Tag Archives: Dalrock

Come on- Homosexuals Can’t Be THAT Evil!

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Screen-Shot-2021-07-07-at-11.50.47-PM-e1625695179568.png

Apparently there’s a “San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus”, and they released a music video titled “We’ll Convert Your Children”. It has since been taken down from the web, but the reactions are still fresh and on-going. Unfortunately, they are not all united in calling this predatory battle cry the evil filth that it is. It must have been a joke. A joke in poor taste, to be sure, but merely a joke! Let’s not over-react and look like a bunch of homophobes, okay?

Vox Day wrote an excellent article revealing yet again why conservatives are utterly useless in the culture wars. In The conservative defense of pedophilia, Vox shows that a particular writer, Rod Dreher, is taking this statement of theirs as a result of idiocy on the part of those gay men. I absolutely agree with Vox’s assessment. This is a naive, desperate ploy to try and assure people that homosexuals really aren’t as bad as they say they are.

Do you see the way in which the good conservative can’t bring himself to condemn proud and overt evil even when it openly declares that it is coming for his children?

They are smart-asses. They are fools. They are idiots. Dreher is willing to call them anything except that which they are: the wicked.

Indeed. But Dreher is not the only one. Think of how many so-called Christian conservative commentators (ex. Steven Crowder) embrace the likes of Blaire White, Rob Smith, Dave Rubin, etc. These are all wicked people, but they are actively put forth as examples of “good” homosexuals. I’m sure Blaire White may start making the rounds on various conservative YouTube shows expressing outrage over this song. And that is part of the lie being told.

The attitude being delivered to right-wingers is essentially this: “See? Even the gays/trans people think this is evil! Isn’t it great that even these left-wing people are calling out these especially evil people? Isn’t it cool that we can band together over this?”

We’re being made to assume the best about people who flaunt their sexual debauchery. Whenever we see a correlation between homosexuals and pedophilia, we’re reluctant to conclude that there’s a connection. After all, aren’t there plenty of gay people on our side? We shouldn’t just assume that being gay is an indicator that you’re predisposed to molesting kids. We wouldn’t want to appear homophobic!

But this petty fear over being seen as homophobic is just one more challenge to Christian masculinity among many. Don’t you dare suspect gay people of being dangerous, you backwoods hillbilly! Stop over-reacting just because you never went to college and you think gay people are gross! They’re just people who want to live their lives and do their own thing.

That’s not true, of course, but wicked men work hard to beat Christian men down in this way. And their labors have proven successful. Pastors like Matt Chandler were already at work discouraging Christians from reacting negatively towards homosexual persons. In Loud and proud complementarians: Pastor Matt Chandler., Dalrock included a “feel-bad-Christians” segment from one of his sermons:

I think you are going to see what we’ve already seen probably three or four times in Christian history. There are going to be those that try to reach the world by becoming like the world. And then there are going to be those that try to by the grace of God hold fast to orthodox Christian faith in a way that’s compassionate and kind, and they are going to have to weather the backlash of all of the wrong that has been done in the name of Jesus in the last 50 years.

This isn’t the only brilliant expose Dalrock wrote on so-called Christians who are working to dissuade Christians from seeing gay people as the enemy. The guard in the tower shouts “Lower the drawbridge and unbolt the door!” is another gem wherein Dalrock revealed that Sam Allberry and Rosaria Butterfield were literally, not figuratively, telling Christians they ought to give LGBTQ people keys to our houses:

If you want to share the gospel with the LGBTQ community or anyone who will lose family and homes, the gospel must come with a house key.

https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/why-the-gospel-comes-with-a-house-key/

In another article, Dalrock showed where Matt Chandler said we “should” have a gay person somewhere in our life, whether it’s family, friend, or co-workers:

What advice would you give to Christians who have gay family, friends or coworkers?

“That broad question probably includes all of us. All of us are going to have gay friends, family or co-workers. That’s a giant umbrella. And you should have someone in that umbrella in your life….

https://intersectproject.org/faith-and-culture/matt-chandler-homosexuality-church/

Once upon a time, gay activists were coming to Christians in our churches and our legal system with their hat in their hand. The said that gay people just wanted to be permitted to live out their debauchery as long as they didn’t hurt anybody. Fast-forward to now, and we’ve seen how untrue that is. They can’t help themselves. It’s not enough that they obtained the legal ability for gay people to live together and have sex with each other. No, they had to come after the church. They had to start wearing Christians down so that gay people would be allowed into their homes… Right where the kids are.

The SFGMC’s music video was just an open confession of what they’ve been trying to do for forever. It’s evil, and it’s wicked. Christian men need to be ready to call this brainwashing out for what it is. The enemy is not foolish. The enemy is not naïve. The enemy is bold and brash, and they have “Christian” leaders on their side, ready to shoot you down for being homophobic. Don’t back down, Christian men. Call them wicked, because that’s what they are. Be defiant. Protect your children, no matter what.

How would you respond if your husband lead/loved you like Christ?

This is the first time I’ve ever re-blogged an article. This is an old one from Dalrock in 2015, but it’s worth its weight in gold. Christian women are constantly tricked into thinking that a husband who is properly leading her will automatically make her want to submit to him. If she doesn’t want to submit to him, that’s defacto evidence that her husband isn’t leading properly. This article is the antidote to such poison. If only more pastors preached with as much perception as Dalrock wrote.

Dalrock

In the discussion of Effortless the conversation turned to how wives should expect to be lead, and how they would naturally react if their husband lead them as the Bible teaches.  There are two parts to this, which correspond to the separate instructions to husbands and wives:

  1. Wives are to submit to their husbands even if their husband doesn’t obey the word.  The idea that a wife should expect her husband to first lead (and lead correctly) before submitting is not only not supported by Scripture, but it is in direct contradiction to 1 Pet 3:1-6.
  2. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church (Eph 5:25-29).

The first point is generally ignored, although it is worth noting that modern Christians are quite enthusiastic about 1 Pet 3:1-6 with a twist.  The second point is much more popular, and this is what I want to touch on with this…

View original post 1,199 more words

Wilson’s Scapegoat for Fat, Unkempt Women.

Back in 2018, Dalrock wrote Modern Christian teachers of the lesson in The Wedding of Sir Gawain. In there he showed us one of Doug Wilson’s most bizarre teachings- namely, that a man who properly loves his wife will cause her to grow in physical attractiveness. This was documented from Wilson’s “Reforming Marriage” book which came out in 2012. I recently discovered that he taught the same thing even earlier in 2006 in his book “For a Glory and a Covering: A Practical Theology of Marriage”.

Dalrock’s critical remarks for “Reforming Marriage” are just as applicable to this older book. Continue reading

Bnonn Doubles Down

Question: Why does a man who promotes biblical masculinity poison people’s minds against other men who have been doing that very thing for years?

Answer: When he’s trying to promote his brand.

Looks like Bnonn decided that he hasn’t done enough to distinguish his brand of biblical masculinity, and it was time to denounce Christians who describe themselves as red-pillers yet again.

The red pill is something like a modern mystery cult; pairing it with Christianity just produces a Christian knockoff of that cult.

I could argue that this statement is false, but if you read Bnonn’s article, he never quotes anyone (excepting C.S. Lewis, which isn’t relevant). Bnonn expects his readers to take him at his word that he knows red pill Christians enough to make such a declaration, and providing proof in the form of direct quotes isn’t necessary. (It’s not a terrible bet either; he managed to hoodwink Hawk at Triablogue despite my placing that exact proof of Bnonn’s dishonesty right under his nose.).

If this is Bnonn simply explaining how he and Foster view red-pill Christians, then that’s his prerogative. He isn’t obligated to provide proof just for offering his opinion, but the fact remains that he is doubling down like a lying SJW. Back when his ministry was first starting out, Bnonn Tweeted a thread beginning with this:

If you read the thread and then compare it with his recent article, you can see that he’s merely re-publishing his Twitter-thread in article form on his website, albeit with a few minor edits. For example (differences bolded by me):

There are folks out there calling themselves red pill Christians. We believe this is no better than the many people who consider themselves feminist Christians, or social justice Christians, or gay-affirming Christians, or whatever other idol of wokeness they have discovered in the world and then attached Christianity to.

The message in the article remains the same as it did on Twitter, and it’s just as bad as it was back in December.

Here’s this same Tweet in the article (again, differences bolded by me):

Our conviction is that, while the red pill shares certain commonalities with biblical Christianity, and often sees the nature of things more clearly than mainstream evangelicalism, it is actually a separate religion in its own right. Even the very name describes a conversion experience by which the acolyte is inducted into an elect group, gains hidden wisdom and secret doctrines, and becomes part of a justified minority. (So) The red pill is something like a modern mystery cult; pairing it with Christianity just produces a Christian knockoff of that cult. Implicit in its doctrines are:

This garbage is just as inane as it ever was. This is a fully Internet-savvy man describing men reading public discussions on the Internet as acolytes who are inducted into a group filled with hidden wisdom and secret doctrines. What in God’s name is he blathering about?

I called Bnonn out for this nonsense back when it first came out. Michael Foster tried to defend him, and failed miserably (see here). Now, nine months later, he’s repeating it, but with some more careful edits:

This is especially obvious if you read red pill Christian discussion threads on popular blogs like Dalrock; the eagerness with which they violate the principles of Ephesians 5 is startling to behold. There is as much contempt for women there as for men on feminist forums, and as little fear of God before their eyes.

In Bnonn’s Tweet, he said, “discussions on blogs like Dalrock;” which includes Dalrock himself. As he re-purposed this material, he made sure to specify that he’s talking about “discussion threads” on Dalrock’s blog, which would mean Dalrock isn’t necessarily included in his denunciation of this… Mystery cult, or whatever Bnonn thinks it is.

There are still a few problems with this:

i) It’s drama-queen drivel. Does any human alive really think Bnonn was “startled” when he beheld the discussions at Dalrock’s blog?

ii) Feminists call for the castration of men and the right to murder their own babies. You can’t find a single comment on Dalrock’s blog that even comes close to that. Most of Dalrock’s readers are also professing believers. Any regular reader knows that. There is no way Bnonn thinks that the fear of God exhibited by Dalrock’s discussion threads is mimicked by the God-hating insanity spewed on feminist forums. But, if Bnonn can count on his audience taking him at his word that he has done his homework and is representing red pill Christians accurately, then they’ll never realize that the man is poisoning the well.

iii) Bnonn Tweeted this out shortly after being called out for his original Tweet:

Notice that Bnonn justified what he originally Tweeted by writing, “But Dalrock curates those comments; he is responsible for the tenor of his own blog.” From Bnonn’s perspective, Dalrock bears the blame of the sin committed within his blog’s discussion threads, whether Dalrock himself personally wrote something sinful or not. Seeing as how he doubled down on lying about Dalrock’s readers, there is no reason at all to assume he’s letting Dalrock off the hook this time around. He remains an opponent, not an ally, in Bnonn’s eyes. That doesn’t surprise me, of course. I can see Bnonn’s game for what it is, but your typical Christian male is far more likely to latch onto Bnonn’s more qualified statement and proclaim that he wasn’t such a bad guy after all, and there was never anything to worry about.

If that’s what you think, you’re probably a complementarian.

Why I’m Suspicious of the “It’s Good To Be A Man” Project

Michael Foster and Dominic “Bnonn” Tennant run the men’s ministry project called It’s Good To Be a Man. That ministry was suspected by myself and other readers of Dalrock when it first came out, and I’m going to explain why.

I keep an eye on Foster’s Twitter account and noticed that he occasionally offers to speak to men on the phone when he has some free time. He has also tweeted that he is willing to appear on big or small podcasts to discuss men’s issues. I think it was this specific Tweet that caught my eye.

I was interested in exploring the possibility of seeing what would happen were he and I to debate each other on the criticism he and his ministry had leveled against Dalrock. I messaged Foster and directly told him I was interested in doing a livestream, but unlike certain individuals at Warhorn Media, I was up front with the fact that it would be more like a debate.

The livestream did not take place, but we did eventually speak on the phone that same night. It was very impromptu and not at all planned out beforehand. Foster said he was interested in learning what it is about all these Dalrock guys. Like, what’s with all the paranoia? We covered a great deal in our conversation, but I think answering this one question in depth will help explain the negative reaction Foster characterized as paranoia. I told him that the reason for it was because his ministry came out of the gate in its early stages taking shots at men like Dalrock. Foster suggested that if we searched his website, we might find four references to Dalrock, and that’s it. They may have taken a couple glancing shots at him, but in reality, there was nothing to be concerned about.

I decided to check that out for myself. I used the search function on the It’s Good To Be a Man website, and used a specific site search using Google. I got the same two results: Attending church is entering the heavenly court, and The bitter taste of the red pill. In the first article, only Dalrock’s name is mentioned because they were citing a comment left on Dalrock’s blog. No criticism at all was directed his way. We’ll get to the second article later on.

The third area I saw him mentioned was not on the website, but on Twitter. Bnonn tweeted out a link to one of their newsletters, a link that doesn’t take you to the It’s Good To Be a Man website. You can find it here: Even in there, they don’t criticize Dalrock. They actually praise his law of feminism. The object of their severe criticism is red pill Christians, but not Dalrock himself.

That makes three separate mentions so far. Another was on Twitter.

Not much to comment on here. At worst Foster stands guilty of passive-aggression. Not a great move for men attempting to champion masculinity, but that’s as far as it went.

So far, that makes 4. As anyone can see, sometimes they praise Dalrock, sometimes they mention him in passing, and sometimes they make an unfriendly remark. Is that all then? Was I wrong to think there was a clear and identifiable attempt on their part to demonize Dalrock?

No, I was not. Let’s begin with a Tweet from one of Bnonn’s Tweet-threads:

As anyone who frequents Dalrock’s blog knows, this statement is obviously false. Feminists casually wish for the death and castration of men. Bnonn could never produce proof of similar things being said about women by Dalrock. Did he find a comment on Dalrock’s blog by some random user that set him off? If he did, he never said so. Then again, telling people you have no evidence either way doesn’t help when you’re trying to demonize someone.

Foster didn’t accept that characterization of Bnonn’s Tweet though. In fact, as he witnessed the reaction of Dalrock’s readers to Bnonn’s words, he said:

I replied (for the record, I have multiple Twitter accounts):

Although I was referring to remarks Bnonn had made about Christian men’s concerns about sex in marriage, Foster didn’t ask about that. Instead, he asked me what specific lie Bnonn told about Dalrock.

I answered by quoting Bnonn’s words from his Tweet-thread. Foster replied:

I’m sure a strict legal reading in a court room would appreciate Foster’s lawyer-esque justification of Bnonn’s Tweet. True, the words say “discussions on blogs like Dalrock.” Did Bnonn make the highly specific statement that Dalrock himself was a participant in the discussions that happened on the blog, namely, the comments section? No, he didn’t.

So, does Foster’s defense hold water? No, as Bnonn demonstrated the very next day:

Unsurprisingly, Bnonn didn’t reply to that comment. As you can see, Bnonn said his criticism was “aimed more directly at the commenters there.” That means it was at least partly directed towards Dalrock, which means he wasn’t only talking about the participants in the comment section, but Dalrock himself.

Now, how did I know that? If Foster’s defense held water, then how did I know Bnonn was targeting Dalrock in his Tweets prior to Bnonn admitting that he was? Am I psychic? Was I just so smart that I could tell what was really going on despite the fact that Bnonn didn’t spell it out for us in a strictly legal fashion a-la Foster? Or could it be that it was just so obvious that any non-partisan could see it?

And for those who remain un-convinced, Bnonn put the whole question to bed a little over a month later when he wrote the following in The bitter taste of the red pill:

We are not interested in bitching, raging, or defeatist moping. Patriarchs do not wallow in whatever red pill boilerplate they picked up from Dalrock or Rollo or their clones.

You’ll notice that this article was published on February 3rd, 2019. Foster had defended Bnonn’s Twitter thread on January 1st, and yet only a little over a month later, Bnonn publishes a full-blown article on his website slamming “Mr. Man-O-Sphere” directly.

This came as a surprise to absolutely nobody, of course, and this time Foster can’t use some silly legal argument to claim Bnonn wasn’t talking about Dalrock specifically. He was. I don’t think Foster would even try to defend this statement. Granted, I didn’t have this at the ready, so I can’t fault him for not responding to it when we spoke on the phone. However, his defense of Foster’s tweet-thread in December can’t be so easily overlooked. As he himself told me:

What this Tweet proves is that Foster himself claims to have read the first and second-draft of Bnonn’s Tweet-thread, “…before it ever went public.” Foster said he knew what it meant, he was telling me what it meant, and both he and Bnonn discussed it as well, either before or after publication. This means Foster doesn’t have an ‘out’, so to speak, in terms of being able to claim ignorance of what Bnonn wrote. How is it that he didn’t recognize Bnonn’s demonization of Dalrock for what it was? Either Foster lied to me, or he can’t see the Foster for the trees.

………..It’s funny, okay?

The point is, either Foster is a blissfully ignorant good guy who truly did not realize what Bnonn was doing the whole time, or he lied to cover for Bnonn as he attempted to poison the well. They both look bad either way.

In summary, both of these men have talked about Dalrock multiple times and on different platforms. They did not simply make a couple of edgy remarks as Foster claimed. Bnonn lied about Dalrock and his readers, Foster took a swipe at him, and when people reacted negatively, Bnonn doubled-down while Foster ran interference. Foster may dismiss it all as paranoia if he wishes, but hopefully I’ve provided enough proof for anyone familiar with Dalrock and the Christian manosphere as to why it is that I’m suspicious of the It’s Good To Be A Man project. They may say a lot of true and good things as do most Christian men, but honest men do not behave this way. You won’t see me taking swipes at the greatest Christian blogger on biblical masculinity, and then acting like I’m a good little boy who didn’t do nothing. Dalrock is my brother-in-Christ, and an incredible ally in the fight for biblical masculinity. His writings have exposed the rotten underbelly of feminism throughout even the most conservative Christian writings on marriage and sexuality. Of all the people Bnonn and Foster could have gone after in the first four months of their ministry, they went after him. What does that tell you?

P.S. I wrote this article entirely of my own accord. Dalrock had zero input as I wrote this. I wrote it out of concern for my brothers in Christ who are coming to the slow realization that most purveyors of biblical masculinity are charlatans. Christian men need to know how to identify red-flags on the up-and-coming teachers of masculinity before they gain wide-spread popularity. I won’t tell you to stay away from their ministry since we all know how that works. Read what Bnonn and Foster have to say if you will, but be wise as serpents. It’s better to be suspicious first and found to be paranoid later.