About

I’m the guy that will explain things that most other people would just as soon I not talk about. I write primarily for men from a Christian perspective on subjects that will almost never be taught in churches and for those of you who are Christians (or think you are) you’d be surprised what the Bible actually says.

From an economic and social standpoint, the US has never been weaker and while the US is becoming ever more complicated and complex, everything is resting on an infrastructure that is more and more fragile. This cannot go on indefinitely and when it breaks there won’t be any putting it back together. I write about solutions to this problem.

I am opposed to feminism, cultural Marxism, political correctness and the current war on men and boys.

I am opposed to the not-for-profit incorporated business entities providing services to the general public of a religious nature that are masquerading as churches.

I am opposed to idea that we need to get permission from the State to do that which we have the right to do, such as get married. Specifically, I’m opposed to marriage licenses and any involvement by the State in marriage.

You will probably find that many of the articles here will outrage you and challenge your traditional way of thinking. I hope so, anyway.

Advertisements

15 Responses to About

  1. Kirk Forlatt says:

    It’s always so pleasant to “accidentally” discover a bracing, original blog. That was my experience today, and I’m enjoying reading through your posts. The church is full of nonsense and devoid of men. Frenzied movement is confused for legitimate action. And oh, my….don’t they despise plain speech and unflinching, declarative statements.

    Thank you for your writing.

  2. One says:

    Hi, I found you from your post on Dalrock. Very interesting. A bit off your usual topic of polygyny… Could you share your insights into what are ideal types of work and/or wealth creation (I specify wealth because most, perhaps all, of the people I know who have surplus anything don’t get it from regular work) in light of the Bible and God’s view?

    • 1. Radically cut your housing costs. See the post on underground houses.

      2. Radically cut your food costs. See the post on aquaponics.

      3. Plant ginseng, care for it and guard it well.

      4. Strive for energy independence, food independence and economic independence.

      5. Marry multiple wives and put them to work.

      6. Find a way to convert ordinary income into royalties or long term capital gains (lower tax rate and no FICA).

      7. Produce and sell food from your farm at your farm. Get a copy of “How To Make $100,000 Farming 25 Acres” by Booker T Whatley for some really good ideas.

      8. Get rid of your TV and limit your internet to 1 hour or less per day (unless that’s how you earn money).

      9. Get rid of vices or bring them under control. Do you smoke? Buy a machine, buy materials and bulk tobacco and make your own for around $1 per pack.

      Do you drink? Brew your own beer, make your own wine, but whatever you do, DO NOT heat an alcohol bearing liquid up to 173 degrees F and catch the vapor in a long tube that allows it to cool. That’s a STILL and it’s against the law. So make sure you never, ever mix a bunch of sugar in water and add yeast because in a few days it will ferment and have alcohol in it. If you put it in a pressure cooker, heated it up to 173 degrees and ran the vapor through a cooling line, the stuff coming out of the cooling line would be really cheap rum. But you’d never want to do that because even though it would only cost you a few dollars per gallon to make and even though you can do it in the privacy of your own kitchen, it’s illegal.

      10. Make sure you have water bath canners, pressure cookers, lots of jars and lots and lots of lids for the jars so you can can the produce from your garden and pastures. It’s late January. Got seeds for your garden?

      11. Your attitude should be “tools, not toys” and “education, not entertainment” when it comes to spending money. Real entertainment is best when you do it yourself.

      One of my favorites is what I call “good-deeds” pranks, in which the meanest, nastiest and most undeserving person available is selected for investigation. The investigation should reveal something helpful and really nice that could be done for that person anonymously. Recruit a team and run it like a military operation, do the job anonymously and then watch them go nuts trying to figure out who did it. Women love this stuff, there’s something romantic about a conspiracy.

      There are several posts here that discuss that kind of thing, but what it all comes down to is attitude and getting off the mindless consumer bus. Get rid of your Ifag and use an old brick phone that only takes and makes phone calls and text messages. Remove the TV from your life and your life will get better. Make a point of inviting friends over on a regular basis for dinner and conversation. Throw classy parties occasionally, the kind where everybody has to dress up. Go in with some friends, hire an instructor and start a ballroom dancing class.

      And always remember the attitude of your enemy:

      “There are very few problems that cannot be solved by a suitable application of brutal force.”

      Stay off the horizon and out of any controversies.

      Practice privacy: Own all real property and vehicles with New Mexico LLC’s (your name isn’t on the paperwork). All your utilities and insurance in the name of the LLC. Never receive mail or any delivery service (that includes pizza) at your residence. Get rid of any social media accounts and never touch them again. In other words, go ghost. The people who know you will know where you are. The people who don’t know you don’t need to know where you are. JJ Luna’s book “How To Be Invisible” is a great book on this subject.

      • happyhousewifey says:

        In the case of methanol poisoning from homebrew, doctors administer intravenous alcohol. Because when the liver gets alcohol to deal with, it gives that top priority, so the methanol gets peed out rather than digested.

  3. technovelist says:

    Would you mind if I copied the post https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/out-of-wedlock-births-have-leveled-off-in-the-united-states-since-2009/#comment-171914 to a relationship board I post on? It’s brilliant and I think it will stir up a storm of harpies. 🙂

  4. Birchtree says:

    I recently discovered your blog here and must admit that, against what I considered to be my better judgment, found a great many of your points, especially on polygyny, interesting and persuasive. But there is one aspect of that topic that, as much as I have looked, I cannot tell if you have addressed yet. And that is: the simple fact that males and females are born in equal numbers in our species.

    By that I mean that the world average of male to female is 1.01. As of this writing, there are one hundred one men for every one hundred women in the human race, more or less. Thus, if everyone who wants to be married shall be married, monogamous marriage is the only pattern that can sustain an entire society.

    This is because every single man who has two wives would therefore mean that there is another man who wants a wife but cannot have one. If a man has three wives, then there are two men who cannot ever marry. And so on and so forth. If every single woman in society is married off, to an average of three wives, only the top one-third of most desireable men can ever have a legitimate, lawful way to have sex. The bottom two thirds will simply have to die frustrated virgins, or visit prostitutes or something, which is not a good societal model. Having that many frustrated men with no incentive to care about society can only end in terrifying amounts of violence.

    Perhaps this is a bit of a strawman exaggeration. If you believe that to be so, I can moderate my question: how can polygyny be a valid model for a society with as many if not more males than females, and if it is a valid model, what to do about the males that can never marry?

    The way I see it, if women massively outnumbered men, polygyny would be a great model. If men massively outnumbered women, war and death would be pretty much the only result since men are less likely to want polyandry, plus polyandry makes no sense from a reproductive standpoint anyway. But men and women are very roughly equal in number. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, Evelyn, and Evelina. Thus, it seems that mass polygyny is a model that cannot sustain a culture, unless that culture is in such a state of war and death that men die in massive numbers while women stay mostly alive. Not ideal.

    Once again, I only mean this as an inquiry into the practicality of the model you propose, not a condemnation of your exegesis or anything like that.

    • Hi Birchtree
      To begin with, the model is from the Bible and it’s the marriage standard of Genesis 2:24. Above all I have faith that God would not stick us with a model that doesn’t work but that said, let me address your concerns.

      First, it appears that you make the common mistake of saying
      Thus, if everyone who wants to be married shall be married, monogamous marriage is the only pattern that can sustain an entire society.

      Just because someone wants to be married doesn’t mean they can or will get married; but overriding that, you are seeing two distinct marital commitments, one of monogamy and the other of polygyny. The Biblical standard of Genesis 2:24 allows men to have more than one wife but it doesn’t say they have to. The wife, who *knows* her husband can take another wife is thereby motivated by the threat of competition to hold herself accountable. Truth be told, the vast majority of men would agree that when it comes right down to it, one wife is about all they can tolerate. And occasionally it’s pointed out that if it wasn’t for sex men would issue hunting licenses for women. In my opinion the uncomfortable truth in that is the direct result of socially imposed monogamy, contrary to the Bible’s standard.

      I should also point out that while Christians have difficulty with this, it’s a fact that nowhere in the Bible is a woman forbidden to be an ordinary prostitute. She’s forbidden to be a cult prostitute (idolatry) but not a plain value for sex prostitute. And, until Paul forbid Christian men to use prostitutes in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, there was no prohibition anywhere on men using the services of a prostitute.

      The second problem with what you’re saying is that it assumes assortive mating, but that requires a hard social structure requiring marriage which no longer exists. There was a time at which the most attractive men would get the most attractive women and marry them. At that point the somewhat less attractive men would lock up the less attractive women and so on and so on down the scale. On the extreme upper end the men had not just a wife but mistresses as well. The problem, however, is hypergamy. In an environment in which there is no pressure to commit, you can put 100 men with 100 women and 80% of the women will focus their attention on the top 20% of the men and refuse to look at or consider the lower 80% of men. They will willingly share the top men while ignoring the other men in what we call the “cock carousel” today. There are about 5% to 10% of women who will partner with someone else and 10% to 15% who are low value enough that they won’t marry, just as there are about 20% of men who are low value enough that they won’t marry.

      That leaves 60% to 65% of the men out in the cold and 10% to 15% of women out in the cold in situations like today in which there is no assortive mating. This correlates with genetic studies demonstrating that historically only about 40% of men passed on their genes compared to 80% of women, but it’s good to keep in mind that correlation is not causation.

      If you want a real idea of how many men can legitimately get more than one wife, just think of how many men can regularly manage a three-some. Because if a man cannot get multiple women in bed at the same time he cannot get multiple women in a marriage at the same time. Somewhere around 10% at maximum and that doesn’t mean that because men *can* that they *will.* About 90% of the polygynous Christian (non-Mormon) marriages I know of have two wives. Maybe around 8% have three wives and more than three wives is extremely rare. So in reality, at worst the top 10% of men take 20% of the women off the market. This is not a problem because those high-value men don’t take low-value women off the market and by taking more than one wife it skews the scale a bit and some portion of low-value women are able to marry when previously they would not have.

      it seems that mass polygyny is a model that cannot sustain a culture

      We are in agreement and I have never claimed or advocated for “mass polygyny” at all. I will also note that early anthropologists in China during the 1700’s noted that in polygynous families with older husbands, the families produced a lot more girls than boys. This has been backed up by several modern studies which demonstrate that as men get older they tend to father a much higher percentage of girls than boys. Since polygyny is typically characterized by older men taking younger second (or third) wives, this seems to be God’s way of making things come out even with the standard He gave us.

      Note also that when the animals came on the Ark, they came two by two except for the clean animals of which 7 of each came in order that Noah might have animals to sacrifice. If God is capable of replenishing the earth with only a single male and female, I see no reason why He needed to make anything more than Adam and Eve in order to get things started. The fact is, Genesis 2:24 is the authority for the man to initiate marriage and it did not contain any restrictions on how many wives he might initiate marriage with. Just as it likewise contained no authority to end a marriage.

      Having said all that, my advice to young men is to become part of the top 5% of men. While they can’t do anything about their height or their predisposition toward male pattern baldness, they can control a lot of other things. They can hit the gym and develop a strong masculine physique, learn game, get education and go into a lucrative field that gets them a good income and they can even use devices to give them a bigger penis. If they have some irregularity with their looks, cosmetic surgery and dental work is not that expensive these days. Within a few years men can literally move into that top 5% of men, but men don’t/won’t do it.

      The nature of women is that they will cheerfully share a very high-value man but once you have a couple of wives, why add to your headaches? Mass polygyny is impossible without widespread war which kills off a lot of men and I agree with you there as well, that isn’t ideal.

  5. Birchtree says:

    Thank you kindly for taking the time to respond to my question on this topic. You bring up a number of interesting points.

    I am not going to argue with you on the Biblical matters or scriptural basis for polygyny. I would see it as a grey area, one that is open to interpretation either way. And since it is open to interpretation, generally when arguing Biblically I restrict myself to trying to persuade strict monogamists that polygyny is not unscriptural. I also argue that polygyny is a model which strongly favors women and to a lesser extent certain men at the massive expense of other men, not something that hurts women exclusively, which is the common cultural view of it.

    Since I do not believe that the Bible condemns polygyny, my complaints with it are practical rather than theological, for the most part. For instance, when looking at the mormons who practiced compulsory patriarchal polygyny, a huge number of young men were sent adrift into the world to make their way or die while the young women were gathered up into harems for the older men. And in a more modern example, the Middle Eastern cultures that practice polygyny have huge numbers of disenfranchised young men that are willing to blow themselves up for a chance to get at heavenly harems. I believe that I have heard that of the 19 9/11 hijackers, some 14+ were known to be virgins, and I am decently certain that none of them were married? Point is, I am not sure that if polygyny becomes widespread that the effects will be as benign as you make it out.

    I had not heard about polygynous marriages producing more girls, or that older men tend to have daughters over sons. If that is the case, that is rather fascinating. I am skeptical that this would be enough of a balancing factor to make up for the imbalance noted above.

    When you bring up prostitution, I would like to note that what God commands/requires of non-Christians does not interest me in the slightest. Non-Christians will not follow God’s commands, after all. My only interest is what God expects of Christians, combined with obvious allowances for practicality. My tendency is to view polygyny as a natural response to some war or disaster having massively reduced the number of young men, while times of relative peace and prosperity are ill served by it. Thus, during old testamental days, when most men seemed to die violently while few women did, polygyny made a lot of sense. These days, not so much. This is not to say that polygyny is immoral, I would not argue that. Only that I do not think it practical, and that a societal dislike of it is, at this time, a sensible thing, although perhaps not to the current extent. Then again, I tend to despise a huge number of other modern societal mores, so eh.

    One solution (I am partly trolling here. Partly) would be to give the radical feminists what they want and engineer the human race to produce more female babies than men. I imagine that would solve a lot of problems, but since God did not design us to be that way, likely produce a lot more problems as well.

    The next part is purely speculative and dealing with my own imaginations, so ignore if you wish.

    /begin useless fantasy

    My interest in the topic is at least in part because I am writing a scif-fi/fantasy novel with a race of humanoids that are born 80% female and 20% male, and practice polygyny as a matter of course (else their race would die out). This race has access to the Bible, and many of them are Christians. I am working on what sort of arguments that this race would use to convince other races in the setting, that are more human-like in their sex-ratio, that their polygynous model is completely compatible with scriptures. There is some conflict between the groups, with the sex-balanced society sometimes considering the female-majority society heretical perverts. But, neither group are descendents of Adam and Eve, and both have nonhuman quirks to their psychology and physiology that make a 1:1 comparison between them and us impractical. Still, that is the recent reason I have been researching the topic.

    /end useless fantasy

    Anyway, thank you again for your time. I may not agree with all of your conclusions, but you seem to have come to them rationally and defend them quite ably. And much of your advice is quite good. I tip my hat to you and wish you well.

  6. L Cincinnatus says:

    Toad, what is your position on divorce? Specifically, a man is married to a woman who had a prior husband who left her and moved overseas. She is a monster to live with (but very hot looking) and he can no longer take her, she threatens him and attacks him physically often to the point he has to leave the house or get hit with a club or worse. Can he leave her and look for another wife, perhaps a widow or someone he can legitimately marry under Biblical standards?

    • I have two answers for you.

      First, dealing with the moral aspects of this. Did the first husband get her virginity? Because if not, she was actually married to someone else and unless he is dead she is still married to him, so the current man is living in adultery with her.

      If the answer is yes, the question is whether they were both Christians. If so, per 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, they are still married because divorce between two believers is forbidden, no exceptions. That means the current man is living in adultery with her.

      Let’s say she was legitimately married to her first husband and neither of them were Christian. The question then is whether she committed adultery and if so, did her husband divorce her for that? If not, she’s still married to him and the current man is living in adultery with her.

      Suppose they were legitimately married, she was a Christian and he was not. Regardless of her behavior, he is the non-believer who left her and per 1st Corinthians 7:15, she was unbound from him and free to marry again. If the current man is a Christian, he is stuck with her and his only recourse is to add another wife.

      However, while there may be no marriage as far as God is concerned, there is most certainly a marriage there as far as the state is concerned and that is cold hard reality.

      With that in mind, having a hidden video system installed without her knowledge would be a wise investment. First install the video system, then get some good footage being assaulted without provoking her, escalating, or otherwise being at fault. Then he gets a good attorney and works with him to file a complaint to get her arrested and prosecuted. He should not do this as a domestic violence call when it happens because he will be arrested. Do it after the fact with the video evidence in support of his affidavit and try to get a restraining order that forces her out of the house. File for divorce as part of that.

      It is possible that the video system will reveal that she’s banging someone else. Between that and the domestic violence footage, the threat to post it all online might be sufficient to get good behavior and a good divorce settlement from her.

      That said, the situation presents several possibilities and there are red flags all over the place. She’s “hot looking” and they’re married, so there must have been something she was attracted to for her to marry him. Was it him or his money?

      If you read some of the advice to women on getting a divorce, some of it is to provoke the husband to the point he gets physical. That gives her the police report on his arrest, the domestic violence conviction and the restraining order that gets him out of the house. Which she will get in the divorce. It may be that her violence is simply to give her the opportunity to slam-dunk him. If she married him for his money, this is a high probability. It’s time to pull the plug and she wants the best deal.

      He should be EXTREMELY WARY of make-up sex because getting pregnant seals the deal in terms of decades of child support payments. Which will be based on his income.

      It may be the violence is just the way she is, and that’s par for the course for a lot of Latina and black women.

      And, maybe she’s batshit crazy and nothing will change that. If she married him because she was attracted to him (not his money) then there is a high probability his disgusting, supplicating, submissive behavior toward her is driving her crazy or bringing the latent crazy to the surface.

      Most likely this is a combination of both and his behavior is pushing her crazy to a whole new level. If it were possible to talk to the guy who left her and moved overseas, I suspect these questions might be answered.

      I suggest Athol Kay’s book “Married Man Sex Life Primer” and a whopping huge red pill in all cases.

      I will also make the point that the only reason she physically attacks him is because she has no fear of him, which speaks volumes about how she views him. That boils down to a single word: contempt.

      It may be that the only defense he has is to beat the shit out of her the next time she attacks him. If she uses a weapon and it’s being recorded on video, he should. Keep in mind that there is a difference between injuring and causing pain and I’m talking about causing pain.

      He should also tell her (off camera) that she can call the cops if she wants to, but that would be a really bad move. She attacked him with a weapon and tried to injure him. She got exactly what she deserved. If she tries to punish him for it by calling the cops, that is an attack by proxy and it will be rewarded with a worse beating when he gets out of jail.

      The only way to deal with this and the only frame to hold is one of cold, righteous anger. Controlled fury. As bad as it hurts, she should know that it could have been worse and she should be convinced that if she attacks him again she will get more and worse afterward.

      If she is truly batshit crazy, he runs the risk of being murdered in his sleep, but I see the over-riding problem as her contempt for him due to his behavior. He has allowed her to physically abuse him in the past and that is contemptible, emasculated behavior on his part. The problem is the contempt can get so bad that no recovery is possible no matter what he does.

  7. RPchristian says:

    Hey Toad,

    I found your blog though Dalrock. Great stuff. One of the blessings of the internet is to be able to connect with like-minded men who take the scriptures seriously. There’s so few in my day-to-day life (especially where I live on the west coast) it can make you start to feel like the last sane person on earth.

    I love your stuff about polygyny and sexual morality. It’s funny and sad to me that it’s all so obvious right there in scripture, but the churchian community would be appalled if someone pointed it out publicly. Romans 1:16 does not apply to these people.

    My entry into the manosphere was through a blog biblicalgenderroles.com (BGR). He makes many of the same arguments you do. I found the blog because I was increasingly pissed off about the oppressive pathologizing of male sexuality in the church, and looking for some ammunition to fight back. BGR makes a very convincing argument that Matthew 5:28 have been completely misinterpreted to fit a modern feminist agenda to control male sexuality. Looking at, being aroused by, and fantasizing about other women is not a sin, unless your thoughts become covetous. Jesus is essentially warning against the property crime of adultery, and explaining that the first step toward this crime is the sin of coveting your neighbor’s property (in this case his wife). Matthew 5:28 is not about sexual morality.

    I was wondering if you agree with this interpretation. If you do, I would love to see you do a right-up on healthy male sexuality from a biblical perspective in light of the misinterpretation of Matthew 5:28.

  8. Don Quixote says:

    I finished reading James Brundages’ book ‘Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe’, and I enjoyed it for the most part. Can I post a brief review of a couple of points? If not move this post to a more appropriate local.
    As a historical work it is excellent. 5 Stars. But on a personal level I didn’t appreciate his cheap-shots at Augustine. They are obviously appeals to the feminist sentiments of his readership, no stars for such rubbish. Mr Brundage makes no secret of his disdain for Christianity.
    But for me the highlight of the book was brief details of the 3 schools of thought that debated marriage in the 12 century.
    Gratian’s coital theory. [Bolognian bolognaise? school, sounds like spaghetti]
    Lombard’s consensual theory. [Parisian school of thought]
    Vacarius traditional theory [Rhenish school of thought]
    What isn’t mentioned in the book is that all three schools of thought are ostensibly present in the Genesis account… Perhaps this could be explained by the fact that Brundage only give a brief overview of the 3 schools, and omits the details. He did say that Grantian’s decretal was 1380 chapters long!
    Anyhoo, I would like to say thanks for the recommendation for this book, a fascinating read for anyone interested in this subject, although it is written from a secular perspective. Many [some?] Christians would not enjoy this book.

    I have been trying to gather my thoughts on this subject and I would like to make the following observations about marriage by consummation V marriage by covenant.
    The first Adam was married by consummation, the second Adam [Christ] is betrothed to be married by covenant, because the covenant isn’t fulfilled yet. In other words this marriage is not yet consummated. Both Adam’s partner and Christ’s were chosen by God. Arranged marriage or marriage by Election or Marriage by covenant. It needs a name.

    2ndly) A marriage by consummation [clandestine marriage?] could be dissolved by the girls’s father according to Exodus 22:16&17. However a certificate of divorce was required for a marriage that was previously established. Deut.24 This contrast is note worthy because the intention of the couple will reflect the outcome of the actions.

    Typically people in western culture don’t view sex as marriage, and will want to have sex without any strings attached, but people who want to get married have very different intentions, they want the strings, they are intentionally making lifelong commitments. I think the intention or consent matters, but I’m struggling to make a reasonable case for it. Someone mentioned upthread that Joseph and Mary hadn’t consummated their marriage before Jesus was born. But it cannot be said that Jesus was born out of wedlock, Gal.4:4. What think ye?

  9. S.K. says:

    Hey Artisanal Toad,

    I’ve been enjoying the content of your blog, and I was wondering if you have an email address at which I can reach you. I’m working on a project related to biblical sexual ethics that I’d like to invite you to participate in. Please let me know at your earliest convenience, and keep up the good work.

    Sincerely,
    S.K.

  10. Pingback: Swear–words and Assholic Mind (Second Part) ⇒ Kirno Sohochari – Sohochari

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s