Wednesday, August 2, 2017


     In the recent (and evidently ongoing) controversy between Manosophere Red Pill Cult writer Dalrock and Protestant minister and apologist Doug Wilson, it has been enlightening to read the commentaries following each exchange. There is an unbelievable amount of spiritual confusion among the various writers over issues that shouldn't be of any controversy at all.

      Whom Pastor Wilson terms the Dalrockians,---though Dalrock actually represents a wider cult and its teachings---should not be taken as spiritual authorities on anything. Their doctrines are deeply Gnostic and anti-Christian. Now in the current controversy, which has to do with Biblical gender roles, the Red Pills make their position clear. Dalrock himself has written that a husband's 'obligation' to love his wife involves neither faith nor the heart. He has also written that the cruel tactics of PUA/Game should be employed by husbands to enforce submission. He has also written that wives must submit even to the will of sinful husbands.

        The problem here is that Dalrock and the other Red Pills have taken on the Feminist position of 'gender roles' whereas what the Church actually teaches is Gender Polarity. Feminine submission is a not a negative thing in Christianity---it's part of complimentary system of equals. As Pope John Paul II taught: "Aquinas offers a very simple yet profound truth: we humans, who need fulfillment simply because we are limited, needy, deficient in our very being can find fulfillment only with that which is other than ourselves. And that union can come in only one way: through a very special kind of Love which is based in self-giving."

         John Paul's words are completely repugnant to those who fetishize the 'Alpha' male and who define gender relations strictly upon physical sexuality. The 'Dalrockian' position can lead only to abuse: and many of these Red Pills have sunk to such depths of blasphemy that they've begun speaking of White Sharia as Christian social policy. Not only is it a grave error to import Islamic theology into Christianity, the Red Pills' writings on the subject seem to draw heavily on teachings of the Wahhabi and Salafist cults who are considered heretics, or Takfiri, by Islamic religious leaders.

        Andrew Anglin, of The Daily Stormer---whom I believed actually coined the 'White Sharia' term wrote a piece recently illustrating the depths to which Dalrockian Theology will sink if drawn to its logical conclusions. Anglin is considered a Christian by these types, yet he praises the vicious murder of Celine Dookrhan, an Indian woman killed in Britain by Arab immigrants for dating an Arab man.

       "The men who did it were defending their race, and as extreme and as gross as the act was you have to feel some respect for them." Anglin expounds, "So I'm just going to throw this out there: Imagine if White men cared this much about their own women race-mixing."

       Celine Dookrhan, aged 19, was literally butchered by these two thugs. Anglin fantasizes that Christian men should demonstrate the same level of barbarity.

         "I'm certainly not implying that White men should be kidnapping White female race-mixers, raping them and chopping them up and shoving them in freezers for f------g Niggers. Although, honestly, I wouldn't feel bad if that happened, it is more than our women would require to get back in line."

        Fine Christian stuff, this. No wonder at least three recent infamous murderers were readers of Anglin's blog. Anglin, though, says he doesn't recommend such violence, but does give specific advice to his disciples on "how to shame these whores in public." We'll spare our readers the details; but the point is that a Christian relationship without polarity is not a Biblical relationship at all. It can only lead to abuse---either domestically as Dalrock promotes or socially as Anglin does. Or more likely, both.


  1. Thank you. I appreciate your standing up and the clarity you provide on these issues. Keeps me sane. :)

    I'm reminded of The Apostle Paul's words, "In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Indeed, no one ever hated his own body, but he nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church. For we are members of His body."

    I suppose that is true in all relationships. If we do not love ourselves properly, we will not love anyone else, either. In fact, we just pour our own self loathing out onto them. Women actually submit to love, not to authority. Love is a kind of authority, I suppose, but the red pills have attempted to substitute "love" with authority and power, alphaness. The results are quite ugly. While God may be all powerful, even our submission to Him is to be based on love, on grace. He could easily force us. He doesn't.

    Ironically what these red pills have is issues around authority, which is why they are always trying to rebel against anything that is good,lovely,pure, Holy. The only way I know to cure a bully like that is to punch him in the nose.

    1. Thank you---and yes, a lot of bullies do get cured that way.

      It's remarkable that the proponents of this cult rarely, if ever, talk about Love. St. John flatly tells us that denying Love reflects the spirit of the Devil. Not only that, but the hatred they preach against their Christian brothers and sisters, John condemns as well; saying that they 'walk in darkness'. Even when the RPs speak of Love, it's in no form that we can understand it. For example, Dalrock says that a husband's 'love' for his wife is neither a spiritual nor an emotional act---what does he mean?