On this blog I do a lot of what might be considered teaching. I talk a lot about theology. In this I’m little different than many Christians on the internet. However, there is a two-fold problem.
First, scripture requires that all principles be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. It’s simply not possible for one person to establish the truth of a spiritual matter on their own.
Second, because of the first, it is essential that teachers be accountable to the authority of a body of elders, or, at the very least, another Christian in some capacity.
Unfortunately, I have neither of these (in the traditional sense). Consequently, I do not—and never have—insisted that anything I “teach” is authoritative. I’m engaging in the realm of ideas and reasoned debate, not authority. This is one reason, among others, that I do not pass judgement on others and why I tell others not to pass judgement either.
So what can be done about this, if anything?
Well, the first thing is that I’m accountable to my readers, what few of them there are. I have a comment section (for public feedback) and I have an email (for private feedback). On rare occasions, I receive feedback regarding the things I write and I take that feedback seriously. But I rarely have enough to establish “quorum” (as it were). Nevertheless, in the absence of a formal accountability structure, it’s the best thing I’ve got.
But what about trying to find someone to oversee what I write? Well, who would I find? I’ve asked people in the past if they were willing to review my articles prior to publication, but gotten no takers. It’s a lot of work, and, frankly, nobody wants to do it. Here is what I wrote in the past:
If any prophet wants me to engage in oversight over their prophecies before they publish them, we can coordinate over email. In the past, I have asked some of those who have complained about my own work if they’d be willing to act as an editor to provide oversight, but this has always been declined. In fact, few people are willing to provide constructive feedback even after I publish, let alone before. Few engage with me here on the substance of my posts. I’m used to mocking, derision, and misrepresentation instead, as in Jack’s post, rather than offers to act in a role of authority.
I’ve offered to serve in that role for others and I’ve requested that others serve in that role for me. There were no takers for either.
So my ideas stand on their own. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me. What I write is here for people to use (or reject) as they see fit. No one should ever accept what I say because of my authority, rather they should accept what I say because they agree with me that it is correct.
That is essentially how ”redpill” saint DAL(even though he believed in ”responsibility” too like elrushbo & his copycats like Hannity, Levin & O’Reily- & ”listening to stuff his wife says”, DAL’s fanboys-disciples say otherwise) thought too.
https://theredarchive.com/blog/Dalrock/authority-always-comes-with-responsibility-whether.12200
Dalrock
October 29, 2011
Dalrock
Women in our culture have become incredibly nonchalant about raising children without a father. We have gone from seeing this as a failure compared to the traditional model (where single mothers are forced to make the best out of a bad situation) to women arguing that this is superior to raising children in an intact family. From commenter Lisa:
Keep in mind that the criticism from most on my previous post was that I unfairly claimed that a fraction of a fraction of unwed mothers had responsibility for their own choices. The only excuse that was commonly considered to have an exception was excuse #6, and there seems to be general agreement that the excuse is bogus for either 4 out of 5 or 9 out of 10 women who would claim it. I’m all for being precise, but there is a larger point here. Tens of millions of children are being denied the benefit of growing up with their father in the home. The response from our culture ranges from a collective shrug to blaming the fathers who have been kicked out of their kid’s lives.
This all stems from our overwhelming fear of hurting women’s feelings. 50 years ago a very small percentage of women were subject to the dreaded double standard when it came to shaming unwed mothers. Our society took pity on them, and rolled back the social disapproval. Now 40% of all children in the US are born out of wedlock, and this only continues to grow (original post with more info on chart):
img-1685878815-647c781feaa8d1.27407510.png
We did the same regarding the stigma for divorcées around the same time. As a result, a large part of the 60% of children fortunate enough to be born to married parents have their fathers kicked out of their lives by the mother some time after birth. The end result is an unprecedented pandemic of fatherless children (more info on this chart from the US Census):
img-1685878826-647c782ac85a01.53829094.png
The chart above actually understates the problem, because there is a lag in the data since the majority of current children were born during the lower out of wedlock birthrates of past years. It also counts children growing up with mommy’s latest man (stepfathers) as being with “both parents”. Certainly not all stepfathers are created equal, and many do everything in their power to fulfill the role of the man the mother kicked out.
I have a question for each of you. Which outraged you more, the reality of the charts above or my previous post? Are you more troubled by my making some adults uncomfortable, or the fact that millions of kids are now growing up without fathers?
More to the original point, women have demanded and been given the ability to make every conceivable choice about how, when, and by whom they become a mother. Being the one who makes the decisions is called having authority. Women now have as near total authority on the conception and raising of children as is possible. This is an incredible amount of authority, and having an incredible amount of authority comes with an incredible amount of responsibility.
See how ST.DAL covered that, too?
But for the vast majority of women this simply isn’t the case. The search for the father of their children isn’t undertaken with a solemn sense of responsibility. It is taken as a time for fun and excitement. The overriding feeling is no matter what choices they make, if there is a bad outcome it isn’t their fault. Someone else needs to take responsibility. One commenter on Reddit captured this sense perfectly. FlagonOfMead was sure that my insisting that responsibility accompany authority made me a woman hater:
I do believe the author must hate women. He is very judgmental of women and their perfectly normal choices, like the choice to have sex with men, a mutual decision which is both perfectly healthy and acceptable.
“You deserve to be abandoned as a mother because you are a slut who had sex outside of marriage” is ridiculous. Yeah, I’m sure this author loves women.
Actually I do love women. But I’m not so heartless as to not care about the nearly 2 million innocent children born each year in the US with the disadvantage of not having married parents.
How about you?
You can try to spin it all day long that these kids really benefit from not being “spoiled” by having a father in the house. I simply won’t buy it. Again, we have given women as near total authority on the matter of children as possible. Where is the feeling of responsibility?
In my post on interviewing a prospective wife, one of the sections was:
Does she see divorce as failure? Is she willing to make judgments about others who divorce?
Many women today don’t and won’t, as was made painfully clear in the discussion of the last post. Don’t overlook this when considering a wife. A woman who doesn’t feel the weight of the burden of her own immense responsibility is simply irresponsible.
That is essentially how ”redpill” saint DAL(even though he believed in ”responsibility” too like elrushbo & his copycats like Hannity, Levin & O’Reily- & ”listening to stuff his wife says”, DAL’s fanboys-disciples say otherwise)thought too.
Anyone need proof?
https://theredarchive.com/blog/Dalrock/things-my-wifesays.12461
Dalrock
August 1, 2010
Dalrock
On the changes to Dexter (less killings, more drama):
Why do they have to chickify every show we like! If women don’t want to watch it, then let them go have an estrogen moment somewhere else!
Blurted out when asked for her opinion on a shell (topper) for our pickup truck (perhaps it was a tad on the redneck side):
If we buy that one, everyone will think we are driving into town for a pie eating contest.
On Bitchy Women/Girls:
Do you want to end up 40 and divorced?
On Bitchy Men:
Man bitchiness is like broccoli on ice cream. It’s disgusting, unacceptable, and downright wrong.
On men who don’t stand up to their wives:
Balless
On men who are too controlling over their wives:
Ahole
Note: By my informal count the ratio of balless to ahole men appears to be about 4-1 among self-admitted ”RPGenius” ”leaders”. Also note her own take on the whole Alpha Beta spectrum (the first letters even match).
On women who are too controlling of their husbands:
I wonder if she ever lets him have his balls back.
On golf:
Golf is the sport men play because their wives let them play it. They should do something more manly.
Dating advice to our newborn son after learning about her brother’s latest girlfriend:
Stay away from cougars!
On a group of especially bitchy 13 year old girls:
Future ex wives of America club.
i thought ”redpill” patriarchal MEN should NEVER listen to what their wives say?😉😊😎😇
“”So my ideas stand on their own.””
That is essentially how ”redpill” saint DA thought too.
That’s fine, but it’s incompatible with patriarchy. Patriarchy is not about the most correct ideas winning. It’s about authority and authoritarianism. It’s about obedience and submission even when it is wrong. A man (horrifically) once said:
Then you do what he demands. You picked him.
Patriarchy is not truthseeking. There is nothing inherently godly about patriarchy, but the truth is always of God. As the quote above shows, the fruit of husband-rule is sin.
That’s fine, but it’s incompatible with patriarchy. Patriarchy is not about the most correct ideas winning. It’s about authority and authoritarianism. It’s about obedience and submission even when it is wrong.
The churchian double-minded ”RP” patriarchists like the socons and neocons are NOT willing to play the full take-no-prisoners ”game” with their nonsense righteous,”good” & ”holy” republican BS talk, hence why they fail pathetically at ”patriarchy”,” RP” and ”winning” the ”culture wars”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM2WB0AyAjA&list=RDIO7yEgpDWZM&index=37
“The Game”
It’s time to play the game…
Time to play the game! [Laughter]
It’s all about the game, and how you play it.
All about control, and if you can take it.
All about your debt, and if you can pay it.
It’s all about pain, and who’s gonna make it.
I am the game, you don’t wanna play me.
I am control, no way you can change me.
I am heavy debt, no way you can pay me.
I am the pain, and I know you can’t take me.
Look over your shoulder, ready to run.
Like a Cleveland b!tch, with a smokin’ gun.
I am the game and I make the rules.
So move on out, you can die like a fool.
Try to figure out what my mood’s gonna be.
Come on over sucker, why don’t you ask me?
Don’t you forget there’s a price you can pay,
‘Cause I am the game and I want to play…
It’s time to play the game… [Laughter]
Time to play the game!
It’s all about the game, and how you play it.
It’s all about control, and if you can take it.
It’s all about your debt, and if you can pay it.
It’s all about the pain, and who’s gonna make it.
I am the game, you don’t wanna play me.
I am control, there’s no way you can change me.
I am your debt, and you know you can’t pay me.
I am your pain, and I know you can’t take me.
Playin’ the game
You’re gonna be the same,
You’re gonna change your name,
You’re gonna die in flames…
[Laughter]
Time to play the game!
It’s time to play the game…
It’s time to play the game…
It’s time to play the game…
Time to play the game! [Laughter]
i’ve been playing ever increasingly more complex ”games” since i was less than 5 years old, but guys who just discovered ”game” & redpill= reality as adults have an edge or disadvantage to me(while still cheering on leftist republicans)?
What video explains most leftist churchian double-minded ”RP” patriarchists like the socons and neocons?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EUsz2gLtcFE
How Emotionally Immature People Distort Reality
BUT they cope with watered-down churchian ”game” & imagine ”I HAVE THE POWER!!” as if they were HE-MAN & the Masters of the universe in 1983.
Well ROISSY & GBFM were the masters of the ROISSY/manosphere for years until it got murdered by puny and pathetic leftist churchian double-minded ”RP” patriarchists like the socons and neocons!
Patriarchy is not about the most correct ideas winning. It’s about authority and authoritarianism. It’s about obedience and submission even when it is wrong. A man (horrifically) once said:
“Well, what if he wants me to get an abortion??”
Then you do what he demands. You picked him.
Patriarchy is not truthseeking. There is nothing inherently godly about patriarchy, but the truth is always of God. As the quote above shows, the fruit of husband-rule is sin.
DEREK,
What do you think of what this proud checkerpants GOPLGBTQ+ supporter said here then?
checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+ supporter says:
25 September, 2025 at 10:41 pm
1 Corinthians 11:3 explains that the Father, “God” is the head over Christ, and Christ is the head over all men, and men/husbands are the head over women/wives. That is not a misprint. Every man reports directly to Christ. Every wife is under her husband’s headship.
Patriarchy is by its strictest definition a family leadership system for the nuclear family, wherein every husband and father is the head over his own wife(s) and kids. Every sexually frustrated active (AKA married incel emasculated pussyfied churchian) man is entrusted to rule his own family in the likeness of God; every married man receives a personalized inheritance in the dominion over the earth. An unmarried son shares subordinately in his father’s inherited dominion.
Genesis 2:24 says (describing marriage) that a man “shall leave” עָזַב (leave behind, depart from, forsake, apostatize from, go free from) his father and mother’s household and he becomes one [new] body or kindred with his wife. That, or the father’s death, is how and when the patriarchal baton is fully passed on to the next generation of men. That’s how God’s structure for families (tradconnic emasculated, pussified churchian ”redpill” ”patriarchy”) is supposed to work.
Anything in between a husband/father and Christ, ruling over the man, is not a part of God’s holy order of patriarchy(that doesn’t even exist in the ”redpill”osphere), but is a form of external tradconnic emasculated, pussified churchian government. Whether it is patrilineal tribal rule, democracy(e.g. representative constitutional republic) autocracy(e.g. monarchy), oligarchy(e.g. aristocracy), theocracy, or some other hybrid form of Government. The church is not currently intended to act as an earthly tyrant reigning over any man. The “mutual submission” some churchians speak of was only prescribed between men in the church, as Christ is the true husband and head of the church, and others are merely stewards of Christ’s whoring betrothed one. The man who wants to be a leader in the church should do so by being the servant of all. Nobody is to usurp over Christ’s betrothed, as an interloper, pretending to be her head. The word “minister” is originally a Latin word, meaning – servant or subordinate. Men are responsible directly to Christ their redeemer, not to some pedophile priest or poofter pope.
Patriarchy really is elegantly simple, and desirable. “Every man a king.” Each man minding his own business of ruling over his own wife and kids. Only tyrants and psychopaths and anti-Christ rebels like Feminists would want to botch that up and take away other men’s rightful God-given dominion. Governments are instituted among men to establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and Etc. Governments are never to set aside God’s ways and to force other( sodomy AKA sodomy oralic that I’ve lusted after ever since Bill & Monica’s Satanic non-GOPLGBTQ+ BUT DEMLGBTQ+-which is beyond the pale at my churchian R-” BASED” country club church oral sodomy was announced) sinful ways upon men. Such governments act as evil tyrannies. Just governments are instituted among men to secure our God-given rights(of GOPLGBTQ+-”based” oral sodomy in my checkerpants easculated,pussyfied ”redpill” mind ), not to steal them from us.
But remember, patriarchy is only a simple system of fatherly family rule. (God’s system) Don’t let the enemy(WE churchian emasculated, pussified ”redpill” GOPLGBTQ+S) cloud things with all their squid ink.
What more is there to say? I obviously reject this take with its…checkered…past. Here is what John Chrysostom had to say in Homily 26:
John Chrysostom, a native Greek speaker, understood that Paul did not have rule and subjection in mind in 1 Corinthians 11:3. In that same Homily, John Chrysostom noted that subjection was not part of the divine order of creation:
Why should I disagree with the guy who wrote that more than 1600 years ago?
Uh, no. Patriarchy has never been about nuclear families, as the nuclear family is a modern concept. In every single known system of patriarchy, kinship and extended family authority has always gone beyond a husband, wife, and children. Society, family, and culture were structured around tribes, clans, lineages, and (multigenerational) households.
But of course they don’t even believe in the patriarchy of the nuclear family, as shown here:
For another man to demand that such an unmarried woman submit to him—to break the rules for him and him alone—he must usurp the authority of her father without marrying her.
The biblical rules no longer apply to him. Christian Patriarchy is abandoned.
By their own blatant usurpation of a father’s rule over her daughter, they condemn actual patriarchy. What you get is bastardized patriarchy: rules for thee, but not for me.
This has never been true in all of recorded history. Just like most of Rome’s false teachings, this one is not found anywhere in scripture.
Why not? Says who?
What is being described here cannot be found in any of the examples in the Old Testament or the New Testament. This belief has never been the practice of the church. How can “God’s holy order of patriarchy” be completely missing from God’s Word?
If the Patriarchy of scripture is normative, then it should match what is described in scripture. For example: “…submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ.” After all, the leaders of the church are called elders for the same reason that the eldest male of the household was its patriarch, including over the younger men in the household. In the household of Christ, every man is under Christ, but every man is also to submit to the other men in the household of Christ in the same way as wives are to submit to their husbands. You can’t have one without the other.
Of course, this is obviously wrong. But let’s go back in history to 2018, when I wrote one of my top 10 articles (by traffic volume), “What Constitutes Biblical Marriage?”
First, becoming one flesh is metaphorical. They become completely united in purpose and should no longer be thought of strictly as individuals. A husband should see the wife as an extension of himself, and she should do the same of him. Neither should ever think solely of themselves. To marry is to give up sole control of one’s self.
Second, there is a spiritual joining that transcends the physical. The pair are joined together with a spiritual bond and become inseparable. This, again, mirrors the relationship with God, a bond that is intended to be permanent.
Third, it refers to the creation of children. Literally by joining their flesh together, they gain the power of creation, the very power that is described in Genesis 2. Genesis never says that creation ended, only that God rested on the seventh day. This is our sacred inheritance: to take the baton, as it were, of creation and continue it in the form of procreation.
Fourth, it refers to the joining of blood, that is, family. When the pair are married, their families become one family. This is why a man could not marry his deceased wife’s sister: it was considered incest, even though they did not literally share the same genetics.
Fifth, and this is the hotly debated point, becoming one flesh refers to having sex for the first time. Here I take the non-traditional, minority viewpoint and note that because no ceremony is mentioned here, this refers to having sex as the beginning of the first marriage. The contextual and linguistic evidence strongly supports this conclusion.[6]
Sixth, whether the joining into one flesh is physical, metaphorical, or spiritual, the word for the pair being united is more like glue. They are stuck together (pun intended). The implication is permanence.
Pay attention to that fourth point. Under God’s Law, marriage did not divide a family, it joined it together. Later, in Paul’s writing, we find that the joining of a prostitute to a Christian man also joined her to the whole body of Christ, which is why it was forbidden. Becoming kindred with his wife meant becoming kindred with her extended family.
Everybody throughout all of history knows this, except, apparently, that commenter. Why do you think political marriages between families have been a staple of kingdoms for thousands of years? Every hereditary king who has ever lived understands what, apparently, that commenter doesn’t understand. No one in the Bible had any difficulty understanding this concept, nor would they have confused patriarchy for a “nuclear family”, a foreign, anachronistic concept.
I suspect the only reason the commenter is making this argument is because he comes from a broken and dysfunctional family. “Every man is king” is what a modern man might say.
Oh, and speaking of father rule. The Bible says that fathers—not husbands—should rule over children—not wives. Nowhere in the Old or New Testaments is a husband even once told to rule over his wife. So much for patriarchy—father rule—being of divine origin.
In the entire history of the entire Manosphere, has any single man ever asked a woman’s father—her “divinely ordained” patriarch—for permission to speak to and date her? Has anyone actually ever embraced patriarchy? Just one man out of thousands or millions? Anyone at all?
Since no one will answer my challenge and I’m just shouting uselessly into the wind, here is what ChatGPT answers:
Pretty accurate! I’ve made these three primary points on many occasions.
And, well, lol, check this out:
ChatGPT has ingested the discussion about Sigma Frame! Lol! Can you imagine it using that in discussions with normies?