Saturday, March 11, 2017


    A Red Pill writer who runs a blog called Toad's Hall has been running a series lately titled Theology for Men of the West, in which he argues that the cultish teachings of the Red Pill and Game philosophies represent authentic Christianity. He's written a long article on Biblical Marriage which purportedly illustrates the Red Pill blasphemy that Game/PUA is taught in the Bible.

     According to Mr. Toad, the modern Church is in a state of apostasy and adultery because it requires a priest or pastor to solemnize the marriage union and because it treats the wife as the spiritual equal of the husband. Following the PUA narrative, Toad insists this is false; because marriage occurs during the sexual act alone. In fact, he explicitly states that "Churchians believe that sex is only allowed following such a ceremony and indeed, churchians claim that sex is only moral and licit when it occurs within such a union." He's taken the common cultural misconception that 'sex equals love' up to a new level whereby 'sex equals marriage.'

     One would logically assume that such a position would lead to old-fashioned shotgun weddings, but Mr. Toad would disagree since he holds that the actual marriage ceremony has no religious significance. In fact, the issue altogether by claiming that the woman's "consent is not required. This means that whether she knew that she was being married or not; whether she wanted to be married or not; with that act {of sexual intercourse initiated by the male} she is married. And the churchians will screech over this truth."

     This Philosophy reduces Christian men to a sociological level even more degraded than Pagan cultures---it is actually the philosophy of a savage. And even worse, he's quite clear that this can include forcible rape. "Even the woman who was raped was married by that act."

     Following this barbaric method of mate-selection, the woman's allegedly Biblical duty is submission to her husband. Mr. Toad tells us that "The standard for Christian commitment is thus: the husband makes a permanent but not exclusive commitment to the wife; the wife makes a permanent and exclusive commitment to her husband." Although, how anyone makes a commitment devoid of consent, he doesn't explain.

      That is the reason why Churches solemnize marriage and why often marriages are controlled legally as well: because it is a binding spiritual or legal contract; depending upon how it is interpreted culturally. One has to presume under such a contractual arrangement that both parties are capable of consent and have entered into the arrangement of their own free will---which presumes a measure of spiritual and/or legal equality. To abandon this concept as a principle is to revert back to the prehistoric level of the ape.

      "The commitment standard of the man is permanent," he further informs us, "His commitment is non-exclusive, which means that at his discretion, he can bring other women into the relationship. The commitment standard for the woman is permanent, and she is bound to her man for as long as he lives. Her commitment is exclusive, which means that he is her one and only. Sex with any other man is the crime of adultery. The relationship between the man and the woman is one of master-servant or ruler-subject. The man is to rule his women and have complete authority over them, over every aspect of their lives, in everything."

      As much as Islam is maligned in the West, Islamic teaching---outside of the vicious Wahhabi-Jihadist cults---don't even go to this extreme; less so does Christianity teach this. While traditional religions teach female submission as part of gender polarity, the Red Pills define it thus:

      "The woman is to submit to her man in everything, no exceptions. Her submission is not dependent upon her opinion of his behavior or upon his actual behavior. If a man is displaying bad behavior, the woman is to submit to him without a word and win him over by her chaste and quiet conduct." However this chastity doesn't extend to the martial bed, Mr. Toad claims, because "Sex is to be on demand and the woman's body belongs to the man...sexual all at the discretion of the man."

      This doesn't mean, of course, that such men aren't actually to love their 'wives'. Mr. Toad defines such love as: "This love is defined as holding wives accountable for good behavior and requiring their obedience. When they transgress, he is required to rebuke and discipline them. Part of this accountability is his obligation is to review any and every agreement she makes with others...The woman is required to live with the man in order that he might meet his responsibility to hold her accountable for her behavior."

     This is simply Idolatry, because a woman's first duty is to God, not to a husband---and certainly not to some random stranger who's taken her by force. But Mr. Toad makes the astounding and blasphemous that the Christian God not only condones such behaviors on the part of men, but engages in it Himself: "God claimed that He had two wives" by which he perverts a passage from the Prophet Jeremiah alluding to God's Covenant with Israel.

      It's noteworthy that the Supreme Ayatollah of Iran recently issued a decree condemning Islamic husbands who treat their wives like chattel-property---yet we don't hear a peep out of Christian leaders condemning these blasphemies even though they are clearly infiltrating our own churches.  But in Iran, religious instruction is still taught in public schools, so the Ayatollahs have the advantage of being able to shame men into better behavior. In our country, many people grow up with no religious instruction, and being presented with this kind of garbage as 'Christian' either converts them into abusive thugs or causes them to reject Christianity with contempt. Christian prelates and pastors cannot continue in this state of denial and must begin speaking out.



  1. Well said. I think what makes this stuff so crushing that it is being sold under the guise of faith, as if Jesus Christ Himself has endorsed it. Misogyny is as old as time, but this kind of blasphemy, heresy, is not something I've ever seen before.

    I probably don't need to mention that hearing these kind of things doesn't serve to open women's minds and hearts up to the idea of faith, marriage, or submission. On the bright side, it may lead some of us to become great supporters of the second amendment, so there is that.

    1. With these kinds of crazies on the loose, women need to invest in some kind of protection, that's for certain. But it would be better still if Churches told men to start policing their own ranks again.