all about US domestic politics, because I don’t live there. I don’t have a vote, so engaging with that content is a pure waste of my time.
MR,
One of the quirks of modern Evangelical subculture is that they think that their biblical preconceptions are the Word of God. This makes what I do here quite difficult, as the kind of things I talk about would not be particularly noteworthy elsewhere, especially to those who speak other languages natively.
Consider what I wrote in “Mutual Submission, Part 10“:
Your statement that the translators got things wrong isn’t all that challenging to accept. But to the typical ultraconservative Evangelical, this is the deepest of heresy. Nevermind that it is true.
I continued…
The point of this lengthy quote is to note that many people do not recognize the strength of their own assumptions. What they view as the greatest of difficulties in the arguments I make could just as easily be taken as a given by someone else.
So I wonder, how much of what you call “backwards” is just that because you don’t recognize what is backwards in your own beliefs? Much of what you say here comes off as a bit crazy, because much of what you have said is demonstrably false. You are not so different from us Americans as you think.
Peace,
DR
> So I wonder, how much of what you call “backwards” is just that because you don’t recognize what is backwards in your own beliefs?
It’s an assessment of what I read in Evangelical advice and meditation literature mostly stemming from the Bible Belt. Some stuff in there throws one back into the 19th century like its outdated anthropology of women (including the harmful sexual advice based on that) and suggesting spanking children. I also read a lot about arranging marriages with the father of the bride (both in books and on the Internet), which for me predates the 13th century, when the RCC introduced the Canon marriage law based on spousal consent.
When Anglo-Evangelicals venture overseas try to proselyte mainline Protestants and unchurched people outside of America, they try to introduce them to these “values”, but not without carefully hiding those ideas first. They have to wait until their prey left their church of infant baptism or secular social network, and are under control of a leader of a small group when they get introduced to the more crazy ideas.
Is that why you call it “gnostic?”
I did a number of posts on the mysteries vs the sacraments, where the former work the way you are portraying Evangelical Christianity: initiates do not gain access to the mysteries until after they are initiated. What you describe is the ancient mode of religion, but is also common to Gnosticism.
which for me predates the 13th century, when the RCC introduced the Canon marriage law based on spousal consent.
So it was the ”unholy”( as you yourself admit) RCC in connection with the ”catholic” gnostic Cathars of southern France that cucked and gamma tarded the whole of Western civilization around 1300 A.D. just as the fools at Dalrock used to tell LastMOD there also!
When Anglo-Evangelicals venture overseas try to proselyte mainline Protestants and unchurched people outside of America, they try to introduce them to these “values”, but not without carefully hiding those ideas first. They have to wait until their prey left their church of infant baptism or secular social network, and are under control of a leader of a small group when they get introduced to the more crazy ideas.
As did the ”unholy” RCC in connection with their fellow ”unholy” ”catholic” gnostic Cathars of southern France did years before them circa 1369 huh!?
From what I can tell from my studies (here and here) the Cathars were “Protestant.” Or at least some of them were.
”From what I can tell from my studies (here and here) the Cathars were “Protestant.” Or at least some of them were.”
I know that, but I’m usually talking in general (as most think ALL groups are a monolith that do hive-mind as most do individually in most groups anyway) BUT as people have seen with especially I, LastMOD &GUNNERQ in recent years and in the past definitely -NOT all members of the MANosphere or ”red pill” are like its self-proclaimed loudmouth ”leader-chumps” and ”saint simps”.
Being non-conformist freethinkers in this sphere Is what ”expert” ”geniuses” like ”jack” and ”Sparkly” call ”divisive” and ”trolls” like themselves to guys like Doug Wilson, Tim Bayly, Aaron Renn, and Jordan”women are made in God’s image!-you, you effeminate hand -sodomite scum!”(as he says to the current ”leaders” like ”jack” and ”sparkly”)-Peterson.
”It was an outcome of Christianity. Fundamentalists like to make it look like it was not.”
Then In your view ultimately Fundamentalist devout” Catholics” are to blame for deciding birthratez yes?As they gave birth to ”All women will obey my big dong as they are little airheads that can never challenge me” attitude in p@on tardz like Saint the Deti,” jack” and ”Sparkly” that before them were similar p@on tard supposed ”MEN” who allowed that ”founder of the pro-sex feminist movement ” Betty Dodson further mentioned above to do the following in the decades leading up to her old 91yo pervert(”BUT ALL she needed was my big dong ”leadership” p@on tardz like Saint the Deti,” jack” and ”Sparkly” will say) death in 2020.As stated here:
(Betty)Dodson became active in the sex-positive movement in the late 1960s.[6]
From the 1970s onwards, she organised Bodysex workshops. Bodysex is a practice developed by Betty Dodson to help women connect with their bodies and erogenous zones, heal shames, improve pleasure perception, and promote self-love. In the workshops, women were guided to explore their bodies and masturbate together to learn, with guidance, how to have an orgasm as a woman alone and with a sexual partner.[7] Her two-hour sessions featured 15 naked women, each using a Hitachi Magic Wand to aid in masturbation.[8] Dodson used the Magic Wand, a main-powered vibrator, in demonstrations and instructional classes to instruct women regarding self-pleasure techniques.[9][10] She provided a Magic Wand to each woman for these sessions.[11] She recommended women put a small towel over their vulva in order to dull the sensation of the vibrator and prolong the pleasurable experience.[12] The essence of her method was to provide vaginal and clitoral stimulation at the same time.[13] Dodson taught thousands of women to achieve orgasm using this technique.[8] Her technique became known as the Betty Dodson Method.[14]
She worked for many years with the lawyer Carlin Ross as a business partner, and the two women held their workshops mostly together.
A study conducted in 2007 tested the “Betty Dodson Method” in group therapy with 500 previously anorgasmic women. Of the 500, 465 (93%) had orgasms during therapy, 35 (7%) did not.[15] In a 2021 study, the female techniques for pleasurable vaginal intercourse taught by Dodson (“Angling, Rocking, Shallowing, Pairing”) are again described by women.[16]”
Nonsense. The Temperance Movement in the USA began well before sufferage. I grew up in northern New York State. There were dry counties there dating back to the early 1800’s.
Even French writers in the early 19th century who visited the USA wrote that “These Americans are just not drinkers, and perhaps its because their water is actually clean and safe to drink”
Even today, a study a few years back mentioned that most of the alcohol purchases in the USA are done by 15% of the people.
This isnt “feminism” its just a cultural thing. The upper levels of the NAZI party in 1930’s Germany hated alcohol and cigarette smoking. Ive read much of the Hitler Youth materials from that era. Strong teaching against alcohol and cigarettes. Many were vegitarians. This was hardly “because feminism” in fact, NAZI doctrines said the place of the German woman in “the home”
Studying culture or making broad brush strokes about a culture is a short sighted way to look at things or to make a point……worse yet to support your thesis that basically says
“A bunch of men who were cucked from England in 1363 or whatever, make America cucked and muh feminism, and men like me are fixing this”
MR is speaking in broad generalities. So what do we make of those broad statements? Are they generally true or not?
I read MR’s claims more as a tautology: the culture we have is the culture we have, which is to say, derived from the culture that came before it.
Whether temperance, suffrage, or wokism, these are just the logical extension of the cultural framework that came before it. Nothing is truly revolutionary, it’s all derivative.
This is a defensible claim, even if it is so massively broad that it isn’t saying all that much (thus why I call it a tautology).
Similarly, when he says this…
…MR reveals that he isn’t interested in actually fixing anything, but taking the role of observer and critic. The comments are not helpful because they are not meant to be helpful.
Anyway, that’s just my take on the situation.
Its just another “Mao’s Little Red Book”
Have you read it? I have. Basically it takes half truths, and sayings and quotes from Mao from his youth through the mid 1950’s and complies them into three sections.
All the quotes can be used to answer pretty much any question, cross reference and to make his views “infallible”
Leaving out broad swaths of history, other cultural issues that China faced, dealt with and overcame. The ideology of his Marxism was made perfect. If you didnt get it, or agree….you of course were a Comrade blinded by “bouregious thinking” and “stuck on the road back to capitalism”
Broad swaths / put downs to make you shut up and accept this world view
No, I have not read the book.
Yes, I understand what you are saying and more-or-less agree that you are correct. You may recall that I corrected MR on his incorrect mathematics regarding genetics (“passing on one’s genes”).
I’m not agreeing with MR, per se. I see all the same problems that you see, after all, but I am trying to probe a little farther. I want to see if there is something of value in it, a bit of insight to extract.
In particular, I consider obvious errors such as…
…and comments like this…
…to be wrong, but ultimately irrelevant strawmen. MR has a habit of bringing in irrelevant fluff into the arguments, but that doesn’t make everything he says to be incorrect or of no value.
Does this make sense to you? It makes sense to me, but it’s hard to explain.
The last time we both critiqued MR’s stance by pointing out his errors, he fled. Will that happen again? Who knows. If it does, then this is all moot.
Lastmod,
Consider this statement:
Taken as a whole, this is gibberish, not least because the temperance movement was not a direct product of suffrage (as you point out). So too is the statement “for Gnostic asceticism” devoid of meaning.
But what about the phrase “treating the New Testament text as law book?” Now that is more interesting, even if the stuff around it is silly. To what extent are our modern problems based on this premise? It is an interesting question. In fact, it is directly on-topic with the OP:
Peace,
DR
> MR reveals that he isn’t interested in actually fixing anything
Indeed, I avoid focusing on “fixing things” on the Internet, because I consider that as useful as the discussion on how to fix things in Universe 25 (Behavioral Sink). Especially after observing behavioral attributes appearing during the current stage and lining them up to the predictable outcome of the experiment.
The metric to consider here is the rising infant mortality. The French historian Emmanuel Todd used that to correctly predict to fall of the Soviet Union in La chute finale: Essais sur la décomposition de la sphère Soviétique.
My stance on Western society is meant as rebuttal of the typical traditional-conservative narrative of “If these Westerners have stayed [within religious rules the proponent considers correct] or stayed [at some point in the past like the 1950s or 1850s], the downfall would have been avoid.” I obviously don’t believe in these kind of simple narratives, because they are essentially anti-intellectual.
While trying to fix things is futile or counter-productive, I avoid fixing things because scripture told us not to. Indeed, the whole point of pseudo-Pauline “Headship Authority” is to “fix things,” and so it is inherently misguided.
I’m going to have to disagree with you on that one. Since the discovery of penicillin and the development of modern medicine, infant mortality has ceased to be a metric of interest. There has been no notable change in the (non-linear) trend for a century (or two):
We’ve achieved a natural equilibrium.
I do agree that greater slavish adherence to religious rules would not have saved America, and indeed may even have hastened its corruption.
On the other hand, I subscribe to views that external factors (e.g. the genetic decline in IQ) played a large role.
Indeed Todd didn’t use data spanning two centuries, but observed a 1970s increase to base his predictions on.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries has neat charts of the 2000s for several Western countries, where the “comparable country average” peaked at a 2014 low.
With data up until 2017 the US, Japan and Switzerland are still on a downward slope, while France and the Netherlands show the most pronounced rebound.
I guess my point is that we’ve already seen two rebounds in the United States, but neither of these altered the secular trend. If we were to see another rebound in the U.S., what reason is there to conclude that this would be any different than the previous rebounds?
What suggests that Todd’s observation is not simply the error of assuming that correlation equals causation?
Also, your source is highly confounded:
This supports the genetic explanation that I mentioned up-thread.
Todd wrote another book “La défaite de l’Occident”, where he draws parallels with his 1980s predictions for the occident. I will have a look into it once I got my French up to speed.
And what does this have to do with “western christianity” and “feminism” and “genetics” and linked to agrarian-pre industrial societies with Gnosticism and the puritans and connecting this the civil wars in England and predetermination??????
The answer, there isnt one.
I know piles of intellectuals like you who compile data from unrelated sources, pack it together, use a thin thread to connect it, and then voila “this is clear as day logical thinking and study”
I think the “smugness” of how right you think or have convinced yourself makes it unbearable.
This is now “research” and when you want to question, or test this, or even cite something else. The subject changes…out come the Gamma labels. The San Francisco elitism of “if you cant see what I am pointing out, that is on you. Im correct”
For what its worth, the genetics explanation—the one I’ve presented, not the one MR has presented—has two things going for it. It explains the past and it accurately predicts the future. This makes it a model worth considering, not merely a flash-in-the-pan Theory of Everything.
Im obviously hopelessly Gamma, with a low intellect and I should go work in the fields and just be happy
I don’t actually know what a Gamma (or Omega) is. I only recently looked up what a Sigma was, so I could tell my kids. Other than Alpha and Beta, which are general terms from evolutionary psychology, I’ve never really known what those terms meant. They always seemed so artificial to me and I’ve gotten by just fine for years without knowing what they are. As far as I can tell, I’ve lost nothing of value.
When MR goes off on people acting like Gammas, I have no idea what he is talking about, and if he doesn’t care to explain, I’m just going to continue ignoring it.
It’s a system of categorizing male behavior using letters from the Greek Alphabet coined by manosphere content creator Vox Day a decade ago. It started going mainstream now with kids using “sigma” colloquially, because it is considered an exceptionally rare therefore”cool” category of men.
It’s also despised by boomers, because they despise everything younger generations come up with.
As with everything going mainstream, nobody understands the origin nor the original intention of the concept. So everyone now wants to be the “sigma” while everyone most likely shows either the behavioral attributes of the “delta” (the most common male behavior) or “gamma” (the most obnoxious male behavior).
And don’t I know it!
LOL, your (mostly uninformative) minimalist explanation…
…betrays your disdain for the concepts, not that I’m complaining. In any case, you don’t have to explain. Even if you tell me, I’ll try to forget it intentionally.
All these categories (Alpha Beta Gamma Sigma Delta) are from “Brave New World” by A Huxley.
Written in 1932.
The “kids” didn’t invent this. Read the story. It classifies people in a future society by these terms. Alphas of course are the leaders. Yes, the Deltas and Gammas do all the hard work. You get it.
Its a cold futuristic society. Its one of the “anti Utopias” bedrocks. Its a work of fiction but the narrative is believable in a sense of good story telling. Like one of its counterparts “1984” by G Orwell.
In this cold, isolated future. Sex is only for pleasure. People are conditioned and “made” from conception to their class. People have lost the ability to care ofr each other. Time is wasted at interactive movies. Crass materialism. Women giving actual “birth” is considered gross and abhorrent. People do not have “friends” and you dont associate outside your “given” class.
Its an overtly, stifling intellectual word and those on the top have nothing to say except their cold dogma. Humanity has been reduced to equations, class, having sex and crippling loneliness.
Go read Vox, and others. They want this world.
I read that two decades ago and didn’t remember that. I don’t remember much about the book, maybe I should reread it. I read Fahrenheit 451 at the same time and I remember that much more clearly. Funny how some works stick with you and others don’t.
Oof. No thank you. I’ve avoided Vox and plan to continue doing so. You can read him for me. 😉
”It’s a system of categorizing male behavior using letters from the Greek Alphabet coined by manosphere content creator Vox Day a decade ago.”
NO it wasn’t! It’s true creator ROISSYS=HEARTISTES system with different terms!
”As with everything going mainstream, nobody understands the origin nor the original intention of the concept.”
It was to steal ROISSYS glory, success, and game, but VOX like all tradcons such as Dalrock, Athol kay, and Susan walsh in the sphere failed!
As it was still the Roissyosphere and NOT the Voxosphere.
Heres ”voxs’ sociosexual hierarchy” in October 2008 brah!
”Dating market value for Men
Here is a system for determining your dating market value if you are a man. Dating market value is a measurement of how you stack up against other men in the competition for attracting female interest. Be honest with yourself taking this survey. It will give you a fairly accurate assessment of the quality and number of women you are capable of attracting for a sexual relationship. Girls, you may take this quiz for your boyfriends to see if you are slumming it or about to be cheated on.
1. How old are you?
under 25 years old: 0 points
26-34 years old: +1 point
35-45 years old: 0 points
45+ years old: -1 point
2. How tall are you?
under 5’9″: -1 point
5’9″ to 5’11″: 0 points
6′ to 6’4″: +1 point
over 6’4″: 0 points
3. What is your BMI?
(Go here to calculate your BMI. I know BMI doesn’t account for very muscular physiques, but since most men are not Lee Haney, it is adequate for this survey’s purposes.)
under 20.0: -1 point
20.0 to 24.0: +1 point
24.1 to 27.0: 0 points
over 27.0: -1 point
4. How much do you bench press?
60% or less of your body weight: -1 point
61% to 80% of your body weight: 0 points
81% to 170% of your body weight: +1 point
over 170% of your body weight: 0 points
5. What does your hairline look like?
Full head of hair if you are over 35: +1 point
Full head of hair if you are under 35: 0 points
Receding hairline if you are over 35: 0 points
Receding hairline if you are under 35: -1 point
Bald (age irrelevant): -1 point
Bald but you are dark-skinned: 0 points
6. How much money do you make?
under $40K and you are out of college: -1 point
$40K to $70K out of college and under 40 years old: 0 points
over $70K out of college and under 40 years old: +1 point
under $40K and you are college age or younger: 0 points
$40K to $55K and over 40 years old: -1 point
$55K to $90K and over 40 years old: 0 points
over $90K and 40 to 55 years old: +1 point
over $200K (age irrelevant): +1 point
7. Do you have a car?
No (under 21yo): 0 points
No (over 21yo): -1 point
Yes (under 21yo): +1 point
Yes (over 21yo): 0 points
No, but you have a motorcycle (age irrelevant): +1 point
8. Are you good-looking?
(Self-assessment is somewhat unreliable, so if you are uncertain of your looks post your pic on hotornot and wait a week for your score. Or get opinions from unbiased and blunt friends. Hashing out the biometric details of what makes a male face attractive would require another lengthy post, so for now these two methods are acceptable substitutes.)
On a 1 – 10 scale:
0 – 4: -1 point
5 – 7: 0 points
8 – 10: +1 point
9. Have you ever played a leading role in a team sport?
No: 0 pointsYes: +1 point
10. What is your occupation?
(Since I won’t list every single high status job in the Department of Labor’s Occupational Handbook, you’ll have to make a judgment call on your own job. It’s a safe assumption that most people know a high status job when they see it.)
High status (doctor, lawyer, stockbroker, executive, professor, business owner, successful artist or musician or writer, professional athlete, etc.): +1 point
Neutral status (engineer, programmer, accountant, salesman, mid level manager, scientist, military officer, well-paid tradesman, etc.): 0 points
Low status (low paid blue collar, admin, construction, janitor, struggling web designer, help desk, etc.): -1 point
11. How many friends do you have?
0 to 3: -1 point
4 to 20: 0 points
over 20: +1 point
12. How many friends have you met through the internet that you have never seen in person?
0 to 2: 0 points
over 2: -1 point
13. When was the last time you went to a house party?
Within the past month: +1 point
Between one month and one year ago: 0 points
Over one year ago: -1 point
14. Have people besides your family called you funny?
None: -1 pointA few have: 0 pointsNearly everyone who knows me: +1 point
15. What is your IQ?
Under 85: -1 point
85 to 110: 0 points
110 to 130: +1 point
130 to 145: 0 points
over 145: -1 point
16. At a party, which happens first – you approach someone or someone approaches you?
I approach someone first almost every time: +1 point
I occasionally approach first: 0 points
Someone normally approaches me first: -1 point
17. Have you ever been in a serious fight where real punches were thrown and you felt like you wanted to kill your opponent(s)?
No: 0 pointsYes: +1 pointYes, with a girl: -1 point
18. Have you ever been arrested?
No: 0 pointsYes: +1 pointYes, for child pornography or public exposure: -1 point
****
It’s best to answer the following four questions based on your past experience with similar scenarios. Who we really are is not what we wish we were but what we have always been.
19. You are on a second date with a girl. You go to kiss her. She turns her cheek to you and says “Slow down, I’m not that kind of girl.” You reply:
(A) ”Sorry.”
(B) “Yeah, well, no prob.”
(C) ”This could be trouble ’cause I’m that kind of guy.” *smirk*
If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.
20. You’re chatting up a pretty girl you just met in a bar. After a few minutes she asks you to buy her a drink. You reply:
(A) “Sure.”
(B) “I’m not an ATM.”
(C) “No, but you can buy me one.”
If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.
21. You’ve just met a cute girl in a club and have been talking with her for five minutes when she abruptly changes the topic to a raunchy conversation about her multiorgasmic ability. You respond with:
(A) a huge grin and an eager “Damn! That is HOT!”
(B) a look of mild disdain.
(C) a raised eyebrow while saying “Hey, thanks for the medical report.”
If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.
22. The pickup has been going well. Later in the night she leans in and begins making out with you passionately. You feel like a king and your jeans suddenly feel much tighter. Do you:
(A) immediately grope her boob in return.
(B) continue making out with her for as long as she wishes.
(C) kiss for a little bit then push her gently away and look distracted for a second.
If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.
And finally, the critical thinking portion of the quiz. The following questions are based on the progression of a single pickup attempt.
23. You go to a bar. Twenty feet away are a pretty girl, a fat girl, and an average guy talking amongst themselves. The pretty girl briefly eye flirts with you. In reponse, you:
(A) eye flirt back and forth a few times before approaching 20 minutes later.
(B) immediately approach in a direct fashion maintaining strong eye contact with your target.
(C) immediately approach but from an indirect angle, looking around the room distractedly on the way over to your target as if you might see an even prettier girl somewhere else, and finally delivering your opener from over your shoulder.
(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point
24. Who do you address first?
(A) the pretty girl.
(B) the fat girl.
(C) everyone.
(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point
25. After getting the whole group engaged in conversation and having a good time, your target blurts out “Hey nice pink shirt! Are you gay?” You:
(A) say “No, I’m not gay!”
(B) ignore her.
(C) say “OK, who brought their little sister to the bar!”
(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point
26. In the middle of the conversation you have to pee. You say:
(A) “I have to go to the bathroom. I’ll be right back.”
(B) “Excuse me.”
(C) nothing. Just go.
(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point
27. You’ve managed to get her outside your front door. There is obvious sexual tension. You want to close this deal. You say:
(A) “So, um, ah, see you around.”
(B) “Why don’t you come inside?”
(C) “I’m thirsty. Are you thirsty? Let’s go inside and taste DC’s finest tap water. But you can only stay for a minute, I have to get up early.”
(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point
****
SCORES
There are 26 points to earn or lose based on the questions asked. The scoring breaks down as follows:
-26: Why are you still alive?
-25 to -20: You’re an omega. Celibacy has its charms.
-19 to -15: You actively repulse girls. Your kind will usher forth the sexbot revolution.
-14 to -10: You’re always getted foisted onto the warpigs.
-9 to 0: Lesser beta. You don’t immediately disgust girls; they just don’t notice you. With much painful effort you can redeem yourself.
1 to 9: Classic beta. You catch some girls’ eyes, usually the ones you don’t want. Try not to make fatty fucking a lifestyle.
10 to 14: A few attractive girls in the bar will be intrigued by your presence. But you need game to close the deal.
15 to 19: Congrats, you have crossed the alpha Rubicon. A lot of cute girls will be pleased when you hit on them. But you can still fuck up by being yourself.
20 to 25: You’re a natural. Many hot girls check you out and forgive your occasional pickup blunders. You always have a look of sexual satisfaction on your face and lotsa cockas.
26: Super Alpha. Booty sticks to you like bird shit on car roofs. ”
THAT’S THE ORIGINAL VERSION FROM October 2008(there is another from May 2019)!Two+ years before VOXS version that substitutes lesser betas and lesser alphas for ”sigmas” &” gammas”!
346 Responses
Tantric on October 13 2008 at 2:11 am(see?i told you.)
My recommendation?Stop limiting yourself to 2009 as history dude and you would have known the truth instead of Vox’s fanboys’ lies.
Fahrenheit 451 was the “last” of the big “ant-utopia” books written. It came out in the early 1950’s. Bradbury was a genius in that way. Firemen were called to START fires and protect people from books. lol!
The firemen had “mechanical” dogs with “their spider-like legs and agility” armed with a poison needle tongue. All “science fiction” of course. Lol!
I laughed hard when some of the boys on other forums awhile back were touting “science” and engineering showing that mechanical / robotic dog from that Boston company. Nevermind the fact it would more than likely be used on them and their beliefs….probably sooner than later at this point.
I recall in that story, the hero…Guy Montag pondered at one point about the mechanical dog “why did we need them, if we Firemen were protecting people from danger?”
Also how history had been completely rewritten that Ben Franklin started the first fire dept in the USA to burn books.
Lol!
I remember in that stupid “boot camp” I was in back in 2000 with David DeAngelo. We had questions / batteries kind of like this to fill out. DeAngelos thugs / henchmen would read out your answers with your crew of guys. Not telling you beforehand they ere going to read them out loud.
Massive shaming, razzing, mocking your written answers. He like all of these guys had some women helpers there. They were very attractive and they would join in the laughter as well. Paid temps of course. They were not there because of David’s “masculinity” and “Game” though he made it out like they were.
I remember he was telling an Indian guy (who was by all means average looking) that he had to “learn to speak English properly or he was always going to be a chump” and when he told me that I should wear pink dress shirts with a yellow tie, it would make me interesting, and women “love” that in mne.
I asked him “so why are you not dressing like that?”
He replied “I’m helping you, you paid me. Im giving solid advice.”
I said “Since when does dressing like Elton John get women?”
He waved me off, and went on to the next topic and if he could have given me a reply, it would have been squirmy and no doub feeble.
Red Pill / Game / PUA….however you “dress it up now” is basically to make men feel inferior around each other. That is the behavior of WOMEN. Razzin’ in this scene has become MEAN and its meant to keep you in line and recognize your “unchangeable” status according to them.
Very cruel, and harmful people in the end. All of them simp over what women do, what women think, and what women believe…….and telling you at the same time “attraction isnt a choice for them” / “they cannot help who they are” and then holding them to “standards” Hamsters gotta hamster
Its a horrible place for man to be stuck in with people like this. Its like cigarette smoking….the best tip in the end is not start.
That’s funny, I don’t know about Sigma and gamma either. Hasn’t interested me as pertinent. Now, 304 did, and that had a humorous background, at least to me because I have a 70s calculator that makes upside words fun.
[Editor: this comment is in reply to MR here]
Yet, you’re the one who waltzes in here lecturing / teaching us about them. Cut the sh*t you’re talking to men in here, not a “hot girl at the bar”
> All these categories (Alpha Beta Gamma Sigma Delta) are from “Brave New World” by A Huxley.
First many guys liked and like to use letters from the Greek alphabet, so “lambda” and “sigma” can mean a bunch of different things in different contexts. They can of course be used to describe a class society. Class society exists and continues to exist (as a matter of fact, not as a dystopian idea), but nowadays we like to use modern terms like “milieu” to describe closed-off tribal structures, which are impenetrable for outsiders.
> I remember in that stupid “boot camp” I was in back in 2000 with David DeAngelo
Lastmod, I understand that you have experienced a lot of crap in the US. But I live elsewhere in the world and never have been around these American personalities. I don’t know any of them. I had to look up where DeAngelo comes from and where Oregon is, because I don’t know US states by heart.
One thing most Americans don’t get is that the domestic culture of the United States is largely irrelevant and completely unknown outside the US. Nobody knows most of your celebrities. When some GOP evangelical promotes a video from “Fox News” or some Evangelical nutcase running some “institute” on some ranch in the middle of nowhere, I have no clue who these guys are and what they do. Their credentials mean absolutely nothing to me.
For example I recently learned about a James Dobson publishing books about spanking children from Sarah McCammon in her book “The Exvangelicals”. That guy has probably been a well known influential figure in the US Bible Belt for decades, but I never heard of him before. Where I live spanking children is a criminal offense and is punished by prison. Though I found out about a fringe Evangelical publisher who translated some of Dobson’s books and promptly put them out of print once legislation came through many decades ago.
So yes, I know who Paul of Tarsus is, but I don’t care about most of the name dropping. I’ve only read a few English language books written by some Western authors from the Red Pill domain that came up with some behavior prediction of women contradicting feminist teaching, which I compared and matched with my own observations. I don’t recognize any names of guys who have just written BS on the Internet without ever being published.
This decade I will probably read a few guys publishing books about male behavior predictions contradicting male feminist teaching. By the end of this decade I will promptly forget about everyone else who hasn’t published ever.
For years I followed a couple bloggers who live in New Zealand, and both were well informed in U.S. politics and culture. I follow people on Twitter who live in Europe who are the same. I’m fairly well-traveled myself (for an American) and have seen the cultural extent that America has had. Even in China the impact of U.S. culture can be felt.
Society is truly globalist, as you note here:
When SARS-COV-2 was released, the worldwide response (outside of Africa) was nearly universal and went against both the previous public health recommendations and what science would suggest. There is no other rational explanation other than an interconnected bureaucratic globalism. So (apparently) coordinated was the response that you’d be a fool to think that almost any country was truly independent, and that includes the culture.
Speaking of New Zealand, the lockdowns in the U.S. would have been just as draconian as New Zealand except for the fact that America (still) has a superior set of legal rights in its ‘first’ Constitution, though the ‘second’ Constitution has all but supplanted it (give it a few more decades).
You may not know who the various American names are, just as I do not know many names outside (or even inside) of America, but they are all connected nonetheless. Whether you know their names or not doesn’t matter as much as you think it does.
It has a name: utilitarianism.
” Where I live spanking children is a criminal offense and is punished by prison. ”
So you do live in Cucksville/birthrate-failure maxed out-city/Gamma town WASP U.S.A. by way of so-called ”devout” evangelicalized -simp-type ”Catholics”(if they believe NOT what the original ”Catholics” in the beginning believed how are they ”Catholics” then huh?-they would henceforth be gammaized evangelicals of the ”puritan”-type in most heinous style 1669 or 1769 by all rights in reality therefore then yes!??)
”The subject changes…out come the Gamma labels. The San Francisco elitism of “if you cant see what I am pointing out, that is on you. Im correct”
Yeah like where expert ”saints” and ”leaders ” told us you have to do tons of weight lifting & game or no p@on ever for you!!!!”
NOW?” It’s complicated” as a certain Saint said today.
Saint thedeti(with zero g-damns for once!) says:
10 July, 2024 at 4:44 pm
We spend a lot of time here effeminately I might say & add, talking about why women do what they do. It’s interesting, I guess if you’re of the effeminate-type that is.
In my experience, women have sex for lots and lots of reasons, only one of which is they want to f@x. Women have sex with men because they want something from that man, be it validation, affirmation, commitment, resources, a relationship, status with the feminine social matrix, relationship maintenance, or to get pregnant. Only sometimes is it about just needing to nut.
But in the final analysis, women expect to get something in return for granting sexual access. That’s because women instinctively know their greatest power, and greatest value, lies in granting or denying sexual access. Women also know they’ll be judged based on how wisely they granted and denied that access.
With men, it’s essentially 2 reasons: the nut,gammaness by way of classical effeminateness I do say chaps and relationship acceptance/appreciation.”
See how goalposts are changing?
Lol. Former cocaine addict. Partier. Bartender. Currently a DJ on the side.
Women dont have sex so they can get just something from the man. They have sex with attractive men because it feels good.
I dont know what world these men live in. The delusional gap between their doxology / science and just pure dislike of most people is bordering on the absurd now.
Jason, was your comment about coming in and lecturing to MR, or me? My comment was to Derek, since he said he wasn’t familiar with Sigma and gamma. I hit reply on Derek’s comment, so I thought it would follow his, but it didn’t.
I see that you explained the terms came from Huxley’s 1932 book. I read it, but didn’t remember that.
directed at MR
I added a note to your original comment.
Apparently we need to form a book club. 😉
THIS is also for MR who only knows history going back to 2009 instead of 1969 or 1869!
Even Vox essentially admits he’s ripping off ROISSY in his version of the ”holy” post so many ”Christians” worship:
Saturday, March 5, 2011
The socio-sexual hierarchy
I have a great deal of respect for Roissy, the various contributors at the Chateau, and many of the other theoreticians and practitioners of Game. However, I think the stark division of men into successful alphas and unsuccessful betas is too simplistic and reflects an artificial limitation on the broad applicability of Game beyond the sexual imperative. The inutility of the binary division should be obvious, since even those who subscribe to it tend to subdivide the categories into Greater and Lesser Alphas and High and Low Betas, while some also add the Omega category.
When we examine any conventional human social circle, we reliably observe a broader range of distinctly identifiable social archetypes that go well beyond mere sexual activity. And it is based on these observations that I have expanded the Alpha-Beta division into a hierarchy that covers the broad spectrum of socio-sexuality.
Alpha: The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. The classic star of the football team who is dating the prettiest cheerleader. The successful business executive with the beautiful, stylish, blonde, size zero wife. All the women are attracted to him, while all the men want to be him, or at least be his friend. At a social gathering like a party, he’s usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha’s gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status.
Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+.
Beta: Betas are the good-looking guys who aren’t as uniformly attractive or socially dominant as the Alpha, but are nevertheless confident, attractive to women, and do well with them. At the party, they are the loud guy’s friends who showed up with the alcohol and who are flirting with the tier one women and cheerfully pairing up with the tier two women. Betas tend to genuinely like women and view them in a somewhat optimistic manner, but they don’t have a lot of illusions about them either. Betas tend to be happy, secure in themselves, and are up for anything their alpha wants to do. When they marry, it is not infrequently to a woman who was one of the alpha’s former girlfriends.
Lifetime sexual partners = 2-3x average.
Delta: The normal guy. Deltas are the great majority of men. They can’t attract the most attractive women, so they usually aim for the second-tier women with very limited success, and stubbornly resist paying attention to all of the third-tier women who are comfortably in their league. This is ironic, because deltas would almost always be happier with their closest female equivalents. When a delta does manage to land a second-tier woman, he is constantly afraid that she will lose interest in him and will, not infrequently, drive her into the very loss of interest he fears by his non-stop dancing of attendance upon her. In a social setting, the deltas are the men clustered together in groups, each of them making an occasional foray towards various small gaggles of women before beating a hasty retreat when direct eye contact and engaged responses are not forthcoming. Deltas tend to put the female sex on pedestals and have overly optimistic expectations of them; if a man rhapsodizes about his better half or is an inveterate White Knight, he is almost certainly a delta. Deltas like women, but find them mysterious, confusing, and are sometimes secretly a little afraid of them.
Lifetime sexual partners = 1-1.5x average
Gamma: The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex. This mostly depends upon whether an attractive woman happened to notice his existence or not that day. Too introspective for their own good, gammas are the men who obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends, and the authors of excruciatingly romantic rhyming doggerel. In the unlikely event they are at the party, they are probably in the corner muttering darkly about the behavior of everyone else there… sometimes to themselves. Gammas tend to have have a worship/hate relationship with women, the current direction of which is directly tied to their present situation. However, they are sexual rejects, not social rejects.
Lifetime voluntary sexual partners = .5x average
Omega: The truly unfortunate. Omegas are the social losers who were never in the game. Sometimes creepy, sometimes damaged, often clueless, and always undesirable. They’re not at the party. It would never have crossed anyone’s mind to invite them in the first place. Omegas are either totally indifferent to women or hate them with a borderline homicidal fury.
Lifetime sexual partners < 2
Sigma: The outsider who doesn't play the social game and manage to win at it anyhow. The sigma is hated by alphas because sigmas are the only men who don't accept or at least acknowledge, however grudgingly, their social dominance. (NB: Alphas absolutely hate to be laughed at and a sigma can often enrage an alpha by doing nothing more than smiling at him.) Everyone else is vaguely confused by them. In a social situation, the sigma is the man who stops in briefly to say hello to a few friends accompanied by a Tier 1 girl that no one has ever seen before. Sigmas like women, but tend to be contemptuous of them. They are usually considered to be strange. Gammas often like to think they are sigmas, failing to understand that sigmas are not social rejects, they are at the top of the social hierarchy despite their refusal to play by its rules.
Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+.
Lambda: Those men who have quite literally no interest in conventional male-female sexual relations. They clearly have their own hierarchy of sorts, but I can't say that I know much about it other than it appears to somehow involve youth, free weights, and mustaches.
Lifetime sexual partners = 10x average+
Now, it is important to keep in mind that it serves absolutely no purpose to identify yourself in some manner that you think is "better" or higher up the hierarchy. No one cares what you think you are and your opinion about your place in the social hierarchy is probably the opinion that matters least. There is no good or bad here, there is only what happens to be observable in social interaction. Consider: alphas seemingly rule the roost and yet they live in a world of constant conflict and status testing. Sigmas usually acquired their outsider status the hard way; one seldom becomes immune to the social hierarchy by virtue of mass popularity in one's childhood. Betas… okay, betas actually have it pretty good. But the important thing to keep in mind is that you can't improve your chances of success in the social game if you begin by attempting to deceive yourself as to where you stand vis-a-vis everyone else around you.''
Pingback: Is Matthew 5 Hyperbole?
Pingback: Divine Judgment?
Pingback: Jesus and Hyperbole