The Four Cardinal Virtues

Traditional Christian theology names faith, hope, and charity as the theological virtues. They are directly imparted to the believing Christian by the grace of God and are not attainable through the natural order. They are called theological because they have God for their immediate and proper object; because they are divinely infused; and because they are only known through divine revelation.

Grace perfects nature and the three theological virtues are the flowers of the four cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. The word cardinal comes the Latin cardo, translated as “hinge.” Whether you’re a lifelong Christian or a Godless heathen, the cardinal virtues are part of the natural moral order and can be cultivated through self-discipline and hard work. We must cultivate them if we expect to live a happy life in this world.

Roots In Antiquity


It’s difficult to overstate how much Greek philosophy has influenced Christian theology. Plato identified the four cardinal virtues with a corresponding class of citizen in The Republic.

Temperance applied especially to farmers and craftsmen, i.e. those who provided for our bodily appetites. Fortitude was the necessary virtue of the soldier and corresponded to our spirit. Prudence was the virtue of the ruling class. Justice stood outside the system and governed the relationship between the other three classes and the virtues.

The Roman statesman Cicero also emphasized the four:

Virtue may be defined as a habit of mind (animi) in harmony with reason and the order of nature. It has four parts: wisdom (prudentiam), justice, courage, temperance.

And the deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom 8:7 in the Bible:

And if a man love justice: her labours have great virtues; for she teacheth temperance, and prudence, and justice, and fortitude, which are such things as men can have nothing more profitable in life.

 The first recorded instance of the word “cardinal” to describe these virtues occurs in St. Ambrose of Milan’s commentaries on the Gospel of Luke. Later on it appears in the writings of St. Augustine and St. Jerome. St. Thomas Aquinas gave it the most in-depth and systematic treatment of any other theologian in Western Christianity.


Thomas teaches that prudence is the virtue that corresponds to the intellect. It enables us to discern our true good in any given situation and the proper means of achieving it. Because it is rooted in the intellect, prudence does not mean directly willing the good it sees, but rather sets the measure for the exercise of the other virtues.

Most importantly, it identifies the golden mean where natural virtue lies. If we lack prudence, courage becomes suicidal recklessness. Mercy becomes weakness. Justice becomes tyranny.

Not a prudent man

Not a prudent man

We must not confuse prudence with cowardice or dissimulation. It is the charioteer of the other virtues and guides the judgment of our conscience. The shortest and most effective definition of prudence is “right reason applied to action.” You wouldn’t start your own business without a plan of some sort, no matter how vague.


Prudence governs our actions. Fortitude and temperance concern taming our irascibility and our appetites. Justice deals with our rights and obligations toward other people.

Obviously the words “justice and “right” have been much abused over the last few decades, but abuse does not preclude legitimate use. If Jones borrows money from Smith, then Smith, in justice, has a right to get his money back if Jones refuses to pay up. The supernatural virtue of charity means going above and beyond the demands of justice; Smith may forgive Jones of his debt and make the money a gift. Justice is blind because she does not respect our position in society.

Sometimes justice has to be taken into our own hands

Sometimes justice has to be taken into our own hands

Justice means respecting others and fulfilling our obligations to them, whether it’s their right to life and limb or simply adhering to contracts. It means expressing gratitude toward those who have done us a kindness. It definitely does not mean a vague and undefined resentment of cishet white male shitlords to last in perpetuity upon pain of losing your livelihood.


Temperance is geared toward governing our appetites for sensible pleasure, whether it’s food, alcohol, or sex. If man is the rational animal, as Aristotle put it, then temperance is necessary for governing our animal natures. It ensures our will’s mastery over our base instincts.

I do not believe she adequately moderates her food and drink

I do not believe she adequately moderates her food and drink

If we can’t moderate our own desires, then we cannot act rightly, render other men what is their due, or overcome adversity. In the New Testament, this virtue is often called “sobriety” and “moderation.” The results of intemperance should be obvious: grotesque obesity, raging alcoholism, or swimming in STDs. We admire people who dramatically change their physiques through diet and exercise because they are living examples of the virtue of temperance.


Fortitude is often used interchangeably with courage. Remember prudence though: it is a reasoned courage. It’s not foolhardiness or rashness. It’s the virtue that allows us to overcome our fears and remain steadfast in the pursuit of our goals.

Prudence and justice tell us what we must do, and fortitude gives us the strength to see it through. Christian martyrs, for example, do not actively seek martyrdom, unlike Islamic suicide bombers. But whether it’s the Religion of Peace, or the Soviet Union, or the Roman Empire, Christian history is rife with martyrs who peacefully went to their deaths rather than renounce their faith.

In the context of the United States, if you even mildly agree with anything written on Return of Kings or the manosphere, or the orthosphere where my fellow Traditionalists hang out, eventually the SJWs are going to come for you.

Don’t actively seek out to die on that hill, particularly if you have young children to feed. But if you’re ever in their crosshairs, never, ever back down under any circumstances. If you apologize, you’re going to lose your job anyway, only now you’ve lost your dignity besides.

Never quit

Never quit

A Virtuous Man

The four cardinal virtues all work in tandem. Prudence identifies what is good, how to do what is good, and how to avoid evil. Justice ensures that we respect one another’s rights and fulfill our obligations and duties. Temperance gives us the self-control to forgo short-term pleasures in pursuit of our long-term goals. Fortitude will see us through to the end, whether we succeed or fail.

As St. Augustine put it:

To live well is nothing other than to love God with all one’s heart, with all one’s soul and with all one’s efforts; from this it comes about that love is kept whole and uncorrupted (through temperance). No misfortune can disturb it (and this is fortitude). It obeys only [God] (and this is justice), and is careful in discerning things, so as not to be surprised by deceit or trickery (and this is prudence).

Self-improvement entails more than building up our bodies. We must improve our spirits as well.

Read More: The 4 Cardinal Virtues Of The True Womanhood Cult

202 thoughts on “The Four Cardinal Virtues”

  1. Ah, more catholics claiming to speak for all christians, first greek philosophy cannot be trusted only the bible, one must wonder if you listen to the writings of a man such as nietchze could you meet an untimely rotting of your brain. The same with these Greeks who where rampant homosexuls.

      1. And all Truth comes From God, Everything else is Vanity and a Chase after the Wind.

    1. The Catholic Church compiled the bible. Pretty sure that makes them the authority 😉

      1. Again igonrance. The Catholics used the Latin vulgate and tried their hardest to eradicate copies of the textus receptus.

        1. So Biblical canon wasn’t established at Hippo (393AD) and Carthage (397 AD) by the Catholic Church? You disagree with professional biblical scholars and virtually all historians? The biblical cannon wasn’t changed over a millinia later by martin luther to suit his new interpretation? Protestants don’t still use martin luther’s edited bible to this day? I’ll bet the sky isn’t blue and you’ve got some beachfront property for sale in Arizona too.
          Take your satanic lies somewhere else heretic.

        2. You call me a heritic. Really becuase I don’t bow to your pope and your blaspemouse ecumenical councils.

        3. I don’t have to proof Gods words say it is so. Jude 1:4 Is talking about your devil worshiping child molestor church

        4. Either give me scripture or shut your mouth . I will never adress you again after this.

        5. Really my ignorance I gave you dates events and my whole basis for calling the catholic church the lamb that speaks as a dragon you refuted nothing and provided me no dates, no scripture. So why challenge me really if I gave you a date you wouldn’t acknowledge it. This is your third time bothering me with pure emotion And no proof i spent a whole day showing you mine. I’m still waiting for you to actually challenge me with the scriptures or some dates. You can’t, I know you cannot

        6. It is not “pure emotion,” but a simple request for you to substantiate your wild accusations. Twice now you have acted like there was some kind of evidence for Catholics burning biblical manuscripts. You even went so far as to declare that the Bible has evidence of Catholics burning manuscripts of the Bible!

        7. I did multiple times do you not remember last weekend. You said the who killed who game could not be trusted. So really shut you lips

        8. prove me wrong, prove the catholic church is of God. Prove the popes very existence isn’t blaspemy. I gave you proof this current pope finally aplogizes this year for wiping out the sect known as waldensians, what happened to their library’s and bible copies while being burned as heretics. Hmm I do not know? Or st Bartholomew’s massacre, what was the counter reformation over any way. People having copies of the bible.

        9. I already did man you just weren’t paying attention I gave you the dates

        10. Really, I’m going to burn these heritics rape thier children and keep their bible. Does that make any sense.

        11. Worse, it turns out Jerome did not know Hebrew – his translation of the Original Testament was entirely from the Apocrypha.

        12. In 1410 all john Wycliffe’s. Writings where burned. The albejensians where totally wiped out in 1229 and all writings burned. 1624 Martin Luthers bibles burned . I got this from new advent . Org a catholic website .

        13. I call you a heretic because you blaspheme against God. Sola scriptura is the false teaching of arrogant men who wish to dictate for themselves what God commands.
          If you would rather not have a spiritual authority on earth then you’ll find good company with Lucifer as he said the same thing to God. Good luck with that.

        14. See I believe there where always true christians And fake ones. In the past the fakes ones invented a religion that guarantees power to those in top. Instead of actually following the bible they supressed it . And invented doctrines well documented like indulgences And nuns and celibacy of priest and purgatory. And anyone who didn’t agree got declared a heritic, that’s why no one got a copy of the bible. If you assume when the romans switched to Catholicism all christians came out and joined up I think you are deceived. No a remnant of the real church has always existed with copies of the bible. These are my fore fathers. I draw zero lineage from the Catholics who were a state religion and edited their bible the Latin vulgate. Emphasis on their bible and suppressed the anabaptist, the waldensians and other groups burning these groups at the stake and burning thier bibles becuase it was illegal to have your own copy. So I keep giving you the history and you keep ignoring it. And asking for proof when you are willfully ignorant and you know it. And also doing the same to Protestants and hugoneots killing 70,000 and having a party after. So I really dislike all catholics stand for and the opnion they preserved the word of God and even call themselves christians, seeing nothing they do can be justified with scripture. And when I read the bible I see God himself saying clear as day the Catholics are apostates. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church, emphasis on his church. Becuase that blaspemous global entitie is not his church. Those that believe the bible are his.

        15. 1 Corinthians 2:14-16“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 but he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 for who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him, but WE have the mind of Christ. See it says we, not the preist or the pope but the average believer you think sola scripture is blaspemy. Well you are not saved becuase it says a Christian has the mind of Christ and receives the things of the spirit of God.

        16. “WE” referring to the apostolate you illiterate twit. The writer was speaking with the collective authority of the apostles, addressing an audience in need of spiritual guidance. That’s Literature 101
          Thanks for playing, try again.

        17. So the gates of hell prevailed against the church that Jesus founded?
          Matthew 11:18
          “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

        18. Well give me scripture proving sola scripture is wrong. You are really that decieved, you actually believe a priest must tell you the bible how sad.

        19. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we read, “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” There are five considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of this passage:
          1) The Greek word ophelimos (“profitable”) used in verse 16 means “useful” not “sufficient.” An example of this difference would be to say that water is useful for our existence – even necessary – but it is not sufficient; that is, it is not the only thing we need to survive. We also need food, clothing, shelter, etc. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers.
          2) The Greek word pasa, which is often rendered as “all,” actually means “every,” and it has the sense of referring to each and every one of the class denoted by the noun connected with it. (2) In other words, the Greek reads in a way which indicates that each and every “Scripture” is profitable. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then based on Greek verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, a position which is obviously absurd.
          3) The “Scripture” that St. Paul is referring to here is the Old Testament, a fact which is made plain by his reference to the Scripture’s being known by Timothy from “infancy” (verse 15). The New Testament as we know it did not yet exist, or at best it was incomplete, so it simply could not have included in St. Paul’s understanding of what was meant by the term “scripture.” If we take St. Paul’s words at face value, Sola Scriptura would therefore mean that the Old Testament is the Christian’s sole rule of faith. This is a premise that all Christians would reject.

        20. St. Paul both commends and commands the keeping of oral tradition. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, for instance, we read, “Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.” (4) St. Paul is obviously commending the keeping of oral tradition here, and it should be noted in particular that he extols the believers for having done so (“I praise you….”). Explicit in this passage is also the fact that the integrity of this Apostolic oral tradition has clearly been maintained, just as Our Lord promised it would be, through the safeguarding of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 16:3).
          Perhaps the clearest Biblical support for oral tradition can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:14(15), where Christians are actually commanded: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” This passage is significant in that 1) it shows the existence of living traditions within the Apostolic teaching, b) it tells us unequivocally that believers are firmly grounded in the Faith by adhering to these traditions, and c) it clearly states that these traditions were both written and oral. Since the Bible distinctly states here that oral traditions – authentic and Apostolic in origin – are to be “held” as a valid component of the Deposit of Faith, by what reasoning or excuse do Protestants dismiss them? By what authority do they reject a clear-cut injunction of St. Paul?
          Moreover, we must consider the text in this passage. The Greek word krateite, here translated “hold,” means “to be strong, mighty, to prevail.” (5) This language is rather emphatic, and it demonstrates the importance of maintaining these traditions. Of course one must differentiate between Tradition (upper-case “T”) that is part of divine Revelation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Church traditions (lower-case “t”) that, although good, have developed in the Church later and are not part of the Deposit of Faith. An example of something that is part of Tradition would be infant Baptism; an example of a Church tradition would be the Church’s calendar of feast days of Saints. Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable, while Church traditions are changeable by the Church. Sacred Tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing what the Church has believed consistently through the centuries and how it is always understood any given portion of the Bible. One of the main ways in which Tradition has been passed down to us is in the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the Church’s public worship.
          it should be noted that Protestants accuse Catholics of promoting “unbiblical” or “novel” doctrines based on Tradition, asserting that such Tradition contains doctrines which are foreign to the Bible. However, this assertion is wholly untrue. The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Tradition contains nothing whatsoever that is contrary to the Bible. Some Catholic thinkers would even say that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition which is not also found in Scripture, at least implicitly or in seminal form. Certainly the two are at least in perfect harmony and always support each other. For some doctrines, the Church draws more from Tradition than from Scripture for its understanding, but even those doctrines are often implied or hinted at in the Sacred Scripture. For example, the following are largely based on Sacred Tradition: infant Baptism, the canon of Scripture, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Sunday (rather than Saturday) as the Lord’s Day, and the Assumption of Our Lady.
          Sacred Tradition complements our understanding of the Bible and is therefore not some extraneous source of Revelation which contains doctrines that are foreign to it. Quite the contrary: Sacred Tradition serves as the Church’s living memory, reminding her of what the faithful have constantly and consistently believed and who to properly understand and interpret the meaning of Biblical passages. (6) In a certain way, it is Sacred Tradition which says to the reader of the Bible “You have been reading a very important book which contains God’s revelation to man. Now let me explain to you how it has always been understood and practiced by believers from the very beginning.”

        21. Oh you have to use the Greek to show me. Yeah that’s original.

        22. you mean the original greek that the new testament was originally written in? that greek?
          Or are you referring to the plain english of 2 Thessalonians 2:14(15), where Christians are actually commanded: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”
          you lose heretic.
          However, all is not lost! If you go and make a good confession, and repent of your evil ways perhaps God will take mercy on your eternal soul. I’ll pray for you brother.

        23. IS God all powerful? Is it a stretch of the imagination to think God could preserve his word? So a person like me could simply read in his own language? I think not In fact I find Greek and Hebrew fans use those texts to cast doubt on the word of God. This means this and that means that makes everything unclear. So I stick with the kjv and English because you don’t speak either Greek or Hebrew nor the versions spoke in those time period.

        24. aha but prove you are right though. And those traditions are correct. In 1 Timothy 3:1-4 it say preist must be married. 1 Timothy 2:5 it says there’s only one mediator so explain the priest and pope then. Here in luke 11:27-25 he puts a regular believer on equal footing with His mother. Here in Matthew 23:9 he says call no man father, last time I checked preist where called fathers. In jermiah10:1-5 God condems Christmas trees. In Galatians 4:10-11 they condemn observing any day’s other than the sabbath so lent Mardi gras christmas Easter are all trashed then. In Leviticus 19:4 idols graven images, you guys have tons of those.

        25. So lets just go with whatever the english language says, because THAT never changes… good luck with that.

        26. I am saved are you can you say 100% you would go to heaven if you died

        27. In order:
          1.) Timothy 3:2 ” A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach”
          “the husband one of wife” meaning no more than one, less than one is fine.
          2.)Timothy 2:5 is to be read in it’s entirety, most notably Timothy 2:1 “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;”
          No cherry picking, silly protestant.
          3.) Luke 27-28 “And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”
          Given that his own mother wasn’t an apostle if she were a follower of christ it would makes sense to put her on the same level as other followers. If she wasn’t a follower of christ then he elevated the followers of christ above his own mother. the bible is unclear as to the correct interpretation.
          4.)Matthew 23:9 once again you’re cherry picking.
          Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men “father” in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.
          First, as we’ve seen, the imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors “father,” as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.”
          5.) Jermiah 10:1-5 is speaking of idols. Nobody worships their christmas tree as an idol
          6.)Galatians 4:10-11 “10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.”
          Given the context of all of Galatians it’s obvious that he was speaking in hyperbole, unless you are trying to make the argument that watches and calendars are evil.
          7.)Leviticus 19:4 Catholics worship only God. Unless you’re saying that statues are in and of themselves evil. Catholic teaching on intercession is perfectly in keeping with the Bible
          Timothy 2:1 “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;”
          prayers and intercessions are both listed separately.
          Con.) Basically you cherry pick and quote out of context to reach false conclusions. Thank you for demonstrating beyond a doubt that you have no clue what you’re talking about, and for showing the necessity of an earthly authority to help us interpret scripture (I used the teachings of the church, not my own interpretations, if you have issue with that take it up with 2,000 years worth of some of the smartest men to walk the earth)

        28. Of course he did
          In the church. That Jesus founded. Free from the heretical nonsense from people such as yourself.

        29. Of course he did.
          Through tradition. In His church. That was founded by Jesus. Free from the heretical ravings of people like you 😉

        30. I didnt cherry pick any thing, you did, what about 1timothy 4:3 in conjunction 1timothy 3:1-4. Calls your church giving heed to devils.

        31. And you cannot interpret any thing seeing sola scripture is for heritics.

        32. This isn’t a quote off, I showed how you were categorically wrong 7 times. You can either accept you don’t know shit or you can continue to post in vain on this forum. My recommendation is that you pick up a copy of the catechism of the Catholic church, pretty much any priest will give you one for free.
          Happy travels.

        33. > good company with Lucifer
          Jesus, Lucifer, what’s the difference? Lucifer is Latin (as written in the Latin Vulgate, which was used by the KJV Bible) for morning star.

          • “How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!” (Isaiah 14:12)
          • “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” (Isaiah 14:12 KJV)

          Houston, we have a problem.

          • “I, Jesus…I am the bright morning star.” (Revelation 22:16)

          Jesus is Lucifer, the morning star, the bringer of light.

          • Jesus: “I am the light of the world.” (John 8:12)

        34. We’re all going to the same “heaven” as a dead horse.

          • Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten…in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.
          • Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

        35. So why did jesus die then if we all where going to re same place

        36. Oh really I need to come learn at the feet of preist potty mouth James 1:26 if any man amoung seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tounge his religion is vain.

        37. You don’t even know not to curse. Yea you must have missed that lesson, your explanations are trash. You really know nothing at all

        38. Wycliffe’s writings, were mostly heretical. Albegensians were heretics, opposed to Christianity in all its forms. Martin Luther bibles were mutilated. What was your point again?

      2. Only Greek portion. The Hebrew bible was collated by the year 73 in a place called Yavneh, by survivors of the Roman war who ‘taught with authority’. The Christians subsequently attempted to change the order of the Hebrew Bible’s books, and added the Apocrypha – which the Protestants subsequently rejected.
        There is the Book of Sirach which is mentioned in the Talmud – once – whose manuscript was recovered in the 19th century. I don’t know if Catholics of the Roman rite have added it to their cannon along with the rest of the Apocrypha.

        1. Seriously? If I’m understanding you, you’re saying that after:
          1. Handing Jesus over to the Romans to be executed and then
          2. rounding up Christians to be crucified
          3. finally changing their own sacred scripture to more easily root out said Christians
          Jews had any authority regarding Christian cannon? That’s got to be one of the funniest jokes I’ve ever heard. You would rather follow the teachings of heretics that betrayed God and had him executed? Who after Jesus came back from the dead still refused to follow him? After AD 33 the Jews lost all teaching authority.
          Personally, I would rather follow the teaching of the apostles that continued the traditions that Jesus himself gave them, preserved within the church that Jesus founded.
          Feel free to follow the teachings of a priest that abandoned his oath to God in order to run off with a nun for sexy fun time, but I’d rather not follow you into hell.

        2. Hell? Riddle me this: How did the Norse mythological underworld of Loki’s half-dead daughter Hell get into the pages of the Bible, anyway?
          If it was a replacement word for the Greek mythological underworld of Zeus’ brother Hades, (of whom the Jesus character spoke,) may I ask if you also believe in Cerberus, the three-headed hound of Hades?
          And what other mythological monsters-under-your-bed do you believe in?

        1. There is a huge difference between the two, man. This is obvious. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I will not waist my time or energy.

        2. I might be but I am right in this case. Commissioned by a homosexual is different than written by one. This there logic how they reason. They somehow arrived at the conclusion only men could love men,women where unlovable. And Fredricks brain rottened but people love his books. To say the 1611 king James is tainted then is a stretch since those verses about homosexuality where left there.

    2. True. As far as I’ve noticed, most of the religious in ROK are Catholics and when they say “Christianism”, they actually mean Catholicism. In fact, even when they say “religion” they mean Catholicism. You seldom here the non-Catholic Christian argument.

      1. Catholics consider themselves christian, but it is noticeable some christians of other dominations tend to not accept that.

        1. Catholics are technically Christians but the one who runs the show for all practical purposes is the Pope.

        2. The notion that Catholics aren’t really Christian is mostly an American idea. Europeans see Catholicism as the ur-Christianity.

  2. Your last sentence says it all. Something I’m dealing with right now. I’ve put most of my “improper” or sinful behaviors into the context of my current life and have found they have no place in it. Since that “ah hah” moment I’ve found it much easier to resist those urges to commit that behavior as they will eventually bring me to ruin. Temptation (and habits) is a bitch, though.

  3. “Don’t actively seek out to die on that hill, particularly if you have young children to feed. But if you’re ever in their crosshairs, never, ever back down under any circumstances. If you apologize, you’re going to lose your job anyway, only now you’ve lost your dignity besides.”
    I think this was most important piece of advice in this well written article. Too many times we see people honestly speak their minds only to apologize for their statements after pressure is applied from the rabid online lynch mobs. There is nothing more unmanly then sacrificing your ideals in order to maintain your position or affluence.
    As I’ve come to realize, although Jesus taught his followers to turn the other cheek when dealing with enemies, I don’t recall he ever said that we couldn’t tell them to kiss our ass as we turned.

    1. Jesus commanded us to love our enemies but that doesn’t mean we have to like them.

      1. It also means that we may still have to kill them. All men our brothers, but if he comes at me with intent to kill, I’ll kill him. That doesn’t mean he isn’t my brother.

        1. My brother may be a rotten asshole, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be there to help him reform his life.

      2. Well put. “Love our enemies” or what I consider “respect those who have different opinions/lifestyle then yours” does not mean you have to agree with or support everything they say or do. You just respect them as human beings even if you disagree with them on some or multiple issues.
        E.g. I support traditional marriage and will never ever support gay marriage and adoption by gay couples. So I support the christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding as he doesn’t want to support gay lifestyle, especially because he stands his ground with the risk of a jail sentence. But this “love our enemies” shows that if, for example, a homosexual has a car crash or something like that, you should call the ambulance even if you disagree with his lifestyle. Saving a homosexual from a wrecked car has nothing to do with supporting his gayness, you just help your fellow man as you would do with anyone else regardless of his/her background.
        “To love our enemies” plays on a higher level than “to (dis)agree”, something progressives will never understand since they consider disagreement as hate nowadays.
        Btw, excellent article.

        1. It’s a cliche by now, but the English word “love” fails to adequately explain the Christian sense of caritas. I hate the lies and dirty tricks of the online SJW mob, but at the same time I hope that they repent of their ways. I’d happily welcome them to our side if they sincerely rejected progressivism.

      3. a wise man in my church said in my paraphrased version “I’d turn the other cheek and if the opponent did something after that I’d knock him out. “

    2. Dang you beat me to it. A saying along those lines that always stuck with me was “we do more living for our cause than we do dying for it”
      Truly some great ideas in this article.

    3. Even when you apologise and grovel at their feet they still ruin you anyway so look them in the eye and say “Fuck Off”

  4. Excellent introduction, man! Very well done – I especially like how you tied it all together with the quote from my patron saint, Augustine.

  5. Hey Guys,
    the marriage strike, PUA and MGTOWs are all having an effect.
    This product is selling like hot cakes right now…there is a big launch on and a big competition on. I hope to sell lots of it! LOL!!
    Check it out and PLEASE put it in front of as many women as you know.
    You are going to LOVE putting this in front of DESPERATE women and seeing them part with USD47 for this product! Such sweet revenge to be paid to sell women products on how to get men to “commit” to them!
    Go ahead…check this out, laugh your arse off, and then give the link to as many women as you know! LOL!

  6. “…the cardinal virtues are part of the natural moral order …”
    Atheistic Darwinists (materialists or naturalists) suffer from the conundrum of never being able to account for the ultimate origin of this. If they fall back on their Blind Chance godless god, then the cardinal virtues, and any sense of right and wrong, also becomes a product of Blind Chance, and ultimately meaningless/worthless.

    1. God is not a requirement for a sense of right and wrong.
      Due to a weighty overlap in the categories of atheist and the immoral, especially those argumentative ones found in the bottom half of the internet, you are confusing one type for the other.
      While there are atheists who were likely brought up in a religious environment and realised there was no ultimate punishment for their sins, who went on to use this resentment at the lies the authoritors told them to keep them in line as a justification for their selfishness, and defend all their behaviours with ‘survival of the fittest dude’, these are not people with sufficient intelligence to understand the concept of Darwinian evolution, they are just idiots. They never had a true moral compass.
      There are plenty of non belivers who read and accept evolutionary theories who are not lacking in virtue or morals. Not knowing the origin of how we came to be does not make one immoral or ones life meaningless.
      A limitless universe does not undermine anyones true sense of purpose in life. A lack of belief in a god does not mean there is no soul or connectedness with others. An absence of an afterlife does not have to stop one attempting to make heaven a reality on earth.
      An absence of a non interacting authoritor of morals does not make a person’s life worthless.
      Lecture over.

      1. “They never had a true moral compass.” As you pointed out morality is objective and exists outside of any one person. We can only hope to understand the objective nature of morality itself.
        However, without God the objective nature of morality can be called into question. Once the nature of morality can be debated the notion of objective morality is thrown out the window.

        1. If God is a person ( or three persons) then his view of morality is subjective by definition.

        2. unless, of course, God created morality whole-cloth while he was creating literally everything else.

        3. If morality was created in time, then God cannot be eternally good, as Christianity asserts

        4. Unless, of course, God created time while he created space; which according to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity seems to be the case.
          Or are you a science denier?

        5. The point is that God could not have been good prior to the creation of morality.
          God cannot be eternally good if morality is temporal

        6. Doesn’t follow.
          All of God’s creation is temporal in relation to God by necessity, this in no way contradicts god’s eternity, it in fact confirms it.
          As for morality, it is”good” that one becomes closer to God. All of morality is ordered in this way. As God is eternally the closest to God it is fair to say that He is the highest good.

        7. Your statement reminds me of Socrates’s question: is something good because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is good?
          The Christian response is that God IS goodness. Also, eternity does not mean “a really long time,” but refers to God being outside of time. Goodness was not created in the sense that there was no goodness before man appeared.

        8. God set the Guidelines for Morality, if Man chooses to live outside those Guidelines Man can Make any kind of Morality he wants, the Communist Party often claimed that Morality is Subjugated to the Needs of the Proletariat.

        9. I don’t think diverting the topic into a debate on objectivity deals with the real issue. You dont need God to be virtuous and you dont have to be an atheist to understabd evolution.
          Father Thyme has referenced some good reading.
          Also to quote Floyd
          《I would also argue that those whom practice moral virtues without fear of going to hell or conversely being rewarded with heaven or nirvana are far morally superior, as their values are being practiced for their own sake and their own inherent good rather than being conditional.》

        10. God Biological Evolution set the Guidelines for Morality fify!
          Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals (Harvard University Press, 1996)
          Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (Princeton University Press, 2006)
          Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (Chicago University Press, 2010)
          Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame (Basic Books, 2012)

      2. If belief in some afterlife punishment is your only reason to be moral, then perhaps one could consider that it is you who has no true moral compass. Who is truly good who is good only by compulsion or fear?
        But let’s remember that morality itself is an attribute of biological evolution in social animals, and we have very good evidence of that fact.
        Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. (Harvard University Press, 1996)
        Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. (Princeton University Press, 2006)
        Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (Chicago University Press, 2010)
        Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame. (Basic Books, 2012)

        1. Atheist societies have been a total failure (Soviet Union and Eastern Block anyone), ours in its way to prove how godless societies are failures. Whether you like it or not humans are religious animals. As someone else says, if nothing is intrisically good or bad, then everything is permitted. Western laws and customs are undergirded by the Christian and Greco-roman ethos. You remove that and you get chaos.

        2. Christian societies have been total failures too.

          “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior…I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian…For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”
          ~Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922
          [Norman H. Baynes, ed. (1942) The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939,Vol. 1 of 2. Oxford University Press. pp. 19-20.]

          Religious apologists, particularly those of the Christian variety, are big fans of what I have dubbed, the atheist atrocities fallacy. Christians commonly employ this fallacy to shield their egos from the harsh reality of the brutality of their own religion…
          The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot
          Posted on October 21, 2014 by michaelsherlockauthor

        3. 《If belief in some afterlife punishment is your only reason to be moral, then perhaps one could consider that it is you who has no true moral compass. 》
          That was exactly my point. I was not talking about myself but more disagreeing with the idea that someone has to have religion to have morality.
          I’m not convinced that the preachy attitude of those religious types who judge others and think in such black and white terms could be considered morality either.

        4. Hahahaha
          Hitler Rejected Christianity in his youth, probably after the WWI

          speaking of Christianity “Let’s be the only people who are immunized against this disease.” Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier

          In Mein Kampf, Hitler himself stated, one could find mostly propaganda, especially in a time where whe needed the support of Catholic Bayern and Protestant Prussia and the rest of the Northern States for his nascent movement.
          From secular sources one can find from Mr. Evans, in his multi-volume history of the Third Reich, how “the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in.” Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken the Christian churches in Germany “.
          Even a fellow atheist Hitchens recognized how idiotic was the association of Nazism with Christianity and lumped it in the pagan section, so what was your point again besides the snark and distortions?
          I guess Vox is right, SJWs always lie.

        5. Hitler called himself a Christian; Christian both Protestant and Catholic viewed him as a Christian hero. And he did tap into the hatred Martin Luther had long stoked in a very Christian Germany.

          First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians…
          Martin Luther (The Jews and Their Lies, 1543)

          If you’re going to play the No True Scotsman fallacy, at least allow your True Believer (Hoffer, 1951) compatriots, the Communists, the same courtesy at denying the Soviet Union failure because they weren’t “true” Communists. They offer the same type of excuses.
          SJWs always lie? I agree. Why else would Christian SJWs forge their names as “St. Paul” in half the books of the Bible?

          “There were a lot of people in the ancient world who thought that lying could serve a greater good,” says Ehrman, an expert on ancient biblical manuscripts.
          Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says
          By John Blake, CNN, May 13th, 2011

        6. Hitler called himself a Christian; Christian both Protestant and Catholic viewed him as a Christian hero.

          If you can’t distinguish between propaganda and reality, you shouldn’t be left near a voting booth, let alone discussing topics in which you make up lies to compensate your lack of desire to understand the issue. Hitler knew that his people (das Deutsche Volk) were still Christian and had been Christians for more than 11 centuries, hence appeals to Thor, magic rituals and statements about how Jesus was a shepherd of worms (his words not mine) wouldn’t gain him votes or support. But his true feelings surfaced in his private words, those of his entourage, as well as in his actions

          “The Jew who fraudulently introduced Christianity to the ancient world-in order to ruin it-reopened the same breach in modern times, this time taking as his pretext the social question. It’s the same sleight of hand as before. Just as Saul has changed into St. Paul, Mordechai became Karl Marx.” – Adolf Hitler

          “In the same way, any doctrine which is anti-Communist, any doctrine which is anti-Christian must ipso facto, be anti-Jewish as well. The National Socialist doctrine is therefore anti-Jewish in excelsis, for it is both anti-Communist and anti-Christian.” – Martin Bormann

          speaking of Ludendorff and his anti-Christian campaign “I entirely agree with His Excellency, but His Excellency… can afford to announce to his opponents that he will strike them dead. But I need,for the building up of a great political movement, the Catholics of Bavaria just as the Protestants of Prussia. The rest can come later.”

          Besides the arrests of hundreds of German clerics, the decimation of foreign clergies whenever they could, rejecting historical evidence just shows the futility of engaging with this. In reference to Christian SJWs, unlike atheists, if you are SJW you are no Christian, you are heretic (just like Francis and many other pastors).
          Besides the fact that you had to dig that from CNN (a feminist and progressive echo chamber) you can´t even bring yourself to offer anything near to a clear rebuke of the bible. Instead you brought a half-assed author that plays mind reader and rejects criticisms to his hypothesis,
          What’s next, western civ is no the best and cannibal savages are equally deserving of praise for their “achievements”….

        7. I can tell the difference between your propaganda and reality, jackass. Consider the Martin Luther Memorial Church in Berlin, with Nazi and Christian images carved side-by-side into the decor of the church. (Note: on the first picture, the swastika has been hacked away, since it is illegal in Germany to display one.)

        8. I don’t know what you are trying to prove. You didn´t address the statements I made, probably because you cannot refute the truth: Hitler and his movement were not Christian and had to engage in heavy propaganda and distortions of the faith in order to pass themselves as something even remotely close to Christianity. Otherwise no one in Germany would have voted for an anti-christian occultist. But whatever, if you stick to your theories of an ex-catholic following Luther’s anti-semitism while rejecting the Christian ethos and insist calling the Nazi movement Christian, idiocy rejected even by clever atheists, that´s fine, be my guest.

      3. Actually, according to rational logic, a god with a moral code IS a requirement. Darwinism offers zero solution to this dilemma. If all life evolved out of nothing by pure chance, then it rationally, logically, necessarily follows that all notions of right versus wrong also evolved out of nothing by pure chance, in which case there is no basis to trust any of it. Not logically or rationally, anyway.

        1. But it is not a debate about ‘God or Darwin’. Darwin was not creating a philosohy, he studied nature and saw a pattern and wrote a book about it.
          Why does he have to answer questions on a dilemma that only exists for people who have blind faith?
          Yes, pure chance and a million years of ape evolution, society, duscussion, wars and an ability to empathise and realise that a particular action will cause pain to another.

    2. > ultimately meaningless
      Isn’t that exactly what Solomon, the wisest man, wrote?
      Ecclesiastes 1:2 “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.”

    3. Is it any better on the theistic side? You talk like religion has already figured out a sense of right and wrong.

    1. 1 Corinthians 16:13
      Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong.

    2. Most, not all. One needs to follow the traditions of the apostles preserved in the church founded by Jesus himself.

    3. Nothing is sadder than seeing a bunch of whites groveling at the feet of dirty semitic jew. If you need an imaginary friend why not Thor? He’s stronger and whiter. I’d even recommend Santa Claus over the kike.

      1. Thor is a Defeated Pagan God who only a few Handful Acknowledge, If you Allow Christ in your Life you would see why he is Eternally Omnipotently Stronger, and the One True God.

    4. So who’s right?
      Jesus: Call no man your father. [MT 23.9]
      Paul: You have only one spiritual father. For I became your father… [1CO 4.15]
      Jesus: Rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. [MK 10.42]
      Paul: So even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us… [1CO 10.8]
      Jesus: You have received without payment, so give without payment. [MT 10.8]
      Paul: Those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. [1CO 9.14]
      Jesus: Follow me. [MT 9.9, MK 2.14, LK 9.59, JN 1.43]
      Paul: Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me… [1CO 4.16]
      Jesus: He is not the God of the dead, but of the living… [LK 20.38]
      Paul: “Lord of the dead and the living.” [RO 14.9]
      Jesus: Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world… [JN 18:36]
      Paul: Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established…the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. [RO 13.1-6]

      1. They’re both right. There isn’t any contradiction between these statements unless you twist their meaning and take them out of context.

        1. Context is everything. There is no contradiction in those passages but you already know it and don´t care. That´s ok but please at least be intellectually honest and reject the whole thing.

        2. There are readily apparent contradictions there, and you know it, but you’re being intellectually dishonest, and haven’t the slightest clue what “context” actually means in an academic sense. In reality, even many Christians openly recognize the contradictions between “Paul” and “Jesus.”
          Paul’s Contradictions of Jesus

        3. Please don´t project. It´s pretty obvious that there are no contradictions once you read the whole thing: Matthew (Matt. 23:6–7), 28:19–20, (1 Tim. 2:7), (2 Tim. 1:11), (1 Cor. 12:28), (Eph. 4:11) or Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47 for the use of hyperbole just to mention a few. It seems you are the one who is alien to the meaning of context in an academic sense…

        4. I did read the whole thing. The contradictions remain, despite your rather desperate attempt to whitewash them. Many scholars have recognized and acknowledged the conflict between the Jesus character in the Gospels and the Pauline epistles, e.g.:

          “Paul’s words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul – a vast difference.” –Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (Harper, 1991, p. 104.)
          “Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the ‘Our Father.’ Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord.” –Albert Schweitzer
          Historical Quotes Concerning Paul and his doctrines from Historians, Philosophers and Theologians

        5. Desperate whoa, assumptions abound I guess. The fact is that you have to resort to fellow mindless writers says it all. Paul’s letters were written as a way to address directly particular congregations while leaving applicable teaching to anyone who read the (the Epistles). By the way the Gospels were in progress while he was alive, even when he died the last Gospel was not written. Even so, Paul’s teachings are full of paraphrased text and even direct quotes such as this one:

          “For the scripture says, You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.” — 1 Tim. 5:18,
          “And the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. . . ” –Luke 10:7

          If you are really a rational atheist you shouldn´t care about if Christianity or any other religion is true or false, but it seems you are more in a personal crusade with a huge ego investment.

      2. Both, How do those examples Cancel each other out? The understanding of the Bible Comes from Reading it in it’s entirety, not From Copying and Pasting excerpts from Atheist Blogs.

        1. isn’t an atheist blog, nitwit. Many theologians have recognized and acknowledged the conflict between the Gospels and the Epistles without resorting to excuse-making like you.

        2. I’m not Making excuses , God doesn’t make Mistakes, if some Men have a hard time with understanding the bible that’s their problem, but every Man can come to understand the Bible and Wisdom if they want it.

        3. God doesn’t make mistakes? Even the Bible says that isn’t so. (And the LORD repented of having made man on the earth… Genesis 6:6) But, of course, the Bible wasn’t written by the god dreamed up by Bronze-age middle-eastern goat-herding mystics who wrote it, and made plenty of mistakes writing it.

        4. Which ones?

          “…the persecutors of the Christians coined a new word to describe those who denied the very existence of the old gods and goddesses—the Christians were condemned as ‘atheists.’
          “Christian atheism excited rumor….”
          Jonathan Kirsch (2004) God Against The Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism. Viking hardcover edition, p. 109.

        5. So you can’t answer a simple question? Are you too intimidated to define your term “God?”

        6. I’m asking you a simple Question, “Do you Believe in God” , not looking for Profound answers with links to all over the internet.

        7. And I asked you a simple Question, “Which ones?”
          You’re too intimidated to answer a simple question that defines the term of your query.

        8. Which ones?

          “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, July 30, 1816

          Do you mean the Hebrew god plagiarized from Ugaritic clay tablets?

          Mark Smith (2001) The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford University Press.

        9. I said the Christian God, Jesus, and his Father the Hebrew God, But i’ll take the diversions as a sign you don’t.

        10. If you believe in multiple gods—you’ve listed two so far—then why did you use the singular term “God?”
          Try as you want to put words in my mouth, I have yet to give you an answer, because you have yet to adequately define your term.

        11. Oh the Profoundness, it’s 10:21 where I am, and I don’t see my day being spent debating online, I hope someday you can accept Christ in your life without all the Complexity, Till next time, Good Luck.

        12. Jesus (Christ) never called himself “God.”

          If Jesus Never Called Himself God, How Did He Become One? | April 07, 2014

          I hope some day you’ll divest yourself of all the Complexity, and become a Unitarian, instead of such a horrible confused Trinitarian. (Of course, if you believe in minor deities such as Satan and demons and angels, “trinity” no longer covers your Pantheon of Gods.)

          “I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its conscience to neither kings or priests, the genuine doctrine of only one God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.”
          –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June 26, 1822

        13. Anyway, since you can’t define your terms, I will, and give you the YES/NO answer you ask.
          YES…if you define “God” as a Deistic “Nature’s God,” which is the term used in the US Declaration of Independence.

          David Voelker (1993) Who is Nature’s God? The Hanover Historical Review.

          NO…if you define “God” as Evangelicals, such as Calvin, do.

          “I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

  7. I like this article, nicely tying in all of these differents facets and how they serve as a sort of checks and balances system.

  8. Another excellent article, Andrew. As a fellow traditional minded Catholic, it lifts my spirits to see these truths expounded upon.

  9. Too bad Catholicism has turned into Creative Anachronism. Today’s Catholics can imitate the forms of the religion, and their clergymen can wear their Renaissance Faire costumes (especially the pope). But the Enlightenment did a thorough job of destroying the context in which these beliefs sounded plausible.

    1. Not even close. The most interesting thinkers of the Enlightenment era were the ones most opposed to the prevailing trends, i.e. Samuel Johnson and Joseph de Maistre.

  10. “It definitely does not mean a vague and undefined resentment of cishet
    white male shitlords to last in perpetuity upon pain of losing your
    Informative article. If the above is true, which I certainly believe it is, its worth pointing out that we need to bring such notions of ‘natural’ justice (without necessarily basing this in religion however) in order to combat the pretender to the throne, which is ‘social justice’. The latter, the successor to all the different forms of socialism, with their analysis of structural inequalities etc, is at present violently in competition with the straightforward notion of justice (and indeed of virtue itself) that this article is about (together with the other virues). One doesn’t necessarily have ot critique social justice itself as ‘theory’ to see that in so many ways it violates every one of the the virtues described in the article. Social justice may align with natural justice (the pity of witnessing suffering or starvation for instance) but more often than not it seems to sacrifice real justice for some notion of ‘levelling’ which from a position of natural justice simply seems unjust. Likewise as the article suggests it has zero appreciation of temperance / forebearance, preferring indulgence of desires to the point that the whole of SJ identity politics is based on a violation of forebearance. In terms of fortitude, SJ represents the apotheosis of everything that is the opposite of fortitude or courage, raising up not merely victims (which can be a good thing in certain circumstances – and the underdog has been important to morality since the time of king david) but victimhood, and slavish seeking of the status of those who are weak and helpless – a false virtue if ever there was once. As for prudence – as the above suggests, SJ represents every imaginable lack of proportion and weakness of mind or sense. There is a tradition within christianity – a slightly problematic one perhaps of idealising the ‘fool for christ’ , but the folly represented by social justice becomes straightforward perversity, from the re-describing black as white, so to speak, to the all round celebration of weakness and unbridled carnality. People are genuinely beginning to sicken of social justice and its warping of reality. Give people genuine virtues and genuine justice and they will drink it as though flowed from a mountain spring

  11. A fine and important summary. The critical significance of the cardinal virtues to “a life well lived,” and therefore to happiness (Aristotle), has been confirmed so many timers that it shouldn’t need to be repeated…yet in our age, it most certainly does.

  12. What the whole baby-harvesting saga is showing is that Scott Roeder has been vindicated. Justice NEEDS to be taken into our own hands sometimes.

  13. I don’t know about you guys but that picture under Temperance is looking Pretty good, Especially the Way that Post is holding up those Rolls, Damn… 😉

  14. I challenge any catholics to show me from the kjv, thier universal doctrine. Show me where it says we should have a vicar of Christ, or chistmas, Easter, any catholic holiday lent, Mardi Gras. The making of saints, intercededing to the virgin marry. Show me the blatant idol worship

      1. Ok where does it say she can mediate for your sins. 1 Timothy 2:5

      2. 1 Timothy “2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. That shoots down preist, Hail Marys, the Pope . All in one verse.

    1. You’re referring to the bible that has parts edited out? From a church that was founded by a king that couldn’t divorce his wives so instead he had them executed? Who then executed the bishops that dared speak out against his blatant heresy?
      Or are you referring to a different KJV?

    1. Not to my knowledge, but I can think of a few prelates it definitely applies to.

  15. Can some of you red pill Christians explain to me how your religion is any better or different than all the leftist ideology you are so against? They seem to have a lot in common
    -Do what your told and don’t ask questions as to why.
    -Give us your money so we can redistribute it to people who need it more than you, while we stick most of it in our own pockets.
    -If you don’t agree with everything we say you are a bad person.
    Christianity, like leftist politics is about nothing more than money and control, under the guise of helping the less fortunate.

    1. People give to the church because it is their community, and consequently it is their responsibility to support it. Godless atheists don’t have anyone or anything they are loyal to, so I can understand that they don’t understand why someone would give money to their church.

      1. Yes because if you don’t suck the cock of that stupid Jesus Christ faggot than you’re not loyal to anything or anyone.
        Fuck you and go send God to suck dick in Hell.

    2. Au contraire, to suspend reason is the hallmark of false piety.
      “Do what your told and don’t ask questions as to why.” The Catholic church almost demands that one ask why. While one could simply follow the teachings and lead a just and moral life there is literally 2,000 years of writing and theological thought to answer almost any inquiry. If you think that the church requires blind faith then you’ve obviously never made a good faith effort to understand it.
      Feel free to take the SJWs at their word, when they say that church doctrine is only about blind faith; they never lie.

      1. I don’t take anyone at their word, I demand to be shown something concrete if I am going to devote my time, let alone my whole life to it. There are lots of other religions that tell a completely different version of how the world came to be. Lots of them have been around several thousand years longer than Christianity. Why should I take your word (or the bibles word rather) over theirs?

        1. you shouldn’t.
          here’s why Catholicism is different from everything else in 6 minutes and 36 seconds. If you still can’t be bothered, that falls on you.

        2. This is just more of the same. I don’t get the point. Instead of referring me to videos with a guy telling the same old story, tell me what has you so convinced that there is a god, that he created the earth and the universe, and that Jesus was anything more than a schizophrenic who heard voices or a crooked magician who tricked people. If I ask why the sky is blue, or why an apple falls from a tree, science can give me an answer that makes sense, and show me experiments that back it up. Religion is asking me to believe in a guy that could defy the laws of physics, among many other outlandish things. Catholicism has a long history of hiding knowledge from its people and forbidding them to seek it, right up to the point of not allowing them to read the bible. It also has a long history of using violence (which it’s supposed to be against) to force people to follow it, and then demand tribute to the church. So tell me, what have you seen, or felt or whatever it is, that proves to you that God is in control?

        3. P1. We know that it is impossible for something to come from nothing within our observable and measurable universe.
          P2. Likewise, everything within our observable and measurable universe comes from something.
          C1. Therefore, there must be something outside of our observable and measurable universe from which everything comes. Theists refer to this “something” as God.
          That is what philosophers refer to as a logical proof. It agrees with our scientific understanding of things (1st law of thermodynamics), is logical, and doesn’t have any false premises.
          First you have to understand the above.

        4. High school level physics and chemistry can show us where things come from up to a certain point. I am no different from you in wondering how the universe came to be. The difference is that I don’t just go with the first answer someone gives me. Believing that there could be a power that is greater than humans can comprehend is fine. But believing a guy who lived thousands of years ago who says that he is the manifestation of God, and then following a twisted version of what he says, complete with archaic rituals ripped off from other religions just seems childish to me. Again, this is what I’m asking you, why did you choose Catholicism rather than Buddhism or Hinduism or paganism or animism? Why are they wrong and you are right? What evidence do you have? This is what I want to know before I’ll believe anyone or anything. Catholicism is just a business, there’s more evidence for that than anything within it.

        5. I completely agree with you. As you rightly observed, my proof has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of God, merely with the factual basis for His existence. Given that you object to none of my premises, nor my conclusion I will press on under the assumption that you are a theist.
          As for the basic nature of God, I will draw from two basic theological assumptions that are the cornerstone of all scientific discovery and one observation:
          P3. The universe is not divine, nor is it God.
          P4. The universe is intelligible.
          P5. The universe appears to be ordered, in direct contradiction to what entropy would predict if our universe were to be strictly randomly oriented. (this doesn’t mean that entropy is wrong, simply that there must be other forces at work)
          C2. Given that the universe is ordered and intelligible but not in itself divine, This implies that a creator God (who is divine) is intelligent (the universe is knowable through reason), and has a will (there is order rather than chaos.)
          I’m curious where you find fault with this proof as I am still in the process of developing it for my own benefit.

        6. The part where I find fault is putting your faith in something that was created by humans to understand what no human can. I don’t consider myself a theist because I don’t believe in a god. I would consider myself an atheist, except that people have distorted the definition to mean someone who thinks science can fully answer all questions. To me it just means I don’t believe in God as a conscious being that can create or destroy. I don’t believe science has all the answers, at least not for now, but I think we’re making progress, and that the answer lies in science, even if the human brain will never be able to understand it. I don’t believe that the universe is ordered, I think that we are basically a lucky coincidence that happened as matter and energy mixed under the right conditions. basically I feel like religion gives very simple answers to complex questions and people just go with it because it’s what they are brought up with. I also can’t understand why anyone would believe Jesus when he says he is the messenger of God. Why only him when so many others have claimed the same thing?

        7. Given that you say you’re not a theist, which premise do you think is factually incorrect?
          P1. We know that it is impossible for something to come from nothing within our observable and measurable universe. (1st law of thermodynamics)
          P2. Likewise, everything within our observable and measurable universe comes from something.
          Or is my conclusion somehow not compatible with the first two premises?
          C1. Therefore, there must be something outside of our observable and measurable universe from which everything comes. Theists refer to this “something” as God.
          I’m trying to answer your questions but it does no good if we are talking “across” each other

        8. So that’s the point of what I’m trying to say. I don’t disagree that everything had to come from something, and if you decide to refer to whatever this is as God, then that’s your choice. What doesn’t make sense to me is how this turned into Catholicism. Why not just say that you believe in something bigger than us and be done with it? Where does Jesus come into it, and how is he any closer to God than anybody else? Why all the churches, rituals, bishops, cardinals and everything else? Organized religion just seems like a way to play on people’s questions and fears to get control over them.

        9. > archaic rituals ripped off from other religions

          […] they perform their ritual, and persuade not only individuals, but whole cities, that expiations and atonements for sin may be made by sacrifices and amusements which fill a vacant hour, and are equally at the service of the living and the dead; the latter sort they call mysteries, and they redeem us from the pains of hell, but if we neglect them no one knows what awaits us.
          Plato (4th century BCE) The Republic. Book II.

        10. Creationists claims about entropy have been categorized and debunked quite thoroughly, e.g.:

          CF001.1. Systems left to themselves invariably tend toward disorder.
          CF001.2. The second law of thermodynamics, and the trend to disorder, is universal.
          CF001.3. Instructions are necessary to produce order.
          Index to Creationist Claims

        11. You are in exactly the same position as a physics researcher who concludes that there must be some other force driving the universe.
          The difference is the string theorists have gone a lot deeper down that path and have done math on it.
          Nothing about your logic implies a creator. But if you wish to fill the nonobservable unexplained parts of the universe with a anthropomorphic entity, that is your choice. But it will cause a whole set of questions about the nature of this god, like what could possibly exist in this space, and what kind of narcissistic creature would make a massive universe just to have a planet populated with people who would worship him, and why would there be only one of these creatures.
          In the end aplologetics will not get you where you need to be, but after years of debate and study you might eventually find that you and an open minded scientist who understands dark energy are using the same words for the things they cant yet explain.
          Edit: The thing you have trouble with is this 《CF001.3. Instructions are necessary to produce order.》
          God is simply an emergent property of a self organised complex system. The universe and the human brain that evolved within it created god, not the other way round.

      2. Then it’s high time the Christian/Catholic churches do a purge, for it was made clear through much of my formative years that questions may be asked, but if the answer runs contrary to what they want you know/believe then you’re made to feel as if you’re a bad person for asking.
        Hell, just thinking about it wasn’t Adam and Eve cast out for asking questions? It’s in your mythology.
        Oh, heresy was a thing too. Excommunication or death were punishment options. What of that?

        1. Adam and Eve were cast out because they had one job – don’t eat the fruit of that tree. Or as a priest friend of mine once put it, “God was angry with Adam because he listened to his wife.”

        2. That talking-snake fable in Genesis has been thoroughly debunked by geneticists.

          The facts first. Sheehan et al., building on earlier work by Li and Durbin (references in margin), calculated that the minimum population size associated with the worldwide expansion of humans out of Africa roughly 100,000 years ago was 2,250 individuals, while the population that remained in Africa was no smaller than about 10,000 individuals. For population geneticists, this is the “effective population size,” invariably smaller than the census size, so these are minimum estimates, and ones derived from conservative assumptions. The population sizes are estimated by back-calculating (based on reasonable estimates of mutation rates and other genetic parameters) how small an ancestral population could be and still give rise to the observed level and structure of genetic variation in our species.
          Note: 2,500 is larger than two.
          This means, of course, that Adam and Eve couldn’t have been the literal ancestors of all humanity. Normally, such a scientific trashing of scripture could be absorbed, at least by liberal theologians. They’d just reinterpret Adam and Eve as metaphors. But that causes big trouble on two counts…
          Jerry Coyne (2013) Scientists Try to Reconcile Adam and Eve Story, Whiff. Again. New Republic.

    3. Agreed. Nobody loves everybody and I certainly don’t. It is not possible even if you tried and as somebody whom works in personal growth I think it is psychologically unhealthy. The left, Christianity and other cheek turning religions have espoused this ego denying philosophy throughout human history. Many a war and other acts of inhumanity have been espoused under the guise of loving all individuals whatever they do to you or others, or having compassion for everybody.
      I would also argue that those whom practice moral virtues without fear of going to hell or conversely being rewarded with heaven or nirvana are far morally superior, as their values are being practiced for their own sake and their own inherent good rather than being conditional.
      However, I do think the vast majority of the population being herdal creatures need an external morality imposed upon them through narratives such as traditional religion. The decline of these moral codes has of course left us in the state we are now. Only a small minority such as those of us in the manosphere can realistically formulate our own moral codes and virtues and live a life based on our own values contrary to the status quo.

      1. “Love” in this context doesn’t mean a deep personal relationship with every human being on earth, which is obviously impracticable. Essentially, it means you desire what’s best for everyone. I want alcoholics to give up the bottle. I want fatties to get healthy. I want criminals to renounce their lifestyle and become productive members of society, and so on.
        You say that ego denying philosophies have been used to rationalize evil, but the same could be said for anything, really. The lives of the saints show selflessness at its best. Or if you don’t buy that, consider the soldier who throws himself onto a grenade to save the lives of his friends.
        Atheists can be moral of course. The point is that pure materialism cannot rationally explain notions like “good for its own sake” beyond a cost-benefit analysis.

        1. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote “I am a Materialist,” outlined the Epicurean virtues of “1. Prudence 2. Temperence 3. Fortitude 4. Justice,” which you have mistakenly attributed to Christianity.

          As you say of yourself, I TOO AM AN EPICUREAN. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing every thing rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us. […]
          Syllabus of the Doctrines of Epicurus […]
          Moral – Happiness is the aim of life.
          – Virtue the foundation of happiness.
          – Utility the test of virtue. […]
          Virtue consists in 1. Prudence 2. Temperence 3. Fortitude 4. Justice.
          –Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, October 31, 1819

        2. I specifically said in the article that the four cardinal virtues were found in the pre-Christian writings of Plato and Cicero.

        3. Yes, you did, and I appreciate your honesty that Christianity borrowed heavily from Greek philosophy. At any rate, if you want to argue whose philosophy was most influential on Christianity—Plato or Epicurus?—I’ll argue Epicurus, at least in the aspects of Christianity that I admire.

          “…Epicureanism functioned as a bridge of transition from Greek philosophy to the Christian religion.
          Norman Dewitt (1954) St. Paul and Epicurus. University of Minnesota Press.

        4. If we consider your case of the soldier whom throws himself on the grenade…would he be a better man if he was religious or not? Isn’t the avoidance of sin so as to gain access to heaven its own cost benefit analysis?

    4. The short answer is, I’m a Catholic because Catholicism is true. That’s the only real reason a man should believe anything.
      The long answer probably wouldn’t fit in a comment, and my personal conversion story might not be interesting to enough people on RoK to justify a full length article. Enough people have asked that I’m going to write it down at length on my personal blog soon, if you’re interested.

      1. Disagree with you on the Catholicism thing. But definitely agree with you that truth is “the only real reason a man should believe anything.” People who justify their own religion or attack other religions based on that religion’s effect on society confuse me. That is irrelevant. Objective truth is the only thing that matters when it comes to religion.

      2. “ personal conversion story might not be interesting to enough people on RoK to justify a full length article.”
        I would be interested.

    5. “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” –Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813
      “What an effort, my dear Sir, of bigotry in Politics & Religion have we gone through! The barbarians really flattered themselves they should be able to bring back the times of Vandalism, when ignorance put everything into the hands of power & priestcraft.” –Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, March 21, 1801

    6. If you’re going to pick a hero, you could do a lot worse than Jesus – the prince of peace, a champion for the poor and the disenfranchised, a truly righteous man who was crucified for speaking out against immorality and injustice.
      He gained his popularity through love and truth.
      Not through propaganda, lies and fear like the politicians do.
      That’s how Christianity differs from Leftist politics.

      1. > a truly righteous man
        Not so much.
        Avolos, H. (2015) The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics. Sheffield Phoenix Press Ltd.

      2. Why do you have to pick a hero? Jesus is to be respected sure, but heroes is more drama.

    7. “Can some of you red pill Christians explain to me how your religion is
      any better or different than all the leftist ideology you are so
      against?” — That’s a question a true Christian couldn’t even answer because it’s based on a false premise. I am not a Christian because I believe it is the best moral framework for society or because it matches with my preconceived worldview. I am a Christian because I am convinced that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and I believe in His death and resurrection.

    8. “Do what you’re told and don’t ask questions as to why” – nobody is forcing anyone to be a Christian or preventing them from questioning. On the contrary, people are encouraged to read the Bible and further their knowledge.
      The money point – the Church really does play a huge role in helping the less fortunate, and I agree with this.
      You aren’t “a bad person”, you have simply sinned and should confess and repent.
      If you think Christianity is about money and control then you have never truly experienced it. What’s an example of “control” that ex. Catholicism strives to get over its followers?

    9. In short, I’d say you misunderstand Christianity, which is understandable since the post-60’s SJW/Leftist/Education/Media Complex has largely been been the ones to ‘define’ it. Leftist ideology I’d the antithesis to Christianity. In contrast to the points you made, Christianity teaches:
      -‘Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits…’ (ie don’t just believe someone cause they say something… critically evaluate their words and deeds)
      -Willing charity to those you know, have real relationships with and care about who may be down on their luck is not the same thing as being forced by law to permanently support dregs and perpetually subsidize sloth, stupidity & poor life choices.
      -Christianity doesn’t teach that “people who disagree” are bad people. Christianity teaches that EVERYONE is a bad person – including Christians. IE it has a realistic understanding of human nature as flawed and corruptable. Essential to this is acceptance of the concepts of good/bad & better/worse. “Red Pill” agnostics or atheists may not accept or believe all the dogmas or tenets Christianity, but at least we are in agreement that in terms of society, lifestyle, actions and choices, there IS such a thing as good/bad & better/worse. And though there may not be perfect alignment of belief in the particulars of what is good/bad, I think there is general alignment. Hence the reason we are all here in “the manosphere.”
      -By contrast, for leftists, no actions, lifestyles, choices, or beliefs are better or worse than others. They have an absurd faith that everyone, every belief, every behavior, everything is “Equal” (and therefore GOOD.) This is the opposite of not only Christianity, but Critical Thinking as well. In real life, actions have real consequences. But since everything is “Equal” for leftists, if in the real world a person’s or people group’s life circumstances are worse off than others, the only “logical” conclusion for them must be that it’s because of “oppression” and “injustice”; not because of the inherent inferiority of inferior choices and behaviors. For them, the success of traditional, pre-feminist, pre-Cultural-Marxist western society MUST be because the “white-male-heteronormative-patriarchy” is “oppressive” and not because of its inherent superiority. Christians believe actions have consequences.
      Furthermore, since Christianity believes ‘everyone does bad’ it also has a concept a showing Grace to others when they ‘do bad.’ The Left by contrast is merciless towards those who ‘sin’ by their standards – which means, either rightly or wrongly saying anything that suggests two things/peoples/behaviors are not ‘EQUAL.’ For example, Hulk Hogan, Donald Sterling, and Mel Gibson have all dared utter ‘the N word’ during private conversations. They did DO anything to anyone, they simply engaged in offensive speech. Rather than hold to the traditional measure of Justice in the Christian world – an eye for an eye, or”let the punishment fit the crime” – the left has mercilessly sought to completely destroy these men’s lives.

  16. Let’s attribute these virtues to who actually compiled them: Epicurus, as outlined by this gentleman:

    As you say of yourself, I TOO AM AN EPICUREAN. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing every thing rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us. […]
    Syllabus of the Doctrines of Epicurus […]
    Moral – Happiness is the aim of life.
    – Virtue the foundation of happiness.
    – Utility the test of virtue. […]
    Virtue consists in 1. Prudence 2. Temperence 3. Fortitude 4. Justice.
    –Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, October 31, 1819

    1. Let me guess: you were raised in a Christian household and they really did a number on you, right? Men who grew up without a faith background generally don’t display as much a missionary streak or as strong a “FUCK YOU, DAD!” vibe as you have.

      1. I know why you’re attacking with such desperate “derogation:” I’m a “worldview-threatening other,” causing doubts in your religious narrative of immortality that ameliorates your mortality salience (MS.) In the field of Terror Management Theory, your “MS-induced aggression” has been studied, and the studies published here:

        The hypothesis that mortality salience (MS) motivates aggression against worldview-threatening others was tested in 4 studies. In Study 1, the experimenters induced participants to write about either their own death or a control topic, presented them with a target who either disparaged their political views or did not, and gave them the opportunity to choose the amount of hot sauce the target would have to consume. As predicted, MS participants allocated a particularly large amount of hot sauce to the worldview-threatening target. In Studies 2 and 3, the authors found that following MS induction, the opportunity to express a negative attitude toward the critical target eliminated aggression and the opportunity to aggress against the target eliminated derogation. This suggests that derogation and aggression are two alternative modes of responding to MS that serve the same psychological function. Finally, Study 4 showed that MS did not encourage aggression against a person who allocated unpleasant juice to the participant, supporting the specificity of MS-induced aggression to worldview-threatening others.
        J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 Mar;74(3):590-605.
        Terror management and aggression: evidence that mortality salience motivates aggression against worldview-threatening others.
        McGregor HA, Lieberman JD, Greenberg J, Solomon S, Arndt J, Simon L, Pyszczynski T.

        This study is referenced in the following documentary:

        1. So much for having an answer.

          …Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect… 1 Peter 3:15

        2. Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you… Matthew 7:6

        3. That’s the usual derogatory response for those who lack any answer, and confirms the study I referenced. Anyway, when you can defend your worldview with something other than third grade insults, get back with me, ok?
          Before you do, I suggest you watch the Ernest Becker Foundation documentary, or otherwise familiarize yourself with Terror Management Theory, to learn something about your religion and its actual usefulness in ameliorating mortality salience. And maybe you’d even come across a study like “No Atheists in Foxholes,” as follows:

          Br J Soc Psychol. 2012 Jun;51(2):385-92. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02058.x. Epub 2011 Oct 13.
          No atheists in foxholes: arguments for (but not against) afterlife belief buffers mortality salience effects for atheists.
          Heflick NA, Goldenberg JL.
          Terror management theory (TMT) posits that people cope with mortality concerns via symbolic immortality (e.g., secular cultural beliefs that outlast death) and/or literal immortality (afterlife belief). However, what happens when these two forms of immortality conflict, as in atheism? Would atheists’ mortality concerns be better assuaged by affirming an afterlife, or by affirming their literal immortality-denying worldview? Drawing on an untested TMT hypothesis, we predicted that atheists would be buffered from mortality concerns if their atheistic worldview – no life after death – was challenged, but not if it was supported. Results confirmed the hypothesis and were also found for theists and agnostics. These findings support TMT’s claim that literal immortality is of paramount importance in ameliorating death concerns.
          ©2011 The British Psychological Society.

  17. What is a “good man”? We know what makes a good salesman, a good plumber, a good banker but what is a good man? Someone who not only knows what virtue is but lives the virtues in his daily life. Someone who through living a virtuous life acts as inspiration to those around him. People will always recognize a good man and will be drawn toward him to follow his example.

  18. Great article Andrew. I agree that practicing the virtues will not only improve our own soul, but gradually improve society as well.
    How do you recommend keeping these virtues at the forefront of our minds every day?

    1. Reading the biographies of great men or the lives of the saints has always been my preferred method. Virtue arises from habit, and we have opportunities to practice good habits every day.

  19. Smart counsel here, though as a practical matter for American guys, I’d add a word of advice for logistical practicality– you must move out of the United States as soon as you can, whether before or after you’ve made your money. I know I’ll probably get some flak so I’ll lay it out straight here– I’m a military brat who grew up in dozens of countries, and the United States is by far the most dangerous as far as holding onto your gains and hard-earned money, encountering financial ruin and losing everything you’ve worked so hard to save and build (including your game). Remember that the USA especially is ruled by the banksters and lawyers who profit from having you in debt and a slave, and there are two ways they do this to guys who would otherwise be alphas with game:
    1. Divorce and the crazy US family courts. 2. The killer health care costs here if you get injured or sick. These are uniquely horrendous and dangerous in the USA.
    (1 The US is esp. disastrous for men in divorce because in the USA, uniquely, it’s a major profit center for the divorce lawyers, judges, divorce courts and state govs in general (as they get a cut of the child support and alimony blood money). Also the US has nearly the highest divorce rate in the world (more than half of the marriages), and prenups don’t work cuz a judge can arbitrarily throw them out. The Us is one of the few countries to still force alimony onto men, permanently (this is why Robin Williams committed suicide, $45 million in alimony), and the USA is the only country to routinely throw men in prison when they can’t pay the alimony if for ex. their business falters or lose a job or get sick. Unfortunately other Anglo countries like Canada, Britain and Australia have been imitating the US model so they have many of the same hideous US divorce habits, though not at that level of extreme.
    IOW DO NOT MARRY OR HAVE KIDS in the USA or another Anglo country (don’t cohabit either, the laws consider that “same as marriage”), you’re putting yourself on the line to lose everything., including your game, and become a debt slave. Instead, learn a language or two and emigrate to a non-Anglo country for good. Here the cool thing is that almost any other country will work for this since other countries know divorce is stupid, discourage it, prevent anyone from profiting from it, mediate and have waiting periods and joint custody for it, no alimony, no community property, you keep what you’ve earned, far lower rates of divorce. So whatever you’ve worked hard to earn, you keep even if you do get married and divorced, and you hold onto your game. As expected this is the case in the Mediterranean and Lat-Am countries like France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Panama and Ecuador. But it’s also true of Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Asian countries like Korea or Taiwan, China, Vietnam, Japan, even Nordics like Norway, Sweden and Finland. Even though the Scandinavians are all about equality and egalitarianism, it has a different meaning from the US where these words are used with the context of having a chip on someone’s shoulder– in Scandinavia, this means in practice that women don’t get breaks after divorce and have to provide for themselves without alimony, so a guy keeps what he’s earned and maintains his savings.
    (2 As far as the health care– this is another area the USA is totally sick and crazy out of it’s mind, another way the banksters, lawyers, insurance companies and other parasite profiteers have made a profit center out of something nobody should be profiting from. It’s another reason to move out of the USA as soon as you can, especially if you’ve worked hard and earned money. One case of appendicitis or pneumonia in the US, a car accident where some drunk fool hits you, getting injured while skateboarding or playing sports– and you’ll lose everything in the USA, and I mean everything, due to medical bills. This has happened to more than a few cool cats I’ve known, I’m talking guys with game and the ladies, worked hard, making good money, saved up and lost everything from medical bills. One guy was making six figures and starting a business, hot girlfriends and one-night stands in succession. Then some jackass side-swiped his bike, he got charged a crazy amount in medical bills– the guy lost everything, no more game for him. Another guy making bank, messed up his knee playing basketball– medical bills in the USA ruined him.
    In other countries, when you need medical care, nobody goes bankrupt or even has a large bill. This is a key reason to emigrate, no matter how much money you make in the USA, you’re constantly at risk of losing everything due to health care and medical bills (as well as divorce) which can hit you anytime. And let me make it clear, in places like France, Germany, Scandinavia, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador (South America in general), or Korea, Taiwan, China, Japan, Vietnam in Asia– TAXES ARE NOT HIGHER THERE than in the US. That’s a myth. When you add up all the layerings of taxes we pay in the US (like property, payroll, business, state and local which are a lot higher in the US), they’re the same or even worse in the US. It’s just that in the US, all those taxes go to bankers’ bonuses and political corruption, while in other countries, their lower taxes go to making sure their people have health care. (And also free college like in Germany or France, which is another reason to go abroad rather than getting student loans like in the US.) A lot of American cats with game get confused and duped into railing against “socialism” but if socialism is guided and done right– like making sure the population of a country doesn’t go bankrupt from medical bills or divorce– it can actually help you earn and keep your money and have more game. The problem is, the system in the US is socialist but only for the banksters, politicians, crony capitalists and other jerks ripping off the system, and they get rich by ripping you off and pushing you into debt in particular.
    So again, look abroad, preferably to a non-Anglo country for the reasons I was talking about above. German’s a great language to learn all over the place these days, it’s the strongest economy in the world and a global model, though French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, even something like Dutch or Korean– they’ll take you places too. Don’t stay in the USA or another Anglo country though, that’s the surest way to lose your game and lose your hard-earned money.

    1. No dude you neglect to mention that the medical industry in America is tightly regulated and the fact that the EU + much of Europe is in a worse economic condition than America

    2. Why is running away by moving out of the US going to help. You have to stay and fix it.

  20. A great book to read about this is by Josef Pieper. And Plato talks about Sophrosyne, which Prudence is the most closely available translation.
    The virtues aren’t about religion, but come form the Stoics, who preached about being your true self and living rationally in the world. They were adapted into Christianity at the start because the Church Fathers understood the concept of Logos and human nature.
    Pieper points out how Prudence, Justice, etc. are words that have lost their true meanings, and when properly understood change a person from the inside out.
    About Game and Training Your Girlfriend, just adopt the virtues. Study why both game and training work, and you’ll see it’s about just presenting yourself as a man and human being. Respecting yourself and letting the other person know it. Respecting the other person while communicating limits, etc.
    Seriously studying the virtues and setting goals to apply them does more for you than relationship counseling or therapy. They’re all about cultivating yourself as a person.

  21. If you believe in god it just shows that you are deficient in rational thought. Can’t get much more beta than that.

Comments are closed.