Pope Paul VI Was A Prophet For Our Time

Christians in general, and Catholics in particular, are portrayed as puritanical and anti-sex. This raises a question: if Catholics hate sex so much, then why did they historically tend to have so many children? As recently as 100 years ago, child rearing was considered the proper object of marriage and sex. The blue pill script – go to college, get a good salaried job, marry young and for life, have two or three kids – retains its staying power because it used to be sound advice. The manosphere exists in part because it is sound advice no longer.


Pope Paul VI, who reigned from 1963 to 1978, was in many ways a weak and vacillating man. His predecessor, Pope John XXIII, described then Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini as, “our Hamlet,” always indecisive to the last. In an uncharacteristically bold move, he published the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae in 1968 that reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s opposition to all forms of artificial contraception.

At this point, many RoK readers may be thinking, “I’m sure this is terribly interesting to you Levinson, but I’m not a Catholic and the pill and the condom have been great for my sex life. Why should I care about this?” You should care because Paul VI called it: the easy availability of contraceptives paved the way for no-fault divorce, unleashed hypergamy, and sodomite “marriage.”

Marriage Then

Most of us take atomistic individualism for granted, in contrast to the ancient understanding of man as the political animal. “Who are you to say what two consenting adults can and cannot do in private?” is taken to be an unanswerable rejoinder to traditional understandings of sex and marriage. Sex seldom remains a purely private affair, especially in the era of social media. Among other things, sex can lead to love, marriage, hate, murder, children, disease, happy homes, broken homes, social cohesion and social disintegration.

As Pope Paul described it:

Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.


In other words, marriage was once considered a more public institution than it is today, not through legislation but through social convention. Young men were incentivized to make themselves good husband material if they wanted sex and children. Young women were encouraged to remain chaste and marry young. Divorce was unthinkable for our great-grandparents. Then, as now, women were much more ruthless about slut shaming than men.

Above all, marriage was ordered toward children:

Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents’ welfare.

Marriage Now

In paragraph 17, Pope Paul predicts the consequences of the contraceptive mentality:

Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law [emphasis mine – AL], and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Players and sluts ye shall always have with you, but the world now incentivizes us to be this way. Men must constantly perform or else their unhaaaappy wives will blow up the marriage for cash and prizes. That is, if men choose to marry at all. Fewer do, and in all honesty, I can hardly blame them. Why should they? If they want sex, they can find plenty of willing ladies provided they have even a modicum of game, and they won’t have to risk losing their homes, their jobs, their children, and their sanity in the divorce grinder.


Women too have grown to devalue men. Would the carousel exist to the extent that it does if it weren’t for the pill? If they can have consequence-free sex, then they will pursue the apex alphas and ditch the frustrated betas who were the good husbands and providers of yesteryear. Women are more exquisitely sensitive to social pressure than men, and the social cues that existed in our great-grandparents day aren’t there anymore.

The key here is that artificial contraception radically separated marriage and sex from child rearing. Marriage used to be a recognized public institution that carried with it certain legal and social obligations to which the couple was expected to conform. If children are removed from the occasion, then marriage becomes all about romantic feelings.

Fuzzy Feels Are Optional

If marriage is nothing but a public declaration of romantic feelings, then two consequences follow: if the feelings go away, that’s a legitimate reason to end the marriage; and if sodomites have romantic feelings for each other, then what reason do we have to exclude them from marriage?

Traditionally, Christianity has taught that if you burn with lust, you should marry. The specific woman you married was a question of prudence like choosing a career or a new house. Nowhere did the Church say that God had created “the one” or your soulmate. Unfortunately, this thinking has infiltrated all Christian churches today with disastrous consequences.

White knight extraordinaire Mark Driscoll

White knight extraordinaire Mark Driscoll

Jesus Christ famously prohibited divorce in the Gospels but many Christian churches have creative methods for getting around that. In theory, the Catholic Church has stood strong alone among all Christians. Strictly speaking, she does not recognize divorce but she makes “declarations of nullity,” which means a couple never formed a sacramental marriage at the time of their wedding vows. The American Catholic Church in particular has been handing out annulments like candy for fifty years, so it’s understandable why outsiders think of them as Catholic divorces.

The Basis Of Civilization

The building block of civilized society is not the individual but the family. The great evil of our time is that our progressive overlords actively undermine the family at every turn. My tradcon friends vacillate between believing game is either a placebo or a set of irresistible Jedi mind tricks cads use to deflower innocent virgins. The media wonders why young men refuse to grow up, man up, and marry those sluts. I say the men of today are responding rationally to the incentives of a world gone mad.

Be honest gentlemen: if Marriage 1.0 were still the rule instead of the exception, how many of you would happily marry? The contraceptive regime radically disrupted the natural formation of families. Sex became an end in itself. From that conviction came the scourge of pornography. The logical conclusion is the development of sex bots. And an elderly, celibate Italian bishop saw it all coming more clearly than all of the experts.

Read More: Why Would A PUA Get Married? An Interview With Paul Janka

284 thoughts on “Pope Paul VI Was A Prophet For Our Time”

    1. The author’s point is that they are not wife material because they have not been hewn into worthy wives by society since the sexual revolution.

        1. With all the nonsense going on in Canada now about Roosh and neomasculinity being misogynist and anti-woman or whatever, the SJWs miss the point that we don’t hate women, we hate a litany of behaviours that are particular to women raised and indoctrinated in the west since the 1960s.
          Game is merely a coping mechanism for a modern man who wants to get laid without falling into the traps of beta orbits or marriage 2.0. Women have chosen to ride the carousel and then they vilify men for wanting to insinuate themselves as one of the ponies that go ’round. MGTOW is largely a coping mechanism for men who have given up on getting laid or have put it far, far on the backburner while also rejecting marriage 2.0. Meanwhile, the MRAs are trying to move ahead to marriage 2.1 or 3.0 by re-jiggering the socio-legal balance between men and women to something that is more fitting of the label “equal”.
          Neomasculinity is something else again that needs to be clarified, accepted and practiced among men before bringing women on board to create functional relationships again rather than deploying coping mechanisms to deal with the dysfunctional situation created by feminists and white knights.

        2. Great analysis. I think all of PUA, MGTOW, and MRA are bad ways to live, but each is a perfectly rational response to a bad world to live in. I haven’t quite figured out what neomasculinity is and how it can help. Can anyone give a summary?

        3. um, why not just buy a legal prostitute in Nevada once in a while like I do instead of trying to make things more “equal” or any crap like that, you get satisfied without any of the problems associated with marriage

        4. They are overpriced for any man who is halfway intelligent, halfway decent looking and not stupidly rich. Plus it’s not the same as actually seducing a woman.

        5. you sure about that? if you’re a real mgtow you’ll know that its best to avoid female relationships at all costs, and seducing a woman typically involves being in a relationship unless its a one night stand then you spend about a hundred dollars in drinks for her and yourself plus the entry fee, and possibly fast food, and sometimes gas, while running the risk of getting an un wanted baby and/or a STD. after about 12 times that adds up to a little less than you’d pay at a Nevada brothel. with the exception of plane tickets but I live near reno so that’s not an issue for me.

      1. The following charts are not alarming for non-married men who are in the “safe zone”
        They are alarming for “currently married men” the trend involves collapsing marriages as well as non-marriage(marriage avoidance). As the trend of marriage being avoided increases , the chances of a collapsing marriage that is currently active increases, they go together.
        The marriage rate has to do with the entire climate of marriage period.

    2. 2016 coming up, so lets say 2% a year since 2008, that gives us 16% decline
      37%-%16 =
      a marriage rate of 21% and still declining to 0

      1. Good, once it declines to zero America will die and be invaded by a strong heterosexual nation with christianity like russia.

        1. Huh? The communists banned and eviscerated the church in Russia. Christianity is a relic there.

        2. “Yeah, in your fantasies maybe. In reality, however, Christianity is long dead there. Half of ‘Christian’ Russia is either atheist or
          You’re forgetting that only 25 years ago that Atheism was the state religion and Christianity was underground. So an amazing and historic revival occurred to arrive at numbers of 41% Orthodox (young and growing) and only 40% atheist or non-religious (old and dying).

        3. See my post above. In the old days there was the “shotgun wedding” but now we are moving towards a “9mm wedding” where the state, through courts and police enforcement, put guys into a legal relationship that they never agreed to explicitly.

        4. Russia not Black African Christiams will conquer their white world of privilege, again…

        5. Russia’s birthrate isn’t even at replacement level despite Putin’s urging to the contrary. And the ones in Russia who are having kids have names like Dzhokar and Fatima.

        6. There is no “historical revival”. Not by a long shot. Just stupid Ruskies tasting the “forbidden fruit”-something that was effectively banned a couple of decades ago just became trendy popular. That’s pretty much it. In fact, compared to mid-2000s, the Orthodox numbers have actually DECREASED significantly from about 55%:
          Now it is 40%. The majority of these Orthodox “believers” don’t know even the basic tenants of their religion. They do not read Bible or other religious texts. They do not go to church or attend services. I would not be surprised if these idiot “believers” won’t be able to name the authors of the four canonical gospels. But hey, don’t you question them being believers in Puti-sorry, I mean, God.

        7. shove it up your ass. you people have no clue how to run anything. your poverty is a result of your culture not neocolonialism

      2. I expect that Canadian statistics are similar, and looking forward is just a guesstimation as Stats Canada has stopped collecting marriage and divorce data. The thing is that every province has a common law statute (sort of a contradiction in terms) which effectively means you can end up married without getting married if you simply act like you are married for two years.
        As far as I know Quebec is the only jurisdiction that does not allow alimony (spousal support) after a common law marriage ends, although there was a constitutional challenge to that and I don’t know what stage it is at or what the outcome was.
        Meanwhile, starting with Manitoba, provinces have been changing the law regarding property division so that it applies to common law marriages and not just to legal marriages.
        Of course, child support provisions apply regardless of what sort of relationship you are in.
        The net result is that there are lots of men setting themselves up to be divorce raped without ever having been married, especially in light of the fact that cohabitation and common law marriages are inherently unstable when compared to legal marriages (the latter of which are 40%+ likely to not last a lifetime anyways).
        To the best of my knowledge, many of the States in America – such as New York – have not drank the common law marriage Kool-Aid, although I don’t know the specifics regarding (p)alimony and property division laws.

        1. In Colorado there is common law, and it used to be 6 years of sharing either a phone # or a common address. I think it may have changed to 2-3 years now.
          Yes, a lot of guys are setting themselves up for wallet rape
          completely unknowingly.

        2. There would be no common law marriage in Quebec, since after all, it is not a common law legal system – it’s based on French civil code. So, no matter how long you live with your girlfriend up there, she will never become your “common law” wife.

        3. Technically true. However, what the term “common law marriage” has come to mean is a definition enshrined in legislation and then applied by a judge. While Quebec does not recognize common law marriages per se, there is legislation where two people can be treated as “spouses” without being legally married. There was a constitutional challenge in Quebec but I don’t know how that turned out. In Ontario there is no such thing as a “common law marriage” in law but there is a definition of “spouse” that goes beyond legal marriages for purposes such as support obligations (ie. alimony/palimony)

  1. the last time I went to church (catholic), the front page of the bulletin had a big advertisement for annulments within the church.
    It read, ‘Are you divorced and want to remarry within the church? see Father xxxxx about an annulment’. the fact that this was in bold print on the front page told me there must be a huge demand and a lot of divorced motherfuckers around.
    I never particularly wanted to be a player and chase sex, but I think marriage is too bad of a deal for men to consider it. And it gets worse every year.
    I also noticed the priests themselves don’t have to put up with the bitch they tell you to marry. “God wants you to marry her for life”. when she gets fat and bitchy, it’s not the priest stuck with her, or God. It’s you who suffers the consequences.
    It’s easy for the priest to lecture from behind his pulpit about how you need to commit to some aging wet hole when he himself doesn’t have to put up with her.

    1. That’s unfortunate. I suppose it’s near impossible to swim against the tide of media and culture. As Chesterton remarked, easy divorce makes for easy marriages.

      1. Unless both parties wish to divorce is it really easy? Most guys get the ass-end of it.

    2. As the old joke goes, “Why would a priest need to get married? He already lives in poverty, celibacy, and perpetual obedience.”

      1. my wife is a very traditional and modest catholic girl from central america. (as an aside, before we got married, her priest told her to remember when she gets to the US that feminism is of the devil and not a good basis to raise a family.) i’m not sure about this, but it seems like the church in central america doesn’t hand out annulments like it does in the US.

        1. I guess the rub is that I am not a Catholic nor even Christian. That could prove problematic when dealing with the parents if someone like me decided to look in Latin America for a bride. In China, that isn’t so much a problem but there is a streak of racism or other prejudice among parents that you have to overcome.

  2. I wonder if Roosh is just as schizophrenic as ROK is. Always jabbering about ‘game’ and then suddenly a post that praises the former leader of an organisation that despises said game. Oh yeah, and also harbours child abusers.

    1. Were these traditional societal rules in place, hardly any man would become a player because we all would’ve been married off by 20-25, matched with a girl from our church/community. Game is the outcome of an open sexual marketplace, so it has everything to do with the repeal of religious morals on women.

      1. But it still doesn’t make any sense or logic. If you control the flow of information on a website, that is targeted against feminists, then be at least consistent and not throw anything on there that basically says: ‘booo women’.

        1. the purpose of ROK isn’t to target feminists, It’s for masculine self improvement. Criticizing feminism is just one aspect of this site, and helping understand the current sexual marketplace.

        2. men improve themselves. faggots and women bitch and demand government to give them benefits. You obviously fall in the latter category.

        3. Of course, the name calling has now started. Fuck me for having a different opinion about religion, although most of the anti-feminist stuff this site offers does make sense. But the resorting to ‘Christian values’ for women to conform to the men’s wishes is a very old stick to beat with. Find something new instead.

        4. “But the resorting to ‘Christian values’”
          Nowadays that statement is true. He even mentions that in the article. But at one point the Bride of Christ was faithful to her Husband and didn’t go out whoring.
          That is the point of the author.

    2. You don’t give a fuck about child abuse – you probably make jokes about it. Fuckwits like you use this as a stick to attack soft target Catholics who won’t issue a fatwa on you or try to track you down and behead you – unlike another non- soft touch religion I can think of. If you really care about child abuse what are you doing to counter the mass rape and sexual abuse of non-Muslim children and girls by gangs of Muslim men in the UK for example? Obviously, you reaaaalllly care about the victims of child abuse, so I’m sure you actually do something about it instead of name calling on the internet.

      1. All religion rustles my jimmies, especially Muslims so shut the fuck up you base head religious twat. But you are diverting from the original topic because that’s idiots like you do. No proper retort so resort to going off-topic.

        1. I don’t give a shit what upsets a trolling cunt “liberal” like you who knows nothing but who uses a lot of words to say it. I’ll state what I want and you won’t stop that femonazi. You have nothing to retort to – all you do is spew out the “liberal” hate your sociology professor indoctrinated you with at the college you attended on your middle class daddy’s dollar.
          Go on then, prove you are a equal opportunities hater by treating us to some hate speech against Islam in the vein of your cheap anti Catholic diatribe. Fucking coward that you are you won’t.

        2. You seem more butt-hurt over having your faggot pedophile church insulted then you were when the priest ass raped you.

        3. paedophile priests? Wow! How original, I suppose for SJWs like you, that is your bread and butter. What next? Patriarchy?

        4. Hey it’s your faggot loving Pope’s organization that likes to rape little boys.
          Why do so many priest ass fuck boys? Why don’t they have sex with women ?

        5. you seem to have a very strong interest in paedophilia – is there something you are not telling us?
          Another SJW cunt who pretends very unconvincingly to give a fuck about child sex abuse so he can feign “outrage” as a pretext to troll those whom he hates. Go back to Jezebel cunt

        6. relax man, the neckbeard WNs are sjws of the right wing, 2 sides of the same coin.
          what is about the redpill that attracts these guys.

        7. Fair point, they both really are packs of degenerates who offer nothing but hate and want to destroy any attempt to create constructive things in life.

        8. Go fuck yourself you arse whipe, in my ‘native’ language I’m almost 24/7 at the end of going against the results of soft European treatment of the Islam and all it’s “glorious” appendages, you need to stop bitching about your own shite religion or just go to Fox and cry with your fellow teaparty asshats.

        9. I’ve got a better idea you boring SJW cunt – you go fuck yourself. Go back to the Guardian online dating section to find yourself a fellow middle class “liberal”l hate monger – or maybe even a tranny to prove how right on you are.

        10. Forgot to mention that you didn’t give any actual content to prove you are willing to attack Muslims – just some weasel words. As I thought, you are another cowardly cunt who goes for soft targets – how rebellious.

        11. Would be useless considering you don’t speak my native language and probably don’t have the desire to translate every fucking thread I commented on those sites. But sure, if proof is your way of diverting the whole conversation and keep sticking to your ‘soft target’ rhetoric then go ahead, make my day.

        12. To speak “your native language” the words would have to emanate from my asshole – just like yours. You are deluded; you think I have to “prove” or “perform” anything or react in like a puppet on a string for a worthless trolling cunt like you. Silly little boy with a big empty ego. And a SJW coward to boot as there’s no sign of your anti-Muslim tirades as you duck and dive and evade.

        13. Good grief! You rail and scream like a SJW who got spanked by alpha logic! The next thing you know you’ll be calling everyone who disagrees with you nazi and misogynist!
          Fix yourself some camomile tea and take a breath. You’re embarrassing yourself.

        14. Take a breath? I’m very calm, and you sound like you know your way around hippie tea…
          And please define ‘alphs logic’ because Google gave me the name of company and I’m still none the wiser. Or are made-up words / expressions the way to go? makes sense though, because giving people names because you can’t make heads or tails of it is the last step on Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement: http://i.imgur.com/kNnPlNM.png

        15. Project much?
          I know about calming ladies because I make it for my wife when life gets to be too much for her.
          I’d make you some but then you’d have to suck my dick. Quid pro quo.

        16. And I was specifically NOT responding to a single thing you said. I was responding to your nasty, bitchy, out of control name calling. I correctly pointed out you were sounding like a SJW.
          And your posting of that silly pyramid totally unmasked you as a gamma boy because you were doing all those things in your posts before I ever came along!
          Bitch SLAPPED! Spank, spank, spank! LOL!!

        17. Congratulations man, you won a discussion on the internet. Although you admitted you didn’t actually engaged in that discussion. And a gamma boy? can you clarify on what that actually means? or are you still making up words like your previous comment. I’m sure you are into being spanked as well, sounds like a typical beta male who is into cuckolding.
          Oh, and the person who responded to me started with name-calling from the bat, but you wouldn’t care because you think that you shouldn’t reply in the same way and be ‘above it all’. Well, fuck you.

        18. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a simp! Always lie and always gotta have the last word, even if it’s only to concede defeat.

        19. See! Gotta have the last word!
          You know, I wouldn’t even have noticed you if you hadn’t had such a snotty attitude. If you want positive attention try saying things that are insightful and add to the discussing. But I realize insightful or even just intelligent comments are a lot harder to come up with than snark and name-calling. But work on it. It’ll make you a better man. Sort of the goal of ROK.

        20. Thanks for the advise, but I still don’t like people reverting to a religious base to lead your own life. Being an atheist is what I am and I won’t change that. And there are more ways to skin a feminist cat. 🙂

        21. Okay. Let me get this straight.
          YOU don’t like OTHER PEOPLE seeking a religious bas(is) for THEIR life? What the fuck are you? The thought police?
          So all of your posturing here is nothing more than an attempt to shame people who are living their life in a way that you don’t like?
          Man, you have no honor. Most atheist a least deceive themselves into thinking they care about truth or intellectual integrity. But not you. You’re just a pissant (look it up), with no real goal or purpose to achieve!
          Man, you aren’t a gamma male, are you? You are a full-on omega. Google Vox Day and the socio-sexual hierarchy for the definition.
          Get help, man.

        22. I said I don’t like it, I don’t said other people shouldn’t. They are free to do whatever they want. ME on the other hand find it silly. You took my words and made it something that rustles your jimmies, if so. That’s your choice. I will leave it at that and wish you a nice day.

        1. Oh, wow! What a taboo buster! I’m really impressed with the big tough boy! Burn your koran (I note your SJW spelling of that book) outside the nearest mosque, then report back to us afterwards.

        2. Did you do this outside your local mosque so quickly? And there was me thinking your were a cowardly little rat on the internet who wouldn’t actually do something in real life – as opposed to downloading jpegs. Good little boy.

      2. Please do not feed the trolls. If you do they will see this as a place to gain the bottom-feeding attention they seek and will come to rely on it. They will come back to this spot because they know they will get the validation they seek.
        I often feed trolls. But please, do as I say and not as I do!

    3. Yeah, it’s kind of mind blowing that different writers have different opinions, isn’t it?

      1. Haha!! That’s funny. On the topic at hand, you put together such a succinct explanation of the sexual revolution that I can’t help but wonder, would we have been better off without any contraceptives at all? Deep question to ask.

      2. Great article. Thought provoking for me as I was brought up Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI’s reigning period was before my time but apparently he demonstrated prescience regarding our current predicament. Glad you addressed the ‘but the pill & condom have been great for my life’ bit that was revving up at the starting blocks inside my head..hehe.

  3. Lol what is interesting is:
    “Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.”
    Basically the man would objectify women, that which all the feminists and leftists often use in their slogans. It is ironic as ‘safe-sex’ i.e. anticonceptives is what they’re advocating.
    Not against contraceptives, but thought it is an interesting point. Though indecisive, a wise pope.

        1. Long before Bruce Jenner, there were black fag trannies.The purple nutfungus was spreading throughout the black community too. In big cities, on the red light strips with the prostitutes, you’d always see hanging around the painted china dolls and white chicks with make up painted over AIDS sores a few tall black trannies. They even had their own lingo. It wasn’t ebonics but was more like ”my name’s BROWN SHOOGA honey child. Yoo need some company senator?”. THEY WERE ALL TALL like basketball players and with lack of characteristic body/chest hair they made their switch easily with a wig and lipstick. Some must have used estrogen to raise their voice and get man boobs because they are easily mistaken for female. People will mistake them for tall skimpy nigga bitches at first. I honestly don’t know where the trend originated from. It’s probably part jail influence and part inner city ghetto with big jew boss men in control of the sweatshop districts.
          The white fags come from the divorce rape single mother households and from working class boss bitch households (dominant mother) and withdrawn beta mule dads and then these fags come out of the closet once they hit a campus where they have a fag peep show district and sjw mobs roving the campuses with their activism.

  4. Cardinal Montini? Pope Pius XI?
    You mean the guy who turned a blind eye to the mass genocide of a million and a half Serbians by the Catholic Ustachi during WWII?
    You mean the guy who turned a blind eye to the smuggling of thousands of Nazi war criminals out of Europe after WWII?
    Yeah, sure, i remember that guy.
    Sources (among many others):
    Unholy Trinity by Mark Aarons and John Loftus

    1. Read the title. Does it say Pope Pius XI?
      “who reigned from 1963 to 1978”
      did WWII go that far?

  5. “Be honest gentlemen: if Marriage 1.0 were still the rule instead of the exception, how many of you would happily marry? ”
    Not me. It was still a man becoming the willing slave to a women and some bastard children.

    1. Why don’t you get married to your longtime “male friend”? After all, they have legalised it now.

        1. Yea I’m a real “SJW”, an avowed racist, a NRA loving gun owner, and a man who joined the army to kill brown people. I’m basically Bernie Sanders.
          Why does your faggot Pope like to ass rape little boys?

        2. you are just a sad little boy seeking validation on the internet by “bweaking the rools” Some sort of an autistic misfit by all means.
          Go and fight ISIS then you yellow belly cunt – no danger of that is there you airsoft loving faggot?

        3. Why should I fight ISIS? They are killing Muslims.
          The enemy of my Enemy is ISIS. How long did you spend in the army, faggot catholic?

        4. Yeah, all that peace and love between brothers and sisters worldwide must rattle your cowardly, trolling little micro penis to its very foundations.
          Go back to your airsoft with all the other “warriors” you big brave “Veteran.” Ha! Ha!

        5. Unlike you, I have an open profile with a Facebook page.
          You on the other hand hide in your mother’s basment when you’re not getting ass fucked by the priest.
          ISIS is still killing xian kids, while I laugh. What are you going to do about it? Not a god damn thing because you are a sniveling coward just like that jesus christ jew.

        6. Yeah, and the US is pinnacle in the modern world. An oligarchy controlled by AIPAC, your country’s wealth looted by Wall Street gangsters, your “culture” degenerate, your police paramilitary racist murderers and your women the biggest whores on the planet. Is that the Catholic Church’s fault too?

        7. Schizophrenia is a bitch, I do sympathise with your pain – but you need to make up your mind whether you hate Christians or you don’t. You are all over the place in that last post you big tough “veteran” who supposedly “fought ISIS.”

        8. I never claimed to have fought ISIS, you stupid fuck. I watch ISIS kill Christian scum on the tv and laugh. It’s great. They beheaded some christian children last month.
          I killed muslims in Iraq in 2007.

        9. Basement – check – abuse by priests check – “I hate Christians” – check- accusation of cowardice – check – insulting Christian religion – check. Well done “veteran.”

    2. No you weren’t becoming the slave of a women. She was becoming your helpmete and the bearer and nurturer of YOUR children. With marriage a man was initiated into the Community of Men, which meant the men who lead your town, your church, your society; the Shriners, the Elks, the VFW, the American Legion, the city, county and state governments. With traditional marriage a man attained MANHOOD.
      Now? We are a society or either simps or “players”. In both cases, boys who don’t know how to grow up because they have no reason to. Manhood is now nothing to aspire to.
      We are doomed.

    3. you wouldnt be a slave since shell be holding her end of the bargain, shed be accountable unlike today. The only sense of being a slave then was wed put each others needs over our own cuz we love and care for them, now we have to one up each other.

      1. A man becomes a slave when he slips and takes on ‘wifely’ duties. When a dumb or lazy bitch first whines that she can’t tit feed or clean, she’s assuming the man will take up slack. It’s a trap. The first incidence of slack should be dealt with harshly and there won’t be a second incidence. When the bitch whines for the man to take over for her, it should be seen as if she’s coming at you with a meat cleaver to cut off your balls. Deal with it swiftly and she’ll learn. It’s all about training your woman effectively.

        1. good point, keep her as your partner not your dependent, no way in hell would a wife pick up for the husbands slack.

    4. Marriage is not very appealing for men anymore. I am not even sure if there are benefits at all. Women get all sorts of benefits from it though.

  6. I don’t want to be 50 and alone,I refuse to write it off completely. Idk where you guys are from, but in texas we still have some girls with traditional values

    1. Someone once said:
      For companionship, get a dog.
      For sex, hire a prostitute.
      For children, get marriage
      Raising progeny is the only reason a man should get married.
      I live in a ‘traditional area’ and frankly, even they are half-feminized.
      I’ve decided to go overseas for relationship, but even there you have screen for those just wanting a green card.
      In short, AWALT.

      1. Investment doctrine states to never invest more than 10% in anything no matter how good the story is.
        Money is just a symbol of time, Women require TIME, So no matter whatever kind of relationship theory you subscribe to
        beta, or mangina or redpill or whatever the hell you’re game is, The only safe way to not waste your time and energy in this life is to play it safe by capping it at 10% a mangina for example will make the women their entire world and probably think about them all day and sign up half their net worth (lol)
        if someone was beta but was smart enough to cap their “time spiral” at less than 10% than i would say, their cost of the relationship was low so the outcome couldn’t be that damaging in the end regardless

      2. For sex, spin plates and make sure your birth control is reliable (hookers can generally be trusted to do that, while plates can’t).

    2. i’ve said it before, but i’m a huge fan of texan women. the closest we get to russian women in the US. feminine, they care about how they look and yeah, a few are still fairly traditional, for american women.

      1. Have any of the guys on here who go on about the virtues of Russian women actually been to Russia? I talk to lots of Russians who say most of them are miserable cunts who like to fuck rich Arab guys. Not to mention most of the ones I see over 40 look like they were bred to pull a plow. Can’t say I’ve been there myself, but I hang out in some Russian heavy areas. Seems like there’s a lot of Putin pedestalizing on this site.

        1. I’ve been to Moscow several times on business and from what I have seen the women there are pretty much like everywhere else. They tend to be more traditional than western women, but that seems to be changing as the years go by. Russian wives will nag their husbands (that never changes), but they do accept, and expect, their men to lead.
          Putin is another topic, but IMHO he has enriched himself keeping the families that own Russia happy and stokes nationalism to keep the people behind him. With Russians regarding Putin, I find it depends on the topic at hand.

        2. i lived in the FSU for years, speak russian, and used to be married to a ukrainian woman. FSU girls have their problems. gold digging is one of them, and i certainly would not argue that they are the most loyal women in the world. still they look good, dress nice, are feminine, and at least back when i lived over there, were very critical of feminism (“feminists are ugly women who can’t get a man” my ex would say). i prefer latina girls who go to church, but i would take a rooskaya over an american chick any day.
          about the over 40 thing, can anyone name a country with lots of hot women over 40? any time a guy says country X has lots of hot women, another guy says “yeah but they’re super ugly after 40.” men age like wine, women age like milk, regardless of the country.

        3. I’ve been to the country of Georgia 4 times, and Ukraine 3 times, for a total of about 5 months in both countries. I went there to visit my brother who worked there and is married to a Georgian. There are tens of thousands of Russian women in both countries, and basically the women in the FSU are basically all the same. High focus on appearance and being sexy for men. You would think this is cool, but over there it’s a smokescreen. Most of them are sharks with tits. However, there are some worthwhile ones if you go out of the cities, and I’m talking rural sticks small village shit. But, do that, and you have to meet her entire family, live with them(yes), and then you will need to apply for a K1-Visa which takes about a year to complete. That means you will be flying back and forth for a year if you want to see her with any regularity. It will run you about 30k all in all, and then there is no guarantee she doesn’t find a richer or better looking dude from Europe(easier Visa process than here) or in her own country, and then you will be left dangling in the wind, and 20-30k poorer, with your dick in your hand. Hypergamy is universal to all countries. AWALT.
          If you want progeny, above anything else in your life, it is worth a shot to try (and/or SE Asia), but you have to want kids more than anything else in the world. That is the only reason to try it. You will still run the same 60% divorce risk as if you wife up an Ameriskank.
          I did not travel there to wife hunt, although it was a back burner thought as I was there. All in all, I met two women who were marriage material, but I didn’t want to do the year of work traveling, courting her through her family, etc.
          And don’t think you are gonna run game on most FSU women. They are MORE wily than the average sloot here, and they will not fuck you for the sake of sex. Native FSU dudes are Tier 1 for that , and you will be relegated to Tier 2 status because you are not native. Unless you hire a prosti or get involved with some dangerous shit, you aren’t gonna run game very well. ask Roosh

        4. Hot and over 40? Rare, anywhere on the globe. Japanese and SE Asian women keep the best skin on the face around the eyes. And, if they workout, their asses tend to keep their shape better than caucasian women. Hispanic women, like WASPs, really get the stomach bloat, ass slag, and lizard face as they age. But, you will always be dealing with the cellulite creep on the upper thighs, sagging tits, stomach folds, and neck jowls. And usually, the ass cheek slag, where you get that extra fold of skin underneath the ass cheeks, regardless of how tight the glutes are. Basically any women 40+ will have to have a very pretty face to compensate and keep your boner stiff

        5. Most East Asian women look basically the same from the time they are 16 until they are pushing 50. However, there is a point where you think you are dating Zhang Ziyi and you wake up one morning next to Yoda.
          That being said, most Oriental girls are fairly plain looking and only qualify as “cute” because of their youth resulting in a large number of 5s and 6s once they are past mid-twenties.

        6. Must be that Tofu. Works well until 50 , then BLAM
          Seems like in Asia, unlike here – women who are 5s actually know they are 5. Is that true for the most part? I’ve only spent time in Indonesia and a bit in Japan.

        7. Saying you would marry a Russian girl over an American skank is like saying you would eat cauliflower before you ate dog shit. It doesn’t imply much good about the cauliflower.

        8. I am 60 and am married to a 32 year old E. Asian woman. We have many E. Asian women in our social circle and quite a few are in the neighborhood of 50. I see a lot of upper forty lower 50 year old E. Asian women that are very attractive. Now if you are 20 you may disagree with my aging and dimming vision, but it doesn’t matter to me what you think. I stopped giving a shit about what other people thought a long time ago. My favorite beer cozy says, “Too old to give a fuck.”

        9. i wouldn’t recommend marrying either, in most cases. you’ll have a better roosh-style mini relationship with the russian girl, though.

        10. Russian girls in los Angeles… have no levity to them. Attempting conversation with them is a miserable experience. Not even trying to game them or anything – just a perfunctory, agenda-less exchange… They are so dour and don’t smile.

      2. I think that applies to Southern women generally…it seems I’ve always done particularly well with women from Texas & Kentucky though.

  7. **”If Catholics hate sex so much . . ”**
    I don’t think Catholics hate sex. When married it probably becomes ordinary and unspectacular. Out front, they don’t flaunt it, but in the bedroom, it’s most likely a simple grunt and a wink and the booty call is made. The kids are in bed and it’s ‘chuga-chuga-chuga-BING’ zzzz.
    I’m always curious about the private interactions of the SHAKERS though. Where the heck did the sex starvation come from? I’d like to go back in time and spy on or study the bedroom habits of the Shakers and come up with a diagnosis. Perhaps show them some impromptu clips from Catholic couples and how they initiate. The Shakers made such great furniture. It’s a shame.

  8. Nothing like an institution that covers up countless paedophilia cases to teach the world about sexual morality lol

    1. muh hipocrysy… Way better to redefine morality to pave the way to legal paedophilia right retard?
      Remember, false bravado is still better than genuine faggotry.

    2. It would be illogical to blame the man for the institution’s transgress. But your point about those transgressions holds in another fassion.

    3. “Nothing like an institution that covers up countless paedophilia cases to teach the world about sexual morality ”
      In the US, public school teachers out-molest the catholic priests by a ratio of 33:1. But yet we must herd children to state ran institutions to “learn”.

      1. If only public school teachers could get married then none of that would… oh wait.

        1. Heh. I mentioned this before, but pedos go where the kids are and they come in all vocations. Becoming a teacher in the US (BS Education degree) is a lot easier than becoming a catholic priest. Also never understood why people think catholic fathers would simply humbly stand by — that collar won’t save you from retribution.

        2. Strictly speaking, very few priest abusers were genuine pedophiles who preyed on young children. Most of them were homosexual men who pursued teenaged boys. The Church has officially barred homosexuals from Holy Orders for centuries. St. Peter Damian wrote “The Book of Gomorrah” in the 11th century which catalogued and decried the sins of sodomite priests so it’s not an new problem.
          But any man who’s ever been in the seminary will tell you that the ban on homosexuals in the priesthood isn’t enforced with nearly the vigor it should be.

  9. from my personal perspective of today, i would rather become good at game and fuck lots of women all around the world than committing to one. that does not mean that i would not eventually want to, once the novelty of that would wear off.

  10. Until the Catholic Church goes to Pre Vatican 2 then i will not consider myself Catholic. The Catholic Church is more concerned with allowing more immigrants into Europe than defending the interests of the people who served and protected their jobs as well as lined their coffers for the last two thousand years.

  11. Take a pure virgin woman, assume that she has the same temptation as Eve (they all do), and keep her hammered and controlled. That’s the best any man can ever do. Get used to it. That’s life.

  12. My Grandfather Remembers when the Pill came out, and he said it was like night and day, he said women used to have those Legs shut tight for fear of having a child, but after the Pill a lot of the Legs flew wide open,
    and the second to last paragraph about Manning up and Responding Rationally, I totally agree, Men are logically responding to an irrational situation, how many Men on their wedding won’t experience a Virgin? And why bother with the modern Flake Marriage where a woman’s reason for divorce can be as trivial as Loss of Interest , it just doesn’t add up.

    1. As trivial, that is the number one cause. Oh, its not like tv, he doesn’t dance and sing and kiss my ass, I want a divorce. That is how it works.

  13. There once was a time in galaxy far, far, away when there was societal pressure on women to marry a good guy and settle down and have a family. It was also a time when women would be shamed if they were divorced or partaken in homosexual activity. There was also a time when women avoided the term “old maid”.
    Oh how have times have changed.
    Now being a slut, holding out for the unattainable alpha, partaking in homosexual activity are now glamourized and encouraged. You wonder why society is unraveling. And now the Catholic Church has an imposter pope giving out contrary messages. Like organized religion or not, the old “jedi” order kept societal balance.

    1. Yeah today we have 40-year old women bragging in mainstream magazines of being childless by choice and refusing to have relationships with men because they are not deemed worthy. Pathetic entitled mentality.

  14. I have been married since 1992. Best thing that every happened. Pope Paul VI was right.

  15. This is no accident. The Leftists of the Frankfurt School know damn well that the family unit is the basis for Civilization. They are not just seeking power, they want to destroy Western Civilization. It must be hard for you to believe, knowing that Civilization has brought food, clean water, medicine, electricity, information, computers, and a hundred other boons to benefit people, but to them it is the enemy. Civilization brings laws against crimes and perversion, it promotes work and punishes sloth, it demands responsibility and punishes vice. They will gladly live in filth to engage in sodomy. They will gladly see starvation to enjoy gluttony. They will gladly live in ignorance to avoid work. This is the attitude of the Untermensch, the subhuman.

  16. Sex diseases could have been a way to tell people to stop wasting the mind on sex. Without contraceptives even more homosexuals would get venearal diseases even though most of them already have them. And they have the gall to protest for HIV cure research. You can thank science and technology advancing for all those moral boundaries being crossed. Should there be development on cures for HIV and AIDS? There should be stricter advice on prevention not treatment even the white lab coat guys know prevention > treatment all the time.
    Does there need to be a new evolved strain of harmful viruses and bacteria for the next sex disease that causes instant death to cause alarm for this problem? This could be that plague that the Bible speaks about

    1. Sexual sin is the only sin that God has created diseases for. There are no theft-transmitted diseases. Not even murder-transmitted diseases.

  17. Contraceptives were invented because they wanted to minimize the increasing trend of kids being born out of marriage. Many men were cheating during those times when women were starting to have jobs that were formerly held by men. Women automatically look down on men once they earn more, it is in their biology, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it, but to dethrone them from their pedestals. Women and the Church have forgotten or have chosen to neglect these Bible passages:
    1 Peter 3:1-22 – Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; (Read More…)
    Ephesians 5:22-24 – Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (Read More…)
    Colossians 3:18 – Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
    1 Peter 3:7 – Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
    Ephesians 5:25 – Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
    Ephesians 5:21 – Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
    Ephesians 5:1-33 – Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; (Read More…)
    Ephesians 5:22 – Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
    Colossians 3:19 – Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them.
    1 Peter 3:5 – For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
    1 Timothy 2:12 – But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    Ephesians 5:33 – Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.
    Galatians 3:28 – There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
    1 Peter 3:1-7 – Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; (Read More…)
    Ephesians 5:21-33 – Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
    It really was Gender Equality that destroyed marriage. Gender Equality creates an imbalance between the sexes. The sexes are equal when women are to submit and men are to lead.

    1. News flash: There’s no evidence that a god exists. So who cares what the bible says. Make your arguments with logic or reason, or can’t you think for yourself? If you want to be Alpha, develop your intellect and draw your own conclusions using logic and reason. Stop relying on emotion to guide your world view. Clinging to religion is an emotional decision.

        1. Quoting someone doesn’t offer any logical support for your point of view, it just demonstrates agreement on behalf of the person you are quoting. If you want to argue that society would descend into chaos without god, then make that argument, I’ll be happy to argue against it since it’s a ridiculous idea that isn’t backed up by sociological or biological evidence.

        2. But you aren’t interested in discussion; you’re simply interested in bashing religion.

        3. The fact that I disagree with you means I’m not interested in a discussion? I already said that I was interested in a discussion. I’m sorry if you don’t like the topic, but I am interested in a discussion. It seems like you are the one that isn’t.

        4. Read the symptoms of someone who is schizopherenic
          Sounds a lot like a religious folk who always says they can “hear the voice of their deity inspiring them”
          a delusional belief is a belief that is not real
          Delusional beliefs, Voices, Thinking that there is some invisible force around them
          But if 1,000,000 people are skitzophrenic than it’s just called religion
          Now, look at people who are involved in “cults”
          Cults always have something to do with belief in some kind of super-force
          The argument is really on you to prove that you aren’t just experiencing psychosis and cult-like hypnosis
          If i were a shrink, and someone came to me talking about their belief in some otherwordly force and that they hear voices and see invisible “signs” of it’s presence.
          id probably say they are psychotic, except there is a profitable framework built around this madness

        5. “The fact that I disagree with you means I’m not interested in a discussion?”
          Your above reply (on a article talking about religious figures predicting current marriages , more over) on a comment
          that actually pertains to the article at hand starts with the following:
          “News flash: There’s no evidence that a god exists. So who cares what the bible says. ”
          So, yes, you start out by attacking religion and have no interest in discussion (and very off-topic, BTW).

        6. It’s my way of instigating a discussion. No need to be so sensitive about it. Defend your position.

        7. It’s not backed up by sociological evidence because there have been no societies without religion to examine. Communist states certainly are not counter-evidence, but it’s pretty clear that the decline of western civilization has gone hand in hand with secularization. Why would there be biological evidence for a spiritual phenomenon? If anything, even many atheist scientists think that humans are biologically wired to create and practice relgion.

        8. Whether or not it’s human nature to create and practice religion isn’t an argument for it’s validity. The biological explanation is that there is an evolutionary advantage to drawing conclusions without sufficient evidence (If you see a large animal, it’s advantageous to assume it’s dangerous even if you have no evidence to suggest this). And additionally, it’s evolutionarily advantageous to try and understand what is unknown. Religion is our primitive attempt to explain the unknowable, and the religious explanations for natural phenomena have steadily been eroded in favour of scientific evidence based explanations. Because religion has a long history, it persist due to tradition, and indoctrination. But religion is least prevalent in the most developed and modern nations.
          The sociological evidence is that the most secular countries, i.e. western europe, Australia, NZ, the US, Japan, have the highest living standards, the least conflict, the least crime, etc. The parts of the world who’s politics is most strongly governed by religion are more frequently awful places to live. There are exceptions, because there is a very complex interplay of factors. But psychological studies suggest that secular nations have happier people.

        9. Religion is our primitive attempt to explain the unknowable, and the religious explanations for natural phenomena have steadily been eroded in favour of scientific evidence based explanations.

          Except, men such as Isaac Newton never saw any contradiction between science and faith. In practice there is always some kind of agenda to science, and supposedly secular science often conceals this very effectively.

          The sociological evidence is that the most secular countries, i.e. western europe, Australia, NZ, the US, Japan, have the highest living standards, the least conflict, the least crime, etc. The parts of the world who’s politics is most strongly governed by religion are more frequently awful places to live.

          Except Western countries have always had better standards of living, in comparison to their non-Western neighbors. It still rains in Anglo countries too but that isn’t due to Atheism or Secularism.
          Moreover, all the countries you named were built by devoutly religious societies. The Anglosphere/West in particular didn’t begin to abandon Christianity until WWI and didn’t truly begin to embrace Atheistic principles on a mass scale, until shortly after the Counterculture of the 1960s.

        10. Many people refer to Newton as one of the first scientists; others refer to him as one of the last mystics.

        11. The biological explanation of religion (ie. evolution) is just as circular as any assertion that humans are innately religious creatures because religion is true.
          China was largely derailed as a world superpower for a century when (atheist) communism took over. The creation of the (officially atheist) Soviet Union didn’t do the world any favours, nor did it really help out its own citizens.
          It depends on what you mean by “secular”. I noticed that you didn’t mention the UK, which has a state church whose head is the head of state. Japan is heading towards extinction. Scandinavia is in the process of committing social suicide. Numerous studies have concluded that within otherwise secular societies, those who are religious and church going tend to be happier than their non-religious counterparts.
          While some try, one can’t legitimately equate secular with atheistic. While it is true that organized religion in the Axis of Anglos (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, and perhaps South Africa) is on the wane, the majority still identify as Christian and depending on the nation something like 70% to 80% will have some sort of religious or spiritual beliefs while 5% or less will self-identify as atheists.

        12. So your first paragraph doesn’t say anything to refute the quote you put it with. Science steadily reveals natural explanations for things thought previously to have supernatural explanations. Whether or not certain prominent scientists from the past or present were also religious has nothing to do with that.
          In practice there is always some agenda to science? Oh really, are you putting your tinfoil hat on? Then you back up that assertion by saying “supposedly” this is often concealed. Don’t talk nonsense.
          Western countries always had better standards of living? Get a grip. At what point do you think the human race came into existence? I’m not even sure how to respond to that given how little information you’re providing. Western culture progressed and benefitted from throwing off the shackles of religiosity, separating church and state, and developing democracy.
          Yes obviously since pretty much all primitive people are devoutly religious, western countries had that same history, but in the west authority was challenged, not accepted, whether it be the authority of god, or the authority of the king, which were largely the same for a long time. Hence we progressed rapidly. It’s not the only factor, but it’s an important one.

        13. The argument that religion resulted from evolutionarily advantageous behaviours is not circular. How is it circular?
          Pointing out that there are countries that didn’t succeed because of communism is hardly an argument against secularism.
          I was including the UK in western europe. Lots of secular countries still have state church institutions, even places like Denmark. History and tradition. In practice they have increasingly minimal influence on governance.
          I didn’t say secular = atheist, that’s obviously not true. Regardless of the actual stats at any given point in time, religiosity is not on the rise in western culture, it’s on the decline.
          I’d be interested in a link to the studies you reference, I’ll also have a browse through the literature.

        14. So your first paragraph doesn’t say anything to refute the quote you put it with. Science steadily reveals natural explanations for things thought previously to have supernatural explanations. Whether or not certain prominent scientists from the past or present were also religious has nothing to do with that.

          You missed the entire premise of what I said by assuming why I said it. You’re creating a false dichotomy, where there isn’t a dichotomy to begin with. Again, men such as Isaac Newton were wise enough to recognize this. You however, are not.

          In practice there is always some agenda to science? Oh really, are you putting your tinfoil hat on? Then you back up that assertion by saying “supposedly” this is often concealed. Don’t talk nonsense.

          Ad hominem. Scientific research doesn’t exist within a vacuum. I was merely pointing of how scientists have biases and agenda, political or otherwise; Like all normal human beings. Only a naive person would believe otherwise.
          Your other opinions barely merit a response. Western society has always had better standards of living, in comparison to those around it. Furthermore, all of the greatest civilizations in the history of mankind have been religious. What about all the great atheistic civilizations, you say? There are none. The human race continues to advance despite atheism; Not because of it.

        15. I would respond to this fully, but I would pretty much end up writing what I already wrote. Except to say that I accept scientists are humans. So what? What point are you actually making with that? And to say that I already conceded that all societies have religious roots, I never claimed otherwise. But religion is on the decline, and has been for a long time. And this has contributed to progress.

        16. While I also have a healthy skepticism of clergy and religious dogma, the decline of religion isn’t always a good thing. One only needs to examine Communist Russia, Revolutionary France, the Khmer Rouge period of Cambodia, Maoist China, etc to become aware of that.
          Moreover, to claim that society has “progressed” since these destructive social theories (atheism, feminism, marxism, et al) have caught storm, is a blatant denial of reality. However, what’s painfully clear is that this generation, along with the former two, would rather sacrifice any semblance of civilization and what actually works for ideas.
          Finally, what do you view as progress? In my opinion, Western “progress” has been almost entirely material; Which is probably great if you’re an atheist. Sure, airplanes are nice and antibiotics can definitely be attributed to science. However, in matters of the human spirit, i.e. art, music, literature, morals, religion, etc the Western world has regressed to an embarrassingly puerile state and the men of almost any previous age, would be ashamed to own us as their descendants. What good is a car or personal computer, if the person using it is spiritually dead?

        17. Good question, what do I consider progress. What I refer to when I say progress is a move away from totalitarianism towards democracy, and a society with better outcomes for a larger proportion of the population. While I don’t deny that modern western culture has brought many negative things, materialism/consumerism being one of the major ones, we need to be a little careful about romanticising the past. While it’s true that certain past periods in our culture gave us amazing art, music, etc, these were also periods where the vast majority of people lived appalling impoverished lives. Things were great for the privileged few, and pretty awful for everyone else. And globally that is still the case today, and it’s still the case to an extent in modern western countries, but the size of the divide has narrowed, and a greater proportion of people are able to live without fear for their safety, where their next meal will come from, death from commonplace diseases, etc, etc.
          On the way to achieving the ideals of a modern western democracy problems have arisen, we have to tackle those problems. But simply turning the clock backwards and undoing all the progress we’ve made is not an answer. I see a lot of that kind of thinking on this website, backwards thinking.
          For example, a lot of the stuff discussed here is about the erosion of morals. And in that discussion people seem to adopt the view that we are morally eroded across the board, in all areas. This is ridiculous. We may have slid in some areas, but we’ve made tremendous strides in other areas. Would you like to wind back the clock and drive awareness of child abuse and pedophilia back underground? Do you want incredibly corrupt legal and political systems that offer barely a semblance of justice (yes, even worse than now)?
          Are people here anti-democracy? With the amount of bible bashing that goes on here it seems that many would be in favour of a theocracy rather than a democracy, which is just another form of totalitarianism. It’s mind boggling. Using the catholic church as some gold standard for moral guidance? Get a grip!
          There are problems with our society, lets identify them and attempt to address them. But don’t be blind to the incredible strides we’ve made as a society, the benefits of which we all happily reap on a daily basis. Religion stifles progress because it’s unchallengeable, it asserts authority without evidence to back up it’s claims.
          You say that our ancestors would be ashamed of us? I’d say we on the whole are ashamed of them. The wars, the hate, the prejudice, the persecution. Seriously, what history are you looking at? What period of our past was free of suffering and represented some utopia where everyone had their dreams fulfilled and life was a joy? You’re delusional.
          This idea that personal fulfilment and meaning is sucked out of life in the absence of religion is ridiculous. I would never use the word spiritual but I understand what you mean by it. That deep emotional sense of purpose and personal fulfilment. The natural world is a beautiful, inspiring, awe-inspiring even, incomprehensibly complicated and mysterious place. I don’t need a belief in an a god to make me feel that way, and I don’t need belief in a god to pursue things in life that give me a deep sense of satisfaction and joy. Family, relationships, experiencing the natural world, deciding for myself what career I want, what I want to dedicate my life to achieving. Studying science, which is what I do, peeling back the mysteries of organismal physiology and marvelling at it’s intricate complexity. This is fulfilment for me. And no, I don’t own lots of material possessions, I don’t spend my money on plastic junk, I have hobbies, I build things, I create art, I seek out new experiences, I exercise. Life is incredibly rich.
          Even if I were to concede that there are benefits to religion, I would still oppose it because it requires a suspension of logic, reason and evidence to believe in a god. Believing things for which their is no evidence is a dangerous way of thinking, and it leads to damaging things for our society. We should not encourage irrational thought, the holding of views, or the taking of actions that cannot be justified by evidence. That’s the path to prejudice and oppression. Religion is not the sole domain of these things, atheists are perfectly capable of irrational thinking, but irrational thinking is not required for atheism. The same cannot be said of religion.
          Long live secular democracy.

        18. You presume that evolution must explain it (along with just about every other human trait) and that if it didn’t provide and evolutionary advantage we would not have developed it: circular.
          Traditional, organized religion is on the wane but spiritual beliefs remain strong even in secular countries.

        19. Honestly, I’m not really sure how to respond to this. Aside from the fact that historically Democracy is a terrible idea, our legal and political systems are absolutely becoming more corrupt, we absolutely have fewer rights; Pedophilia is most definitely a problem amongst UK’s political elite and I suspect the same is true Stateside; the middle class is disappearing, so no the divide has not “narrowed” and one could easily argue that the West is creeping slowly toward totalitarianism and have a mountain of evidence to substantiate such an argument. It’s pretty uncanny that you are sincerely unaware of any of this. I suspect that I may not be the delusional one in this scenario and I have a strong suspicion that your world views (atheist, leftist, etc) are interfering with your rationale.
          Secondly, your argument that religion stifles progress is still extremely weak. Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research; The Jesuit order published thousands of papers and spread new discoveries around the world; Modern genetics was founded by a friar growing peas in a monastic garden. Meanwhile, learning to read was considered a waste of time for atheists, for centuries. Only Christians and Jews were motivated to teach children to read, if only to read their holy books. Furthermore, the idea that Christianity was an impediment to science didn’t take root until the Enlightenment when Voltaire, et al opposed the Catholic Church because of its close association with France’s absolute monarchy. So, that idea isn’t “progressive” whatsoever; It’s actually centuries old. Even so, the Catholic Church is a shadow of it’s former self and hasn’t had anything that even resembles real power since the 18th century. So, I’m not sure what it is atheists are raging against. Although I suspect it has something to do with Antonio Gramsci.
          Ultimately, if atheism brings you fulfillment and euphoria, there’s nothing wrong with that. However, to claim a atheistic society is more harmonious than a religious one also requires a suspension of logic, reason and evidence. I agree, we shouldn’t romanticize the past or “turn the clock backwards“ (arbitrarily) but as I said before, we shouldn’t sacrifice civilization and what actually works for ideas and “progress.”

        20. Democracy is a terrible idea? Are you serious? I won’t even bother addressing the rest of that paragraph if that’s your stance. I’m not going to devote serious time to describing why democracy is a good thing, I’m perfectly content for you to hold onto that opinion because no one will ever take you seriously anyway.
          Just because religious people have been simultaneously involved in science doesn’t negate what I’m saying. The church has a long history of opposing scientific truths. The denial of evolution by many religious people and organisations is a perfect example of how religion impedes rational thought. That’s the issue, it’s fundamental.
          As for your last paragraph, there are numerous studies demonstrating that progressive democracies lead to a happier populace, here is one, I don’t know if you will be able to access it if you aren’t at a university or otherwise have journal database access.
          “Since 1981, economic development, democratization, and increasing social tolerance have increased the extent to which people perceive that they have free choice, which in turn has led to higher levels of happiness around the world”
          It doesn’t take a suspension of logic, it just requires one to look at the data.

        21. It’s not circular, it’s the theory of evolution, and it’s supported by a huge amount of evidence.
          I realise spiritual beliefs remain strong, but it’s still a trend in the same direction. Besides, once the dogmatic authority is removed from religion who cares what personal and private spiritual beliefs someone holds are, at that point it doesn’t effect anyone else. Still won’t make those private personal beliefs true though.

        22. What “evidence” in this particular case?
          So you agree that your own beliefs are just made up and cannot be proven as true; your allegedly “secular” beliefs are just as irrational as anyone else’s?

        23. Yes, I’m dead serious. Historically, democracies are short-lived and more bloody than either aristocracies or monarchy. The problem here is that you espouse these grand and noble ideas, you believe to be novel and have yet to open a history book. I strongly encourage you to do so. Research the history of great civilizations and discover what role, if any, democracy played in their longevity and success. Either way, I’ll take your reluctancy to address the rest of the paragraph as an inability to refute the arguments I’ve put forth.

          The church has a long history of opposing scientific truths. The denial of evolution by many religious people and organisations is a perfect example of how religion impedes rational thought. That’s the issue, it’s fundamental.

          As I’ve said before, I have a strong suspicion your world views are interfering with your rationale. We’re not talking about a few men in vestments, conducting a few minor experiments or a few Europeans in powdered wigs, making nominal contributions here and there. The reality is the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research for centuries; During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe’s first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon, Thomas Aquinas, so on and so forth. Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian; Sir Francis Bacon, the father of empirical science, was a Christian and outspoken anti-atheist; I could go on and on and on.
          Allow me to borrow a phrase of yours, when I say: A few hillbillies disagreeing with Evolution, doesn’t negate what I’m saying or historical fact. Religion doesn’t impede rational thought.

          As for your last paragraph, there are numerous studies demonstrating that progressive democracies lead to a happier populace, here is one, I don’t know if you will be able to access it if you aren’t at a university or otherwise have journal database access. […] “Since 1981, economic development, democratization, and increasing social tolerance have increased the extent to which people perceive that they have free choice, which in turn has led to higher levels of happiness around the world”

          I believe the keywords here are “perceive that they have free choice,” which eludes to the portion of my last response, which you were uncomfortable answering. Ignorance is bliss, as you well know. Here, this is for you

        24. You’d have to actually look at the methods to judge whether response bias was a factor in the results. Response bias is not ubiquitous, it can arise depending on the conditions. It also doesn’t negate comparisons. To borrow from the very article you just linked to, it’s like measuring everyone’s height with a ruler that adds or subtracts an inch to your results. So you may not have the most accurate measure, but you can still tell who is taller or shorter than who. Or in this case, who is happier and more satisfied with life, which is consistently higher in western democracies. Perhaps you can post some counter studies to make your point. As for the fact that it says “perceive”, all that means is that it was outside the scope of this study to examine whether people really did have choice (which would be complex to measure). Because this is a survey study, everything it reports is “perceptions” of the surveyed people. That’s obvious.
          Perhaps what would be useful would be for you to list which countires/civilizations had a system of government that was superior to democracy and lead to better outcomes for a larger number of the populace. I’d be interested to know if you think there are non-democratic countries in existence today that you think offer a better way of life to their citizens, or even ones from the past that did.

        25. I doubt that evolution explains religion, consciousness, morality, meaning, purpose, justice, free will and such. You think all of these essentially human qualities arose out of the random crucible of evolution? Seriously?

        26. Of course.
          Do you believe the world is billions of years old and that all life shares a common single celled ancestor?

        27. The world is billions of years old. A common single ancestor? Maybe or maybe not: why not multiple single cell ancestors? Aside from the unlikelihood of life arising out of non-life, it may have occurred more than once. But that is neither here nor there. I’m not religious, not a Christian, not a creationist, and certainly not a young earth creationist.

        28. Perhaps what would be useful would be for you to list which countires/civilizations had a system of government that was superior to democracy

          Republics and Monarchies generally last the longest.

        29. We were discussing quality of life for citizens, how long a a particular system of government lasts is not a measure of that.
          Plus you didn’t even answer the question. Why are you being vague and evasive?

        30. Ok, just checking where you stand on that. The evidence doesn’t point to multiple single celled ancestors because of the amount of common genetic information between all life. That doesn’t rule out multiple ancestors, especially when you consider mobile genetic elements, but the simplest explanation is that there was a single ancestor. That’s what the evidence points to. If the field has moved further than that in recent years I’m not aware of it (totally possible) since this isn’t my specific area of study.
          It seems that you just have difficulty believing that evolution could be responsible for certain aspects of human behaviour. I get that, it’s a lot to wrap one’s head around, and I’m not going to try and convince you. I don’t know to what extent you’ve studied evolution, and perhaps even if you studied it for years you would still feel that way. But it does offer explanations for all the aspects of our behaviour, and the behaviour of other animals, and there are not alternative explanations for which there is evidence. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that things like morality, meaning and purpose are black holes that evolution just can’t account for and has no explanation for, that’s a misperception. The study of animal behaviour is a huge field and has a lot to way about all those things. You may not like it but the argument for these things being nothing more than aspects of our psyche that evolved because it was advantageous is there, with evidence in support.
          None of these ideas make me uncomfortable. And they don’t impede my pursuit of happiness. It doesn’t matter whether my happiness is an illusion or all that other crap you said, all I have in this world is my perception of it, I can’t experience it any other way, so I’ll do what I can to feel happy and fulfilled, whether I’m really pulling the strings or not doesn’t change that equation for me. I realise that some need to feel like there is a purpose to get motivated, I’m not one of those people. And I’m not able to make myself believe something just because I like the idea of it.

        31. We were discussing quality of life for citizens…

          North Koreans would tell you the same thing about their society and form of government, i.e. The public dances to the tune of he whose bread they eat; Your survey is a moot point.

          how long a a particular system of government lasts is not a measure of that.

          So, gathering empirical evidence from history is virtually impossible? Is that what you believe? Empires last at least a thousand years and vary in tranquility; Democracies last a few hundred (roughly 200) years and almost always lead to war and tyranny. This isn’t a scientific question, look at the evidence that is already there.

          Plus you didn’t even answer the question.

          What question? To be honest, a continued conversation would require some level historical research on your part. Time will not permit me to read to you, as one would a child, at bedtime; No disrespect.

        32. I’m not sure what your point about the North Koreans is. That if surveyed they would say what the government wants? Which of the countries surveyed in that study do you think are in that situation? The countries that came out on top were western democracies, and those places don’t have governments that would prevent them from replying honestly in such a survey. The fact that all the other countries fell below that undermines the point you are making (assuming I have actually understood your point, I’m not entirely sure I have).
          And no I never said gathering evidence is impossible, point out one place where I said or implied that? In fact I’m the only one here that’s attempted to supply any evidence. I’m just saying that you could have a long lasting tyrannical regime, and a short lived relatively peaceful democracy. In a discussion about the emotional and physical well being of a nation’s citizens, I’m not sure why duration of government is a relevant measure.
          I’m more than happy to do research in my own time, all I want you to point to is a past or present nation that has a system of government that you feel leads to better outcomes for it’s citizens. I think that’s a pretty reasonable question given that you have a strong opinion against democracy, and have implied that historically there have been better systems. Can you at least name one so that I have some idea of what you think is a better way to run a country?
          My guess is you are either some extremist who supports sharia law or nazi Germany and is just unwilling to say it because you know everyone will vilify you. But that’s just my speculation, you could put an end to me having to speculate about your opinion by ACTUALLY GIVING IT. I’m now asking this question for the third time.

        33. My guess is you are either some extremist who supports sharia law or nazi Germany and is just unwilling to say it because you know everyone will vilify you.

          I’ve never seen anyone use Godwin’s law to create a Straw argument. Given the context, you’re tapping out; Wise move. You were essentially stuck in a ground-and-pound situation, so to speak.
          I’ve answered your question several times. You’ve either overlooked the answer or you’re being intentionally obtuse. Try reading my responses again. All of my answers and arguments are above, plain to see upon inspection of common sense. I’ll just leave it all there. I trust you take my response as respect for your views, though. Unfortunately, I lack the wherewithal to argue point-for-point with everyone who looks to recruit me to their worldview or cause.

        34. Evolution still hasn’t explained some things. Some things can’t be gradual and random, u can’t evolve an eye without optical nerve. Enzymes are extremely complicated and specific and transcribed by certain pathways. the probability of chemicals forming specific proteins would be very unlikely. Proteins have be specific chiral isonomers to be metabolized. Fossils show that different organisms show up not gradual but all the sudden or short period. There are new theories of punctuated equilibrium replacing the gradual theory. Even radioactive Dating has problems when fossils’ radioactive metals can dissolve in water thus changing the measurement . The theory of life still has a long way to go.

        35. The fact that you would describe evolution as random suggests you don’t appreciate the difference between random mutation and natural selection. There is a perfectly acceptable hypothesis to explain the evolution of complex eyes, look it up. “The probability of chemicals forming specific proteins would be very unlikely” <– That’s just your gut instinct is it? Even if that extremely simplistic and non-nuanced statement is accurate, the fact that something is unlikely doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, it’s a large universe (understatement). The fossil record is incomplete, for obvious reasons. Fossilisation is rare, it requires a specific set of circumstances and specific geological conditions, so in some parts of the world, for some time periods, we have great fossil records, and for others we don’t. The idea that current evolutionary theory doesn’t allow for sudden rapid changes is misinformation on behalf of anti-evolutionists, we’ve known this for a long time, and this doesn’t contradict anything about the theory of evolution, we have many well studied examples of it and understand how it can happen. Advances in developmental biology helped us to understand this. While radioactive dating might have some accuracy issues, they are within a particular margin of error, and even when large this doesn’t allow for the idea of a 6000 year old earth, anyone who believes that is ignorant. I agree with you that we have a long way to go, there are many questions regarding the details of evolution, otherwise there wouldn’t be scientists all over the world studying it. But the fundamental tenants of evolution are as solid as any other scientific theory, they are rock solid. We all share a common ancestor, genetic information is heritable, organisms evolve over time through random mutation and natural selection, these things are indisputable. Evolution is a fact, and people who deny it simply haven’t been educated on the subject, or choose not to accept it because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
          I used to spend time arguing on this website because I wanted to get a sense of what this community was and whether it was something to be concerned about. Then I noticed that it was pretty much the same people responding to every article, and that this is simply a hangout for conservative religious people who are disgruntled about the way the world is changing, and sexually frustrated people who have had bad luck with women and have chosen to blame others for their own shortcomings, and so I realised it was of no concern at all. This is a small minority of people and while this movement attracts attention from time to time (as even a single person spouting controversial views can in the age of the internet) it will never grow to any significant size and never have any influence over the trajectory of our society.
          You’ve replied to a very old thread. Perhaps that means you’ve just discovered this community and it’s appealing to you. I recommend you have a deep look inside, talk to people, figure out the source of your anger at the world, and deal with it, before you find yourself spouting ridiculous ideas like Vladimir Putin is our saviour, evolution is a lie, or the catholic church needs to return to the dark ages. Seriously, don’t get sucked into this nonsense.

        36. im not saying evolution is false but it doesn’t explain everything. People have been revising evolution. Pubctuated equilibrium is more accepted now. Natural selection is well proven. But how mutations occur is still of active research. Mutations are not as random as people think, certain external influences and certain pathways trigger mutations, it is just very Complicated.
          Such complicated protein slowly being formed is unlikely. The small polypeptides will break down under radiation and chemical conditions and under equilibrium before they will become bigger peotides even after years. Even if they don’t break down what is probability of they form a specific enzyme that is chiral specific and have these certain coenzyme factors and only catalyze thus chemical at this part of enzyme. U can calculate the chances in an ideal environment. An enzyme has to be exact structure to do that function. even a small protein is 35o amino acid chsin long and a maltase ebzyme is 953 aa in E. coli. Suppose the probability of every two amino being formed is around 100% very ideAl). If you have 678 amino acids and there are 22 essential amino acids start from two amino acids a time and probability of u getting these two amino acids to form. For maltase be formed from scratch , the calculation should be 677c677(1/22)^-677=1.67*10^_912 even 350 chsin protein is around 9.35*10^ -447, that is 9.35 out of 1 followed by 447 zeroes. )
          It is true that they could be many different proteins, but only a few are functional and even less can function as maltase.
          Reactions occur in an equilibrium , one direction is more favorable than another. Generally breaking something complex is more favorable than forming more complex due to entropy and more activation energy. Thus forming something more complex is less probably the probability of two amino acids forming a dipeptide is probably even less than 90% even over a long period cuz they break down. Given the proposed condition of earth being an earth with radiation and hot temperature amino acids in a primordial soup would have been formed and destroyed constantly, but radiation does catalyze reactions but both ways. It would’ve been very ideal conditions to have life.
          It is still a mystery how life formed from chemicals.

        37. You are correct that abiogenesis is still a mystery, which has nothing to do with evolution. The theory of evolution doesn’t deal with abiogenesis. You’re also correct that we don’t yet fully understand every aspect of how evolution transpires, a point I previously conceded.
          But what IS your point? Is you’re point simply that there are still unknowns? Of course, I don’t think I ever suggested otherwise. If you’re trying to suggest that because we don’t know some things therefore God did it, then that’s a ridiculous argument.
          Side note: I’m not sure why you are discussing the probability of forming very large proteins in a discussion of abiogenesis, I don’t think anyone is alleging that a very complex organism spontaneously formed in a single step. I would also say that pointing out that something is unlikely isn’t an argument against the quesiton of whether it actually happened. Unlikely things happen, especially given billions of years, especially given an incomprehensibly large universe.

        38. Dude there are only so many atoms in this universe, around 10^78 atoms. There are not enough atoms to have the possible combinations of a simple protein over even billion of years. An eColi protein is considerably less complicated than an eukaryotic protein by 300 less aa chains. Even if proteins were manufacturered, it would require multiple very precise steps and right environment and catalysts and conditions. This universe is Very complicated but it has just the right conditoon to have life. FUthermore if the Gravitational constant was just too large or small, it would be a huge blob of mass or dispersed too far to even have planets. If the constants for electromagnetism and nuclear forces were different there would be no atoms. This universe is fine tuned. It is not just we don’t know, it is more, the chabces are simply seem unlikely to occur over time. Yes the universe is likely designed by some being or something powerful or the universe exists in a multiverse consists of many many universes or just luck and mystery.

        39. What you just said makes no sense, you’re making a completely false assumption that an atom can only adopt one state in the whole of spacetime. I can barely believe you even just said something so stupid. The estimated number of atoms in the universe has no relevance to the probability that organic molecules might spontaneously form.
          You also then said an e.coli protein is smaller than a eukaryotic protein, which also makes no sense, firstly because there’s no reason to compare one prokaryotic species to the whole domain of eukarya, secondly because e.coli produce many different proteins of many different sizes, as do all eukaryotes, many of which are the same proteins anyway, thirdly, because I don’t even know why you’re mentioning this? How is that relevant to anything being discussed?
          The fact that the universe is the way it is and that it’s not a different way is not an argument for the existence of a higher being, that’s completely ridiculous.
          Since you’ve degenerated into talking nonsense, I have nothing more to add, the stupidity of your comments will speak for themselves for anyone that happens to be reading this. I suggest you actually try to understand these things that you are trying to debate about, instead of parroting excerpts from some christian “arguments against evolution” webpage that you have loaded in another tab.

        40. It is not stupidity, it is clear there is not enough time or atoms in this universe for even a simple protein to occur randomly in this universe. In that instance I just gave an example of E. coli’s protein because it is simpler organism and it happened to be a smaller protein well 300 as chains less than the very same version in eukaryotes such as a mouse. I just assumed a little that eukaryotes usually have larger proteins than E. coli. What I precisely meant that coli protein ie maltase is smaller than maltase in a mouse. I do understand what I’m debating about. I didn’t copy and paste, it is through my reading and comparison and understanding that I constructed my arguments. It seems like you are in denial.

        41. Your arguments make no sense.
          Explain how the number of atoms in the universe lends any power to explaining the probability that an organic molecule will form spontaneously on earth. There is no connection between these two things.
          I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say about e.coli vs eukaryotes, I am guessing english is not your first language, because you literally just said that e.coli was a protein. Ignoring that, if what you’re trying to say is that a homologous protein in e.coli and mice has a different number of amino acids, why is that important? What has that got to do with anything?
          You got one chance to make sense before I assume you’re just trolling, or simply don’t have the language skills to have this debate in english.

        42. No I didn’t meant E. coli is a protein perhaps I forgot to write the word protein. It is well implied that I meant e coli’s protein anyway. You are trying to get off topic. What I mean, if the chances of an ecoli protein occurring are so low randomly, what is the probability of a bigger protein of a more complicated organism like a mouse? The chances of these proteins spontaneously occur out non living materials over the given amount of time and in this Number of atoms in this universe is next to naught. If the universe was far bigger and contained far more atoms than now, then it is more plausible. That is why I mentioned the number.

      1. I do not have any proof that there is a God, probably when I die I’d take a selfie with Him and send it to you. And no, I do not want to be Alpha; I personally do not want to fuck that many women. I just want one who would take care of me and who is submissive. If I can use the logic and reason of a thousand men in order for me to convey my message then why shouldn’t I? And I want my worldviews to be guided with emotions because logic and reason without emotion is empty, cold and subhuman. And yes I want to cling on to religion because it is my logical, rational and emotional decision.

        1. I never argued for a life devoid of emotion. As far as I can tell that isn’t even possible. There’s a difference between having a goal that is emotionally motivated, e.g. the pursuit of happiness, vs emotional decision making e.g. betting on a 100-to-1 underdog in a football match because you really want the underdog to win. You’re chances of obtaining any goal in life will be dependent upon the decisions you make in pursuit of that goal. The more you can eliminate emotion from your decision making, and the more you can rely upon facts (or at least the probability of truth) then the greater your chance will be of obtaining your goals. Relying upon evidence is the most effective way to do that. That’s my position on that.
          As for your other comments, whether or not you hold a religious belief, is a matter of belief (to state the obvious). Belief should not be a choice, because we do not get a choice about what is true. You are either persuaded to a point of view by the strength of evidence, or you aren’t. And the strength of your belief (e.g. “that’s definitely true” vs “that’s probably true” vs “that might be true” vs “I have no idea if that’s true”) should be proportional to the strength of evidence. So to say that your belief is a choice, is the same as admitting your belief is actually just wishful thinking. You want there to be a god, you like the idea of it, so you choose to believe in it. That’s an extremely weak and ineffective way of deciding what is true or false. And by that logic, pretty much any claim holds as much weight as your claim that god exists unless there is evidence that directly contradicts said claim.
          That said, you have mentioned that this “decision” is logical and rational, so perhaps you’d be prepared to put your logic and rationality up for critique and provide us with the thought process that led you to your conviction that god does in fact exist.

      2. Nice to see there’s still a few people reading this site that can think for themselves, and just be a decent person without the empty threats of eternal hellfire.

      3. Did you not read his comment? He was saying the Church has forgotten those passages, and since the Bible is the integral document of the Christian faith the Church and Christian women should obviously “care what the bible says”

        1. He didn’t specify that christian women should care about those bible versus, he just said women should. Additionally, christians of all denominations pick and choose from the messages in the bible, so it’s a pretty weak argument given the existing lack of consistency within religion with respect to religious texts. Christians selectively forget whatever passages suit them. Lastly, I think it’s obvious to everyone (except perhaps you) that my stance is no one should care one way or the other what the bible says when deciding how to live their life, and that’s my opinion with regards to anyone, irrespective of their gender or faith.

        2. That’s like saying ignore any books and wisdom that exist and decide your life. Ignoring knowledge is illogical and irrational.
          Going with your perspective even this blog is a pointless waste of time, your quote fits perfectly: “no one should care one way or the other what [returnofkings] says when deciding how to live their life.”
          Or: “no one should care one way or the other what [BMOC] says when deciding how to live their life”
          Do you understand now?
          I’m open to all sources in my quest for knowledge, understanding, and self-development, whether written by millionaires from the 21st century or by the Evangelists of the 1st century and those before them.
          That doesn’t mean I will mindlessly accept everything I read as fact, but then it is our job to decide that for ourselves.
          As an endnote, I assume you have not read the Bible and therefore think it illogical that you pass judgement on it from hearsay (if I am wrong please correct me).

        3. It’s not the same as saying ignore any books and wisdom etc. The bible asserts facts about life, and instructs people how to behave. Some of these things are common sense, but in general, instead of arguing based on logic or evidence, it makes these assertions based on the premise that god commands it. Since it cannot be demonstrated that god even exists, then any assertion that requires his existence to justify should be disregarded.
          I’m only ignoring the “knowledge” in the bible after assessing whether or not it deserves to be given any credit. I went to a christian school for 12 years, I’m well familiar with the bible.

      4. Clinging to something other than religion is also an emotional decision. Clinging to nothing is nihilism and denying that you are clinging to anything emotionally is self-delusion. The best that can be said is to choose your poison well. Logic and reason only go so far and certainly are not the basis for a humanly fulfilling life.

        1. Well previously the word “clinging” had a clear context within the discussion. I would concede that your first statement is probably accurate, because if you’re “clinging” to a point of view or belief that suggests you’re doing so against a force that is dragging you in another direction, which implies you’re holding that point of view or belief for emotional reasons that are easily challenged.
          I would never describe myself as clinging to a belief or a point of view. I would say I have beliefs and points of view. I always strive to form those based on evidence, and attribute a level of certainty that’s appropriate to the strength of the evidence. I’m not perfect at doing this, and so no I’m not denying that my reasoning is prone to being clouded by emotion. I’m sure there are times where I haven’t been forced to examine something I take for granted or believe for an emotional reason. Whenever I discover I’m doing that, I reassess. As such, I always welcome someone challenging my beliefs because that can lead to me correcting my mistakes. I would also concede that sometimes emotions can be so strong that they override reason. That’s part of being human.
          So I would disagree that it’s necessary to “choose a poison” in the way that you have described it. It’s not necessary to embrace emotional decision making and reasoning. It is however sensible to recognise that we are all prone to it, and strive to overcome it to the extent that we are able.
          As for logic and reason only getting us so far, again, I agree, in the absence of evidence for any given “thing” we will be mired in ignorance and uncertainty. This isn’t a bad thing. We are destined always to be more ignorant than knowledgable. However the only reliable method we have to chip away at our ignorance of the world is science.
          As for your assertion about what leads to a fulfilling life, my life is fulfilling, and it became immeasurably more so after I commenced my studies in science. Logic and reason aren’t the basis for a fulfilling life, but they are a good start towards obtaining one.

        2. So, what are your beliefs regarding free will, purpose, meaning, justice, morality, love, beauty and such, and how do you reconcile that with your belief in atheism?
          Even Bertrand Russell concede that agnosticism is the only logical position, commenting that everyone has to believe in something.
          Saying that science is “the only reliable method we have to chip away at our ignorance of the world” is either missing a qualifier or else an expression of faith. Science has some clear boundaries beyond which it has nothing fundamental to say, including any statement concerning the existence of god or the list of topics, above.

        3. I don’t have a belief in atheism, that sentence suggests you don’t understand what atheism is. What I lack is a belief in god. That’s the entirety of what it means to be an atheist. I see no evidence that there is inherent meaning or purpose to life. Human beings give meaning and purpose to there own lives, and to the things they create. This isn’t hard to reconcile at all. Morality is a complex topic, but I don’t believe in objective morality. Love I see the same as any other emotional state, it doesn’t need a god explanation. Beauty is subjective, even if there is often agreement on what constitutes it, there is often disagreement as well. Things like love and beauty are psychological questions. None of these things require belief in a god. As for free will, based on biological evidence I conclude that we most likely don’t have free will in the sense that most people think about it. But that’s a very complex discussion and it requires defining a lot of things, and discussing the way that neurons behave in the brain. I’m probably not willing to take the time necessary to lay out my opinion on that fully and present the various research papers that lead me to this conclusion. I realise most people will instantly disagree with that idea, and that’s fine.
          Agnosticism doesn’t mean you believe in anything. So if he said that, then he’s wrong. Atheism isn’t asserting there is no god, it’s lacking a belief. It doesn’t rule out the possibility. I realise not everyone uses that definition, but that’s the definition used in my circles and what I read/watch/etc. I would agree that it’s hard not to believe in anything, that’s obvious, for example I belief that right now I’m sitting on the toilet typing this comment. But many people hold no belief in a higher power, and that doesn’t cause any problems for their world view.
          The fact that there are limits to what science has yet been able to tell us, doesn’t change the fact that it’s our only reliable method of discerning truth. There are many things we didn’t know in the past, thanks to science, we now do. There are many things still still don’t know, science will find answers to these going forward, there are new discoveries every day. There are likely things that science will never be able to answer, human beings may not even survive long enough to get round to tackling them. But just because science doesn’t have an answer for something, doesn’t make “god did it” a viable alternative explanation. It’s just an assertion without basis.
          Why is the fact that science hasn’t (yet), or can’t answer something a knock against science? People have looked for evidence of god, they haven’t found any, hence science has nothing to say about god. Is it the fault of scientists that god hasn’t left any evidence to find? Do you have some need to have an answer for everything? If you do, that’s stupid, because that means that you will ultimately have to make most of the answers up.
          In all these discussions a common theme seems to be that people are uncomfortable not having explanations for things. They have a burning need for certainty. So if science hasn’t yet explained it they conclude god must be the answer.
          I’m totally comfortable with the idea that I’m ignorant about almost everything in the universe, and will die that way. My life is full of meaning, joy and fulfilment. I would love it if there was an afterlife, because like most people I don’t want to die and have the party keep going on without me, but since I’m dead, I won’t know, so I make the most of the time I have, or try to at least.

        4. A simplistic, literal, and generally uninformative and useless definition of atheism is the lack of belief in god. How that differs from a belief that there is no god is anyone’s guess.
          “Human beings give meaning and purpose to there own lives”
          In other words, you just make shit up with no objective evidence of the validity of what you choose.
          “I don’t believe in objective morality.”
          So if someone kills you and thinks it is good, it is good for him, but not for you, but it doesn’t really matter because we all just make this shit up with no objective evidence of the validity of our own morality.
          “I conclude that we most likely don’t have free will”
          If philosophical materialism (or other such term) is true, the two possibilities are that our actions are determined or are probabilistic. Our lives are programmed from the start with perhaps a few die rolls thrown in. No free will, no exertion of will, no choices to be made.
          Science can’t provide answers to any of the above other than it is all an illusion, or self delusion. You pick and choose your purpose, meaning and morality based on what suits you based on emotional whims or pre-programming or even randomly. You don’t freely choose any of these, you are just an automaton, a clever piece of dust that thinks it is thinking.
          Meaning, joy, fulfillment, and such are you just fooling yourself: there is no meaning, and joy or fulfillment are emotional responses that cannot be validated.

        5. It’s an accurate definition of atheism, I’m sorry if you don’t like it. If you can’t understand the difference between lacking a belief in god versus asserting god doesn’t exist, then you aren’t intellectually equipped to have the discussion. And the drivel you proceeded to write after that pretty much confirms this.

        6. It is a tautology, which doesn’t mean it is accurate. The only difference between lacking a belief and asserting a non belief is that in the former case you are a passive entity who sits there waiting to be convinced, a troll lying in wait for someone to make a religious assertion that you can gainsay rather than someone who starts the discussion. If you are simply unsure or not convinced one way or the other then you are agnostic rather than atheist. If you have no reasonable response, then you should look in the mirror to see who is lacking the intellectual tools to engage in the discussion.

        7. If I thought a proper discussion was possible, I’d have one. But I’m not going to respond when I put forward my points of view only to have you reply with statements asserting my views are different to what I’ve actually said they are, which is exactly what you did in your response prior to this one. What would be the point of that? I’ve answered the questions you’ve asked me, but I’m not going to respond to that kind of strawmanning.
          As for definitions of atheism, like many terms, the definitions are multiple, I’ve given you the one I use, which is the commonly used modern definition in my circles. If you don’t like the word, ignore it, I’ve described my disposition so ascribe whatever term YOU feel is most appropriate. I use the word atheist, you can use agnostic, what you label me in your own mind is of little concern to me.

        8. “If I thought”
          I suppose that is the problem right there. But how have I misrepresented you? Discussion is impossible without a common lexicon. The fact that the circles you walk in use a definition that is useless for discussion just displays how much of an echo chamber atheists operate in when talking about such matters.

        9. “Human beings give meaning and purpose to there own lives”
          In other words, you just make shit up with no objective evidence of the validity of what you choose.
          “I don’t believe in objective morality.”
          So if someone kills you and thinks it is good, it is good for him, but not for you, but it doesn’t really matter because we all just make this shit up with no objective evidence of the validity of our own morality.
          That’s what you wrote. In both instances you reply with an assertion of what I believe. In both cases you are misrepresenting what I believe. I realise that in both cases you think you know exactly what I mean, and you think you fully understand the implications of what I’m suggesting, but you don’t. I’m not going to put time into explaining the rational behind my views only to have you respond by telling me (incorrectly) what I think. Why would I? What a waste of time.

        10. Stating the logical implications of your statements is not misrepresenting them, it is clarifying them.

  18. Are you seriously arguing against contraception? I plan to marry my partner, but I don’t want to be having accidental pregnancies on a regular basis. That would be just plain foolish. Additionally, are you suggesting that out of control population growth isn’t a problem in third-world countries where there is no access to contraception? Clearly there are parts of the world where contraception could help with a genuinely terrible problem.
    One of the more ridiculous things you said is this:
    “Sex seldom remains a purely private affair, especially in the era of social media. Among other things, sex can lead to love, marriage, hate, murder, children, disease, happy homes, broken homes, social cohesion and social disintegration”
    Seriously? Sex is seldom private? Just because some people advertise their sexual activities on social media doesn’t mean this is the norm or the majority. And possibly there was never a more meaningless statement than to say sex can lead to a variety of things. I could say that about anything. The number of non-sequiturs in your writing is mind boggling.
    I suppose that should be no surprise, since the ultimate non-sequitur in a technologically advanced and scientific society is the illogical leap to concluding that there must be a god. The Neo-Masculinity movement is foremost driven by the idea that males and females are fundamentally different from a biological point of view. This is an idea supported by science, more specifically the theory of evolution. Why is there so much bible bashing on this website? The founder of the website is not a christian and has argued that there is no reason to believe in god.
    The ultimate disempowerment is to live your life according to an arbitrary ruleset devised by ignorant people thousands of years ago.
    If you want to make an argument for what you think is appropriate, healthy sexual behaviour for human beings, then fine, go for it, that’s a topic that is well worth discussing. But using christianity as the primary support for your point of view does you no favours. Last time I checked intelligence was supposed to be one of the strengths of man. Use your own brain, come to your own conclusions, and support them with logic and evidence, not the outdated views of an increasingly irrelevant religion.
    It seems like the biggest danger to this movement is the huge amount of unintelligent people that flock to it, drowning it’s common sense and scientific conclusions in a sea of ignorance, religious vitriol, childish whining, self loathing and self pity.

    1. That men and women are radically different is hardly an insight unique to our supposedly enlightened age. The Book of Proverbs was urging men to avoid harlots and marry virgins 2000 years before any of us were born.
      Science has provided us with many new toys to play with but it can’t tell us why we should bother getting out of bed on the morning.

      1. Actually it can, because if we weren’t genetically programmed to get out of bed in the morning and procreate we would have gone extinct. You need to accept that life has no intrinsic meaning or purpose, it just is. Make your own meaning, decide what matters to you. Or is that beyond you? Religion can suppose a reason for life, but it’s just an assertion backed up by no evidence. If that gives you comfort then you must be pretty weak.
        Science didn’t lead to the insight that men and women are different, that’s plainly obvious. Science explains the basis of that difference.

        1. If life just is, then reality is whatever the powerful say it is because they have the most guns. People who claim to make their own meaning still rely upon tradition and commonly accepted understandings of how the world works. Or can you link me to your articles on JSTOR on how you independently discovered relativity, calculus, genetics, and philosophy?

        2. No, that’s a completely incorrect statement. Whether or not life has meaning has no bearing on whether there is an objective reality. Meaning and truth are separate concepts. You’re conflating the two, so your question is illogical.

        3. If there is no God, everything is permitted
          Ivan Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov)

        4. Why do you bother commenting if religion is nonsense? Why are you compelled to disagree with what you think is falsehood?

        5. Really? Is that your response? Why do you argue against gender equality if you think it’s a falsehood? I assume because you think that falsehood negatively impacts yourself or society in someway. This would be the same answer I would give regarding religion. Are you discouraging debate on this site? This is an important discussion, and I’m being quite calm and polite. You seemed happy to engage me initially, why are you backing down now?
          I think the rampant religious agenda by many users on this site actively impedes the promotion of the movement’s core values.

        6. I argue against gender equality because it is false, and truth is better than lies. I assume you believe the same. You portray yourself to be a man of science and reason. You said yourself that meaning and truth are separate concepts. On what basis, then, do you believe that truth is superior to lies?

        7. Well I wouldn’t phrase it as “truth is better than lies” because that statement has almost no meaning without context. Neither does the idea that truth is “superior” to lies.
          I try to rely on science and reason as much as I can given that like everyone I am flawed and sometimes prone to emotional decision making and thinking. We can more consistently make decisions that lead to positive outcomes in life when we rely on accurate information than if we rely on false information. On that basis I value things that are true over things that are untrue.
          On this basis I object to religious reasoning as it is not rooted in an evidence and reason based approach.

        8. A better phrasing on my behalf would have been to say “we can more consistently achieve our desired goals in life when we rely on accurate information….” That probably better represents my point of view.

        9. Science is conducted by human beings, and scientists are no more immune to emotions or faulty reasoning than the rest of us. Scientists necessarily rely on unprovable axioms to do their work, i.e. that we live in an orderly universe.
          And we have to be precise in our definitions of “evidence” and “reason.” Thomas Aquinas was the greatest theologian of the Middle Ages, and to dismiss his work out of hand is silly. You may not agree with his his conclusions, but his reasoning is unassailable. Reason alone can prove anything depending on your premise.

        10. So what are you actually arguing here? You don’t have faith in science? The fact that humans are fallible isn’t a criticism against science. Science relies on evidence to draw conclusions, and those conclusions are always up for debate, and ready to be thrown out when new evidence suggests a different conclusion is more probable. That’s the strength of science. The evidence comes in the form of testable independent observation. This removes subjectivity as much as possible.
          Science deals in probabilities accepting that we can never be 100% certain of anything. That’s a strength. In contrast, religion asserts things as fact, without evidence, leaving no room for the possibility of being wrong.
          If the reasoning of Aquinas was “unassailable” then I wouldn’t be able to disagree with his conclusion unless my reasoning was flawed. But as it stands I would disagree with many of his conclusions, and thus would take issue with his reasoning. But I wouldn’t waste my time trying to debate with someone that died centuries ago. He was a brilliant man, but limited by the time in which he was born. Someone of his intellect born into today’s western world would probably be an atheist. But I’m not really interested in arguing that particular point, that’s just my flippant opinion.
          But I am interesting in trying to nail down exactly what your criticism of science is, because I’m not clear on what that is. And I’m also yet to hear an argument for the benefit of religion.

        11. It realise I have missed a point you were trying to get at, with respect to distinguishing between evidence and reason. I accept what you say about reason being used to prove anything depending on your premise. We’re in agreement on that. We look at what evidence we have, and then we use reason and logic to draw conclusions. While we can’t present evidence in a discussion like this, we can at least state the evidence we are relying upon to draw our conclusions. Our reason and logic should be self evident in the arguments we make, assuming we can articulate ourselves accurately. I’m not sure where else you might be going with that?

        12. It’s interesting how you asked if I lack “faith” in science. Atheist polemicists (I’m not saying you are one) often describe faith as believing in something with no evidence at all. A more precise definition would be, “Accepting truth on the basis of authority.” In the case of Christianity, we accept certain truths based solely on the authority of the God who revealed them.
          With science, we laymen rely on the authority of scientists. I haven’t personally worked out the mathematics of relativity, but I accept it as true. In quantum physics, we have the Copenhagen theory and the Bohm theory. Both rest on identical formalisms; both theories match the data. But they have radically different interpretations of the data. With Copenhagen, contra Einstein, God does indeed play dice. With Bohm he does not. That Copenhagen is widely accepted and Bohm is not is a matter of historical contingency, not that the former matches observation and the latter does not.
          Formalism is not scientific theory. Some of our greatest scientific achievements were discovered by men with very “opinionated” metaphysics. The conflict between faith and reason is illusory.

        13. See my reply. And quit being an ass. It’s a disgrace to the useful creature God created.

        14. Granted, in this context I should have picked a word other than “faith”. I was trying to ascertain whether you have a mistrust of the scientific process, as it sounded like that’s where you were headed. But it doesn’t sound like that’s the case.
          I would suggest that you probably don’t believe in the scientific theories in the same way that you believe in god. Unless of course you’ve devoted some time to reading about them, what the evidence is, and feel qualified to assess the strength of that evidence. Of most scientific theories I can’t say this is the case for myself, only those that are relevant to my research area (biology).
          Do you believe in the existence of the christian god with 100% certainty? If so, then you are already ascribing a higher level of certainty to his existence than what a scientist does to any given scientific theory. Despite this, the scientist has substantial, testable, repeatable, independently verified observations to support the theory. Do you have the same for the existence of god?
          The strength of our certainty that any given premise is true, should be matched to the strength of the evidence. Hence not every hypothesis in science is elevated to the status of being a theory, and any given hypothesis varies substantially in the strength of the evidence in support of it (or even against it).
          The fact that people with religious beliefs made scientific discoveries in no way demonstrates a lack of conflict between religion and science.

        15. It’s not a disgrace to anyone. If god exists he created me knowing everything I would ever do or say. So it’s all part of his plan.

        16. He knows, but you don’t. That’s free will and personal responsibility come in.

        17. From what I gather, “faith” seems to be a sort of litmus test, it is necessary as God wants us to turn to him freely, and not be marionettes. Don’t know if I’m even in the ballpark there though.

        18. I think you’re squarely in the ballpark as far as what many theists assert. But if god’s power is limitless then he already knows what my choice will be. So he created me with free will, knowing that I wouldn’t believe in him because his hidden nature provides me with no evidence of his existence, and for this I’ll be punished for eternity. Makes sense.

        19. I do indeed believe in God with absolute certainty. You are correct in saying scientists don’t hold to the facts they discover with the same level of certainty. Given the nature of God as shown from reason alone, one cannot avoid believing in him with such certainty, as he is truth, goodness, and beauty. However, as God is pure spirit, science is not equipped to speak on that subject. If the “red pill” means seeing the world as it is, that means conceding that some truths transcend science.

        20. The statement that god is truth, goodness and beauty is simply an assertion. Anyone can make an assertion about the nature of god, and there’s no shortage of religions that do so, all claiming to be the only ones that have the real truth.
          Science doesn’t have anything to say about god, that’s correct, because science relies on testable evidence to draw conclusions. Since there is no testable evidence for the existence of god, science has nothing to say on the subject.
          Your opinion therefore, if I understand you correctly (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) is that there is no evidence for god. Instead, by the application of logical reasoning, the truth that god exists is an inescapable conclusion. Is that a fair summary of your position?
          If I’ve summarised you correctly then I have a couple of questions.
          1: What is the line of reasoning by which you arrive at absolute certainty of god’s existence?
          2: How can you be sure the christian version of this god is correct and all other god’s are false?

        21. Shameless plug alert: in a previous column I covered the traditional arguments for the existence of God.

          Philosophical Approaches To Proving The Existence Of God

          In short, there are purely philosophical approaches and those that rely on the existence of created things. I can’t speak for all Christians obviously, but I myself wasn’t raised with any particular faith background. Eventually I decided to convert to Catholicism due to the preponderance of evidence and its historical background.

    2. Using contraceptives with your partner is masturbating with them. Even Mahatma Ghandi knew this and said that a woman who uses contraceptives prostitutes herself to her husband.

      1. Cool, well have fun being sexually repressed in your own marriage, that’s your choice. Meanwhile I’ll enjoy sex and masturbation, because I can, and because I don’t waste my time worrying about what an imaginary god thinks of how I conduct myself in the privacy of my home either alone, or with another consenting adult.

        1. Wow, insults out of the window. Shows how mature you are.
          Anyone can enjoy masturbatory actions. But it takes real steel to propagate life and be a productive member of society. Have fun having kids at 40. I’m sure it won’t alienate you to your kids’ needs and wants at all.

        2. To be fair, when you implied that my partner is a prostitute because we have sex with contraception, didn’t you insult me (or her) first?
          As for your comments regarding my age, you don’t know how old I am or what age at which I plan to have children, so I suppose that information came from the same place you obtained your evidence that god exists: your ass.
          But insults aside, lets just examine that point for a moment, are you suggesting that there should be an age limit on parent-hood for men? What is this limit exactly and what’s the basis of it? You think that someone above the age of 40 can’t effectively empathise with young children? What leads you to that conclusion? I’d say people of all ages vary in their ability to empathise and relate to other people of different ages. I’ll have children as young or as old as I want based on various factors such as financial stability, finding the right partner, professional considerations and just plain because I want to, because I have that freedom.
          Unlike you, I don’t rely on other people to tell me what to do, I’m intelligent enough to make my own decisions about life. That’s what being Alpha is, taking control of your own destiny, honing your intellect, using it to make smart decisions to achieve your goals. Letting someone else tell you how to live your life based on the unsubstantiated claims of ancient ignorant people (those that wrote the bible) is the definition of being Beta. Grow a spine and take control of your own life.

        3. I’ll also add that the founder of this website is:
          a) non-religious
          b) 36 years old (or thereabouts?)
          c) is not married and has no children
          So perhaps you are on the wrong website.

        4. Do you think Roosh is happy? Beneath the veneer of his movement? I’m sure after this past week in Canada he has seen that we are facing an uphill battle. I think somewhere in the heart of soul of Roosh he wants to find a good person to settle down with and have a family. He created this website because men have forgotten how to be men. I’m sure he also knows that society has been corrupted and that there are a new set of rules. Going back to the early gentlemen, the Game, the DeAngelo’s, their sole purpose was to teach men how to win at the mating game. The mating game has become a game of tic-tac-toe and now it has become evident that its a no win entity. Perhaps I am wrong and Roosh wants to just f the brains out of every woman until he has breathed his last breath. I would not believe that to be the case as he seems way smarter than that.

        5. I can’t speak to whether or not Roosh is happy. But I think there’s no doubt this movement is facing an uphill battle, 2 minutes reading the comments on this website makes that abundantly apparent. For the majority of users this is clearly just a forum to vent frustration over the failure to get laid or find the right partner, or to extol conservative christian values. Hardly empowering…

        6. That is the truth. What does a prostitute do for someone? To have sex for the sake of pleasure and pay. When a woman marries someone but only has condom sex, what do they do? The guy gives her gifts, and they have sex only for fun, not procreation. So yes, she is a prostitute.
          My ass? Says the guy who can’t even grow up and realize that condom sex is masturbation. Yes, granted, you’re also jacking off with someone, but that doesn’t change the topic. Sex between people is an act of creating life, an act of maturity where the participants decide to be the makers of life. And you lot turn that into pure pleasure with none of the responsibilities. We’re not saying you can’t do that, but we’re calling it what it is: another means of jacking off.
          I know. I’ve seen couples and parents who have kids a decade or two after they married, or when both partners are at the end of their thirties, and they can barely relate to their kids at all. Or even understand them. Not to mention birthing complications that can happen to those with advanced age. Go ahead and make that choice. Don’t be surprised if you can’t understand your kid’s social cues and desires half the time, and don’t be surprised if your wife starts to have complications giving birth.
          Again, more of this “independent” horsecrap. I can also say that I don’t need anyone’s advice on crossing the road, but if I didn’t follow said advice from others, I’d be a skid mark on the pavement. Have fun making up your own rules as you go. Don’t blame others if you crash and burn later on. I’m not a Beta because I chose to follow wise advice, but you’re closer to the idea of a beta since they’re more averse to risk-free, pleasure-first actions. A real man wouldn’t marry unless he’s ready to procreate.

        7. Hahaha, oh man, you are priceless, I just sent this response around to my friends so that they could have a good laugh.
          Mate, I don’t care whether you want to call me a prostitute, my partner a prostitute, tell me I’m jacking off, or whatever else. I do jack off regularly, and I have sex regularly, and I do it because it’s pleasurable. Masturbation is not shameful to me, it’s normal.
          I’m completely happy for you to deny yourself the pleasure of sex and reserve the act solely for the purpose of reproduction. I think it’s weird, but you’re totally free to do so.
          Just stay away from my kids when I have them, we’ve already seen from the catholic church what guilt driven sexual repression drives men to do.
          The fact that you’ve seen parents that are out of touch doesn’t prove anything, I’ve seen older parents who aren’t. So what we can conclude from this is there is variation in parenting.
          As for following advice, absolutely, I agree that following wise advise is wise (by definition). However when someone gives me advice, and I say “why?” and they reply with “god said so” I laugh.

        8. Apparently, you did care enough to go off the handle when I brought up the P word. Condom sex and jacking off are only different in that there’s two participants. Otherwise, it’s perfectly similar-stimulating sexual activity meant for procreation for the purpose of recreational use.
          Oh, I’m not denying myself the pleasure of sex. I’m just the kind of guy who wants it stated right that condom sex takes away from sex it’s primary purpose.
          Oh, no. The Church, for most of its history, had the priests who cheat on their vows go out with prostitutes and female parishioners. They just made the grave error of opening up to homosexual pedophiles, and the natural result was the altar boy abuse scandals. I’d say that the priests from the Renaissance who cheated on their vows are more true about sex, because they had bastard children from their escapades and raised them as their own flesh and blood.
          Older parents are a generation or two separated from their children. That’s why they’re extremely confused as to what their kids want, what their kids are into, and what kind of person their kids are, holding them up to standards that passed away almost half a century ago. The end result is that they won’t be able to understand their kids as much as parents who had kids early do.
          Adorable. But when people say “God said so”, they usually say that because it’s advice that’s worked. Even with the Muslims, their strategy for women kept hypergamy and feminism dead in Islamic countries while the West crashes and burns thanks to radical feminism destroying the family.

        9. I’m happy to grant you that sex with contraception is not sex for the primary reason that sex evolved. Sex evolved as a method of reproduction, secondarily it became pleasurable in more complex organisms presumably as an incentive to do it. That would be my assumption. But I don’t attach any issues of morality to it either way. Perhaps you don’t either, but it certainly sounds like you do if you feel the need to describe protected sex with one’s own partner as prostitution, which most people would consider a description that contains judgement. But whatever man, at this point I’m not overly bothered by your bizarre ideas about sex.
          It’s laughable that you think pedophilia in the church is the result of “letting the homos in”. Get a grip.
          Maturity levels among humans is way too variable for the generalisations you’re making about parenting. I know people older than myself that I feel have the mental maturity of someone a decade younger. It’s just not that simple. Lots of older people are great with kids and have no problem relating to teenagers or young adults. Sometimes people are simply mentally immature, and sometimes it just depends on how much someone feeds their inner child. But hell, why am I even arguing about this particular idea, this must be one of the most bizarre things to have a strong opinion on. Is this because your parents couldn’t relate to you? If so, I’m sorry to hear that.
          Oh yeah, god only instructs totally logical things. Like keeping the seventh day holy, because of course right? As you say “it works”. Errr, makes total sense. All those dietary restrictions that various religions have make total sense too right? Don’t eat cloven hoofed animals? I mean, duh, of course. God instructing Abraham to kill his son because he’s a sadistic SOB. Beat your slaves but don’t kill them. Sacrifice this, kill that. Kill that whole civilisation but those but keep the virgins. Put a blood smear on your door or I’ll kill your first borns, blah blah. As you say, it works. If god said it, it’s logical and it works.
          And now you’re actually suggesting that the islamic world is morally superior to the western world. We’re done here, you’re a complete loon. Seriously, just go join ISIS already, you’ll get along swell.

        10. You do realize that Europe has been treating sex that way for decades, and they’re failing, right? Their population is going extinct, to be replaced by Muslims by the next century. That’s what happens when you don’t breed. Manufacturing capabilities go down. Economic production goes down. Your whole race becomes extinct. If that’s what you want, then go ahead, but don’t be surprised if some religious nut jobs take over in a century or so, because they’ll be the only ones who care about procreation. The world will either belong to the hillbilly trash, the ghetto trash, the barrio trash, and the Asians, because they breed like rabbits. The “enlightened atheists” go the way of the sixties druggie and die out. So have fun with your little revolution, because it sure as hell won’t last.
          It was because of pedophile homosexuals. Why do you think all the victims are little boys? Back then, priests who cheated either A) bones female parishioners, or B) bedded prostitutes. Or C) a mix of both. All those corrupt popes and priests in the history of the Church, and only in the last 30 years do we see the primacy of boy-rape within the fallen priests. At least prior to them letting gay pedos in the priesthood, the fallen priests caused nothing but a little embarrassment here and there. The pedo priests, on the other hand, caused way more damage.
          The Seventh Day was made Holy and was made a day of rest, so that man can reconnect with the natural forces of the world and with his Maker, while at the very least resting for a bit. Explains why Christians are less irritable than atheists. Also, all those dietary laws existed when said animals had parasites within them-it wasn’t until later on were these animals were properly cooked to get rid of tapeworms and other such monstrosities within them. And by then, Jesus came and allowed people to eat these animals. But then again, expecting a simpleton like you to understand the context behind these laws is like expecting a kindergardener to understand the nuances in the American constitution and what makes its original incarnation different from today’s.
          I didn’t imply Islam was superior to the West. But Islam is superior to atheism. At the very least there is a clan and a higher purpose to fight for. They’re dejected monsters, but they didn’t reach the depravity of unchecked atheism like Mao or Stalin did.

        11. You do realise the world is massively and unsustainably overpopulated right? The constant economic growth model is flawed, it only works if we actually have the ability to expand endlessly which we don’t on a finite planet. So just blindly encouraging people to breed, breed, breed doesn’t make much sense. I agree there are problems in europe and all western countries, there are problems everywhere, but it’s not because religion is missing. Don’t confuse my opinion as thinking that modern secular democracies are flawless, I don’t think that at all, I think there are many flaws. But one thing we got right was removing the influence of religion from the area of governance and lawmaking. I won’t bother addressing your racist rant.
          Like in all walks of society (in the church or in the home), child abuse didn’t start in the last 30 years, people just started bringing it to light, you’d have to be the most naive kind of moron to believe otherwise.
          You can ascribe a reason to the sabbath, but it’s still arbitrary and authoritarian to command people to rest on a particular day. People still adhere to ridiculous religiously commanded dietary restrictions, they are not a thing of the past.
          If you think that Mao and Stalin are the worst criminals human history has to offer, you need to do a recheck. Religion has been part of the belief system for many a genocidal maniac. Hitler being the obvious one, with the phrase “God with us” on the belt buckle of every one of his soldiers.

      2. Why do I even have to mention Song of Solomon here? Or St. Paul’s, “It is better to marry than to burn”? If every time I burn I also have to fear creating a child I can’t support, how is that a solution to me burning? He did not say, “It is better to bring children into this world than to burn with lust.”
        Sex is pleasurable. Orgasms are fun. Always have been. Always will be. Self-control is imperative, but if you’re weak on that point, get married and have at it!
        I’ve always thought that if all these rules the Catholics came up with were really all that important, God would have written more about them in His Word. He wouldn’t have waited for us to merely deduce them using Aristotelian logic and medieval scholasticism. He would have included them in the 10 Commandments. Or He would have had a law that said, “And the man that comes in unto his wife for purposes other than procreation hath made his wife a whore and polluted her greatly. He shall surely be put to death.”
        But it never says that.

        1. Except for the fact that Catholics DID enjoy sex, as evidenced by Catholic families having plenty of children. In fact, it was the Protestants who were uptight jackasses, calling people who breed too much as degenerates, while their Puritan society tried to crack down on sexuality. When the Catholic Church ruled, it regulated prostitution and saw it as a legitimate business. When the Protestants ruled, they tried to force everyone to be morally uptight and publicly shamed anyone who was even close to committing adultery.
          Actually, the Bible is just what the Church managed to salvage from first century and Jewish writings. Nobody said that the Bible was the be-all, end-all. Jesus bragged about His Church triumphing over the gates of hell, while He was mum about how the Bible is the only rulebook people need. In fact, whenever people brought up bible verses to Him, He countered them by talking about how some of scripture was meant for the past. And of course, the Church determined which books were to be in the Bible, so thank the Catholics that the Gospel of Judas or Peter isn’t in the canon.
          And God could have also talked about every detail on Jesus Christ to Abraham or Moses to prepare the way. But He didn’t. All He gave were a few snippets of some kind of Son of His who would save them all. God likes to keep things vague in the Bible. And many things He was particular with change with time, otherwise we’d be lynching people for eating pork.

        2. Wow! Its amazing how you wrote all that and never addressed a single thing I said! But you were still able to make a shitload of assumptions about me, too! Good work!
          Oh, and thanks for that update. I never knew the Catholic church believed in prostitilution (insert gratuitous pedophile priest of comment here).

        3. Back then, pedophiles were almost unheard of. Most priests who cheated on their vows porked prostitutes or female parishioners. An embarrassment, sure, but nothing to get sued over. The Church welcomed in gay seminarians hoping that they would curb this embarrassment, only to wind up with something far worse…..

    3. people have been using the pull out method for a long, long time. I have used it and it worked for an extended period of time. yeah i know, pre cum, but the pill really does mess with a womans internal system because of the fake hormones. not sure what vasalgel will do.

      1. And a medical argument against the pill would be an argument worth listening to. And actually I’ve dated someone in the past who couldn’t find a pill that agreed with them. But I think the issue is that some people here are against contraception in general, particularly if a woman has sole power to implement it. And that is a ridiculous idea.

  19. I think people had more sex decades ago. Not just because of the higher birth rate. But men acted like real men back then. Studies proved that decades ago, men had more testosterone. Today, leftists brag about a “sexual revolution”, yet all I see around me is a bunch of depressed people who don’t get laid.

    1. I vaguely remember some discussion in Orwell’s 1984 about how sexual energy was controlled for the good of the State. They couldn’t prevent sex because it is hardwired into humans, but they could redirect the energy into more ‘productive’ uses by the State.
      “yet all I see around me is a bunch of depressed people who don’t get laid.”
      That’s probably part of the plan. You can’t control happy or satisfied people (or at least you have to redefine the ‘pursuit of happiness’ to further the ends of the State). Reducing testosterone also decreases the risk of revolution and change apart from the State.

      1. As Theodore Dalrymple once said, the purpose of political correctness is to humiliate. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.

  20. As I said earlier I agree with this man on most everything, but I must diagree with him that the Catholic Church is the only christian denomination standing against divorce, the orthodox and many (conservative) protestant churches have taken equally, if not firmer, stands on the practice.

    1. And yet they’re rarely in the fight. The oldest of Protestants allowed divorce, and Orthodox Christians like to brag about their old ways but turn a blind eye to the massive abortions in Russia. At least abortionists in Catholic countries are always on the lookout for a resurgence of Church power.

  21. Great synopsis of the Roman Catholic Church’s position on divorce and reminder that the only foundation that is meaningful is an intact family Mr Levinson. Thank you.

  22. Oh yeah the catholic church. The pinnacle of morality. Nigga please?!?! Where do I start?

    1. Seems like a lot of people here have Neo-Masculinity confused with Christian Conservatism.

      1. To quote Quitus Curtius:”One of the core principles of neomasculinity is spirituality. Some form of spiritual belief should play a role in the proper functioning of a balanced and reflective mind. All of us have beliefs of one type or another; and instead of fussing about the theological cobwebs of one system or another, it is more productive to focus on the benefits that our belief systems bring us.”
        Given that all spiritual belief is irrational and not subject to empirical confirmation, I think that maybe some people are confused in thinking that atheism is compatible with neomasculinity.

        1. Curtius doesn’t speak for the entire movement, and other prominent people within the movement profess no religious beliefs. So I’d contend that it’s not an essential part of neomasculinity. If you want to make an argument for why it’s essential, I’m happy to debate it. What I won’t do is read through a linked article and respond to it’s points in response to you. Use whatever source you want to support your view, but if you can’t put it in your own words I won’t respond to it.
          Additionally, the founder of this website does not believe in god and the doctrine that Curtius uses as a basis for his definition of neomasculinity is written by that same person.
          If you are convinced that god exists, you should be able to defend that position. So far, you haven’t successfully done so, and neither has anyone else in these various threads.
          There is no evidence for the existence of god. Therefore it is not reasonable to believe god exists. Nothing said thus far has even attempted to refute these statements.

        2. Roosh is the first to fully articulate a conception of “neomasculinity” and he considers QC his right hand man. But it’s a question of who is more intellectually lazy and you seem to be putting it on me to reinvent the wheel for your consumption, which I am not inclined to do this morning, but maybe I have nothing better to do later today.
          I am not convinced that god exists, I just think that atheists are silly punters who cannot defend their own position in light of their behavior and actual beliefs.

        3. I’m an atheist, and I’m at least willing to defend my position. I’ll leave it up to others to judge whether or not I’ve done so effectively.
          I’m not really sure how I’m putting it on you to reinvent the wheel, I’m just disagreeing with you. Though admittedly I brought in the existence of god aspect, which is a tangent, so I’m happy to scrap that argument and focus back on what you did say rather than what you didn’t. But yeah, I’m arguing on the internet, so do or don’t, world keeps turning either way.

        4. Saying “you have no evidence therefore I am correct” doesn’t really defend your position.
          QC makes his case so I don’t have to repeat it “in my own words”: It’s right there for you to read.
          Ya, the existence of god is a tangent to whether PP VI identified where things were going to go wrong.

        5. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god because it isn’t a scientific proposition in the first place. You can’t use science to contemplate the existence of god, spirit, meaning, purpose, morality and many similar things that make us “human” any more than you would try to mow your lawn with a toaster oven: wrong tool for the task at hand.

        6. Exactly. You’ve summed up why it’s extremely difficult to communicate with most modern Atheists, especially those who have never studied philosophy.

        7. Most have a decent grasp of science but very few have studied the philosophy of science, or the philosophy of religion, or Hume (with regards to skepticism) or James and his Pragmatism.
          The biggest problem is in separating methodological physicalism (or naturalism or materialism as one likes) from the philosophical or ontological version of the idea. Atheists assume the correctness of the latter due to the utility of the former, which does not follow in a strict logical sense. It makes atheism unfalsifiable in any practical sense because even if God came down and revealed himself to an atheist, or someone could perform miracles consistently on command, they would still look for a natural/physical/material explanation for it. As one atheist put it: “If the supernatural were real, it would be natural.”

        8. The biggest problem is in separating methodological physicalism (or naturalism or materialism as one likes) from the philosophical or ontological version of the idea.

          You’ve hit the nail on the head. What Western atheists have yet to figure out/realize is that an atheist must account for why something exists in a very different way than a theist; Which is a basic philosophical fact.
          The existence or non-existence of a God or Gods has very real consequences, from a philosophical standpoint and if one grants the existence of non-physical things, many of the arguments against deism become weakened.
          Hence, to simply state “I’m an atheist. There is no God.” with no further considerations of the effects such a claim has on the metaphysics of your worldview, which most “Pop Atheists” are absolutely guilty of, is as ignorant and intellectually lazy as claiming “I believe in God,” then ignoring the consequences of such a belief.
          The vast majority of Western atheists are simply atheists of the of the pop variety, i.e. They don’t understand Atheism or the underlying world view. I find myself having to explain Atheism to Atheists, all the time and it’s insane how little they understand their own belief system and they do not respond well to learning the philosophical implications of such a world view. So much for objectivity and “a lack of belief,” I guess. They’re typically at least as dogmatic and hysterical as fundamentalists.

        9. Moreover, some atheists play fast and loose with their definition of evidence on this subject but not in others. I’m often accused of being weak for relying on the crutch of authority by men who need another man in a lab coat to hold their hand before they make a statement about anything.

        10. Well what point is being debated right now? The idea that atheism and neomasculinity are incompatible? I guess it’s a pretty subjective statement, but my counter is that the person who wrote the doctrine to which you refer isn’t religious, and while that doctrine suggests the benefits of spirituality it doesn’t actually state that it’s necessary, even if QC says it is in his own posts. So clearly there isn’t one viewpoint on this from the “authorities” if you want to call them that.
          And again, write your own arguments if you want responses, otherwise you’re just being lazy.

  23. what’s funny is that G. Chaucer…
    his writings are full of cuckoldry.
    I think in particular … one part of the Canterbury tales.
    I can’t remember exactly, that course was so long ago.
    But for sure cuckoldry was going on since those times.

  24. The pope may have predicted the end result BUT modern parents are just as responsible with their stupid reaction to the prospect that their “cherished little girl” will be out there sleeping with anyone and possibly everyone so they encourage them to take the contraceptive pill, so these little girls see that as an added bonus to sleep around even more.

  25. If I want to learn about the bible, I can go to church. And if all you red pill Christians want to talk about the bible, you can go to church. What happened ROK being about self improvement, getting laid, making money and not taking shit from women or society in general?

    1. You better be the absolute best because society has brainwashed women to only want to get with the cream of the crop. Furthermore, you can accept these women to just want your resources. So, if you have no soul and can have plenty of emotionless sex, go knock yourself out. You want to step on others to achieve this, go knock yourself out. I’ll tell you in the end, you will find yourself still empty. Money and vagina is not the be all end all of everything. I think ROK should be about self improvement, improving men and making them leaders. Not men who only care about improving themselves so they can get laid and have lots of money. ITS OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS MEN to be leaders and set the example for others. In a world where folks like the Kardashian clan, Affleck’s nanny and others get glorified for their actions we need more men to stand up and shame their behaviors.
      I guess the jest is, we all want to get laid and be successful but the positive apparatus for that has long been abolished. That’s the point of this article. Just because you believe in God and go to church doesn’t mean you don’t want to make money and f%$#. If I stand corrected, the apostles of Jesus were not perfect men.
      The globalist plan is to divide and conquer us all. I hear you brother about what you want. I want the same, but in a morally just way. Unfortunately, the system is so f&^%$d up that its gonna take a lot of like minded good men to fix it. Peace to you!

  26. Pope Paul VI was a Jesuit. I wouldn’t trust that man. They are pseudo-Christians. The Jesuits like the Freemasons are just another branch of the Knights of Templar.
    The current Pope btw is also a Jesuit and his actions reveal his true agenda.

  27. Was listening to this last night when I couldn’t sleep. Interesting discussion on the sexual revolution. At one point the woman says women use to not enjoy sex and the guy says try saying that to my grandmother which I thought was interesting point.

  28. Jews that flocked into America after and before WWII were handed out phony degrees in “social sciences” from the Frankfurt School and then sent out into the education system to spread their poison. It was the Jewish racial objective to socially deconstruct America and thereby make it easier to be exploited and sucked dry by the tribe. As was pointed out in the CofC they published propaganda of purely naked Jewish racial aggression like “The Authoritarian Personality”. We are now living in the final phase of a nation’s Jewish Cancer. The US is terminal patient, used up, sucked dry, finished.

      1. The Frankfurt School refugees flocked to America and gained positions in major universities. This was how cultural Marxism came to dominate the school system in America. They were initially housed at Columbia University before being sent to spread the Cultural Marxist gospel throughout academia. Thanks for the commercial with the old NY Yentas.

        1. This is such an intensely dumbed down version of a) what the frankfurt school is, how education works and, ya know, life.

        2. you seem like a reasonably intelligent person with a healthy curiosity. You should try to take a broader view and understand things better. Or not, ya know, doesn’t bother me.

        3. Since you obviously know so much why don’t you enlighten us with your vast knowledge instead of throwing out gratuitous criticism that you don’t back up? It’s easy to act smug and dimiss facts you don’t like without any deductive logic or facts of your own, isn’t it? A typical ploy of the left, don’t debate the facts, name-call, stigmatize, ad-hominem.

        4. A broader view? You mean I should take your view. Thanks but I understand things just fine. Why don’t you flesh out your viewpoint instead of this vague nonsense. Or not, I don’t care.

        5. I am sorry, you are right. I didn’t mean to name call. I only meant to say that there is a very complicated world out there and that there is too much simplicity in your comment to account for the multi-faceted nature of the way the world is. With this, I don’t claim to understand everything…just that it isn’t as easy as saying that it’s the jews or a loosely knit and affiliated group of academics who infiltrated american academia. For the point, I do think the current state of academia is a frightful shit show…I am only saying that you are over simplifying the issue. Have you read any Adorno, Horkeinheimer or Habermas? What about the Neo Con fathers like Leo Strauss? If you think this is one big jew conspiracy then I am afraid that you are simply making the world out to be much smaller than it is.

        6. I didn’t give you a view to take…and intentionally so. I don’t want you to take my view. I don’t care what view to take. I only suggested that your view could stand to be more sophisticated and take into account the complexity of the situation rather than just Boo this or Yeah that like you are at a football game. What you come up with is your business.

        7. I don’t think Jews are the only condition, but they are the necessary condition. Franz Boas deliberately used his gentile camp followers to put a face to “cultural relativism”. Additionally, I don’t deny that there are Jews that don’t run with the tribe and have warned us of their destructive nature, Benjamin Friedman for instance. Look at something like the Federal Reserve Bank if you need proof of Jewish tribal cohesion that dominates key institutions. Every chairman in my lifetime has been Jewish. Yellen, Bernanke, Greenspan, Volker…all Jewish. If they were all Anglo-Saxons the Jews and leftists would be screaming about evil White men and White privilege. Look at all the Wall Street thieves over the last 30 years or the Russian oligarchs who expropriated the wealth of Russia after the Soviet collapse.

        8. Just what point were you trying to make here? The only non-Jew you have mentioned is Habermas.

      2. Yes, Jewish Cultural Marxists of The Frankfurt School made their way as refugees from Germany and into gateway institutions like Columbia University and The New School for Social research.

    1. You can’t blame the Jewsual suspects for the current situation because the fault lies in our own people. Roger Devlin himself blames the sexual revolution on the Enlightenment, an overwhelmingly white phenomenon. Specifically the English slut Mary Wollstonecraft wrote the first explicitly feminist treatise around the time of George Washington’s Presidency in the early United States.

      1. I don’t see how a treatise on feminism written in the 18th century, which obviously had little to no effect on the population equates to a concerted racial effort to institute a reconstruction of American Society 180 years later. The evidence of Jewish involvement in feminism is overwhelming, from the mother of modern feminism, the Hobgoblin Betty Friedan to today, feminism is overwhelmingly populated by Jews.
        Also, my previous post was about Jewish involvement in bringing Cultural Marxism to America, although feminism is part of Cultural Marxism.

    1. I date it the day that meant I didn’t have to ware a condom to enjoy sex without getting my partner pregnant. A great day indeed. And it came before I was even born! Thank God! (or at least I would if I had reason to believe he existed)

  29. No-fault divorce is a social disaster. As for Humane Vitae, however, most of Paul VI’s advisers suggested the church adopt a tolerant position on artificial birth control. Pau’s hardline, adopted by his successors, has created a laity in rebellion. The phenomenon of “cafeteria Catholicism” can be traced to this. It’s just not realistic.

  30. this is the way you can fill your bank-account with added money weekly

    Lol. The sad part is I thought this bot was referring to alimony. I want off this fucking ride.

    1. …Up until the very moment enough Whites get pissed off enough to finally stand up and fight back. It’s already started with the Oath Keepers’ presence in Ferguson and remember that street thugs and wannabe gangsters don’t stand a chance against a trained militia.

  31. All of you should go get married and become beta simps so I can bed and impregnate your wives.

    1. fuck pope francis. goddamn Marxist.
      ISIS needs to get their shit together and take him out.

  32. This is kind of related. I just read an article on Tinder and how it’s destroying traditional dating (and female “Game”). Mostly interviews of women who hook up on it, yet complain about guys using it to hook up. (Typical female solopsism).
    One gist of the article is that it freed women sexually. Ok, got that. But now feminists are complaining that women being able to hook up anonymously anytime they want, (Some several times a day) was discriminating and harmful to women, and of course it’s mens fault.

    1. they wanted sexual liberation like a man but they can’t handle it. on some level they realize they’re damaging themselves.
      Let the whores march off the edge of the cliff

      1. From studying female behavior I understood a lot of it. But man, to hook up with random guys a couple of times a week, and then complain that there are guys out there looking to hook up with you, that’s typical female insanity.
        One thing that stops a lot of guys from just using whores is the fear of disease. But think about it. Now with these phone apps there are women getting as much sex as paid prostitutes do. This isn’t going to end well. Whores at least use condoms and get checked out at the free sex clinics. These “liberated” snowflakes have this perception of invulnerability and entitlement. They’re disease farms waiting to be discovered by the CDC.

  33. So few people seem able to understand the importance of hypocrisy. Society is built on standards of right behavior imperfectly kept. It used to be said that “Hypocrisy is the tribute which vice pays to virtue.” Meaning even when you didn’t practice it, you still had to admit it, the standard, was right and you were wrong. But not anymore. Now the lowest behavior is the standard because everyone is busy “keeping it real”!
    No. Everyone is just terrified if admitting they are GUILTY.

  34. It’s retarded to advocate for marriage in a culture that is going to be 40% more automated in the very near future and the human life span is going to be increasing .
    There will be huge problem if the replacement stays the same .
    Marriage and sexual oppression was only ever a way to make men so thirsty and pussy so scarce we thought it was worth paying through the nose for .

  35. Great article, I’d love to see more of these. Choosing a woman with prudence is a concept that I don’t see anywhere in the Manosphere and should be talked about more often….as much as women think with their pussies, men also think with our dicks and we are much better at mitigating shitty relationship outcomes when we choose with our brains instead. Harder said than done, but I’m moving in that direction recently and it’s made me realize just how few women are actually a net positive in a relationship. A man must know exactly what he is looking for and in what role.

  36. As for why Christians tend to be portrayed as “puritanical and anti-sex”, well, maybe that’s because there’s some truth behind the notion? Things are, of course, never quite that simple, but Christian tradition does have a sex-negative strain going back to several of the Church Fathers, who regarded even married sex as inherently profane and something of a necessary evil. The other Abrahamic religions don’t have anything like that, not even the variants of them that take repression of extramarital sexual interaction to extremes.

  37. Popes are lying jackasses, pretending to be magical wizards, commanding armies of child molesting assholes. You can safely ignore everything these fuckheads say from their thrones in their robes and hats.

  38. Paul VI was like Alan Greenspan. He knew his policies were awful — Humanae Vitae was a cuckservative bone thrown to Catholics who were disturbed by his crappy new “mass” — but rammed them through anyway.

Comments are closed.