#136 – Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis BOOK REVIEW

December 31, 2018

Mere Christianity

I was born and raised in the People’s Republic of Northern Britain by parents who are both godless communists. Now, they admit the atheism but don’t call themselves communists despite espousing nothing but communist views and always voting for the KGB-approved candidate in every election. My school was equally godless, with our Religious Education classes mostly composed of sitting around colouring in Bible scenes with coloured pens. So, it’s fair to say I was not inculcated with Christianity. Quite the reverse [1].

This means I never developed a feeling of godliness. It made it easy to absorb the atheist teachings of my (mostly Leftist) university professors. I read up on the standard anti-Christian Enlightenment arguments such as the Problem of Evil, Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not A Christian and all the various critiques of the standard pro-God arguments (First Cause, Argument By Design etc). I even thought I was an awfully smart boy by mastering these heresies. You see, atheism in the 1990s was presented as if it’s some kind of rebellion against the Establishment. People like Richard Dawkins were awfully brave.

How ridiculous. It’s like praising people in 2018 USA for “standing up” against Slavery. Because that’s such a dangerous position to take, isn’t it? I mean, look at all those Pro-Slavery death squads going around killing abolitionists nowadays. Anyway, the mask has been dropped and in 2018 atheism is the openly-avowed Establishment position. Christianity is under attack, and Christians are now the most persecuted group in the whole world.

Satanic fag

A terrifying tyrant, yesterday

Having followed atheism for a few decades and lived a highly individualist and pleasure-seeking life I became aware of what Christian moral philosophers have warned for hundreds of years: atheism is a dead end. It ends in nihilism. I experienced such nihilism in 2016 and by 2017 I was looking for a better way. So far there’s only been one barrier to my converting to Christianity: my lack of belief in God. Aside from that small obstacle, I agree with the thesis that Christianity is one of the three pillars of Western Civilisation (white nations and the Greco-Roman legacy being the other two) and by removing Christianity from the West we have set ourselves into a rapid decline into nihilism and paganism. It’s a shit show.

Anyway, I give this preamble to explain why I decided to read Mere Christianity. I realised that every single time that I am an expert on a topic and I compare my knowledge to the media’s, I realise the media isn’t simply wrong. They are deceitfully wrong. They are deliberately hiding the truth in order to advance a false narrative. Whether the topic is global finance, mixed martial arts, Game, or anything else the lesson is the same: the media are liars. So, knowing that the media is virulently anti-Christian, I asked myself the obvious question:

Does the media tell the truth about Christianity?

The chances aren’t high, are they? I don’t mean that the media is atheist and therefore do they support Christianity, but rather can they be trusted to speak accurately of what Christianity actually is, of what Christians actually believe? I decided: probably not. So, I wanted to know what Christians believe. What are the central tenets of Christianity? I’ve heard what all the godless anti-Christian philosophers and media hacks (Dawkins being one of the latter) had to say, but how about the other side.


I’d like to hear from the people who built civilisation, not those who tore it down

In Mere Christianity, C.S.Lewis sets himself the task of explaining to the layman what all Christians believe. He deliberately excludes doctrinal disputes between denominations (e.g. what Protestants and Catholics disagree on) and sticks to what all share in common. It was highly enlightening. Here were some of my main learning points:

  • Most of what I learned at school was either wrong or superficially true.
  • Most of the anti-Christian arguments from the Enlightenment only work against the straw man they construct rather than real Christianity.
  • Most churches, including the Vatican and the Church Of England, are run by Satanists.
  • I agree with almost everything espoused by Christianity (aside from my lack of spiritual belief).

I’ll take the example of the Problem Of Evil. As usually formed, it takes the following logical structure:

The Bible postulates that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. There is evil in the world. Being all-knowing, God knows of it. Being all-powerful, God could stop it. Being all-loving he’d wish to stop it. Therefore, from whence comes evil?

Phrased that way it seems like a rather devastating proof against the existence of God, does it not? God is – tautologically – either too dumb, too weak, or too feckless to be worthy of worship. But the problem is, that’s a highly dishonest argument. The Bible doesn’t claim God is thus.

Mere Christianity says the Bible is clear that the world is fallen and is the dominion of Satan, the “Prince of this world”. God is not at all concerned with eliminating evil and making our worldly lives pleasant. He is in the business of saving individual souls, through the following of Jesus. It’s a tough narrow path to salvation, resolved on an individual level. There is no logical inconsistency at all between the God of the Bible, salvation, and the existence of Evil.

I’m rather annoyed that I had to wait until I was 43 years old before learning that. I feel like I’ve been seriously lied to. It would’ve been nice if all those Philosophy Of Religion courses had laid out the arguments and let me make my own mind up [2].

It’s usual for atheists to have sneering contempt for Christians [3] by talking of God as the “big spaghetti monster in the sky” or making comparisons to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Christopher Hitchens aside, they seem to avoid saying such things to Muslims of course [4], which exposes both their cowardice and uneven-handedness. From reading Mere Christianity I came away with quite the reverse of contempt. C.S.Lewis lays out a balanced, sophisticated and tightly-reasoned case not just for Christian virtues but even for logical arguments in favour of belief in God.

That surprised me. The atheists have long since imposed the frame that their side is “reason” and the Christian side is “faith”. This frame has held for decades, such that I’d never even heard a Christian make a logical case for theism [5] and it surprised me when C.S.Lewis made such a powerful one.

There’s only one hour until the New Year is rung in and my 2018 reading / reviewing project comes to a close. I simply can’t give Mere Christianity the attention it deserves right now. It took me several days to read and I’ve never thought as deeply as when reading it. This is a book which fairly rattled some of my foundational assumptions and settled conclusions on the religious question. It gave me a radically different view of what Christianity is, and why it’s so important to the West.

I dare say I now wish I believed in God. Maybe that’ll come. But till then, I certainly believe in Evil and the need to fight it. Starting with the globalists and their Tower Of Babel.

If I do make a conversion to Christianity, I’ll be withdrawing my key pick-up products from the market, so if you want Daygame Mastery, Daygame Infinite and Daygame Overkill, 2019 is the time to buy them. Check them out here.

Mastery cover

Mastery interior

[1] Mind you, my nephews are being inculcated with Islam and homosexuality at their school, so things evidently got even worse.
[2] Though being a stupid teenager, I’d have probably ignored them anyway. I was too busy trying to be clever.
[3] While simultaneously projecting such contempt onto Christians.
[4] Maybe because Mohammad was a paedophile and the Left is pro-pedo.
[5] Admittedly it could be that they do frequently and I simply didn’t know. Perhaps I should get out more.


  1. Only 2 lays in my first real year in game. Do you think I can turn this water into wine next year? I feel like I’ve learnt tremendously this year though. Happy New Year’s.

  2. This didn’t seem like a review of “Mere Christianity” as much as its impact on you. Still, it was interesting and would have made me interested in reading the book if I hadn’t read it already.

    I got interested in the document transmission question in my search and read Bruce Metzger’s original work on the subject. A non-Christian put out a later edition and bolloxed it. I even took a course in Koine greek so that I had a better feel for the NT documents in the original language.

    I’m currently re-thinking the sexual immorality question in light of the NT world where sex with slaves was no big deal to anybody because they were property and slave ownership was widespread. It seems that sexual immorality pertained mostly to incest, temple prostitutes, and homosexuality–not to ordinary heterosexual intercourse. Of course, the Feminine Imperative made sure to put male extramarital sexuality into the immorality bin. Adultery pertained only to sex with a married woman–a married man could have extramarital sex with unmarried women because there could be no cuckoldry and it wasn’t considered adultery.

    • Good point. Biblical sexuality is very different from what we think of as “Christian” sexuality. The pagan beliefs infiltrated the church especially after 90% of the original Christians were wiped out in the Bar Kokhba rebellion, leaving behind the non-Hebrew Christians who didn’t have such a solid grounding in the fundamentals.

      The whole “thou shalt never divorce” thing? Not in the Bible. It was a grace granted by God, for He knew that sometimes you didn’t have enough legal evidence or societal support to kill the adulterous slut and her lover, Mr. Chad.

      The whole “sex is bad” thing? The whole monogamy thing? Remember the castrati, those boys who were castrated to serve the Church in a musical (and sexual) capacity? All goes back to the worship of Artemis/Diana, the bull-dyke goddess of Turkey. Her priests and devotees showed their holiness by chopping off their testicles and wangs and throwing them into her Temple.

      Western Christianity has the strength of its Hebrew Roots, but also has the weaknesses from its pagan accomodations and syncretism.

      I ran some mathematical simulations and disocvered that, if 35 year old men were allowed to marry 16 year old virgins, every single man alive could (not saying they SHOULD) have two wives. No man goes without. Looking at sexual dimorphism, 35 and 16 are about an ideal age for marriage anyway. Monogamy is an unbiblical doctrine that came in from Babel via Rome; not found in the Bible. A couple mistranslated verses are construed to forbid it; but returning to the Greek language the words used actually accomadate polygamy explicitly. But polygamy is regulated in such a way that as more men have a chance at a happy marriage than have such a chance today in our age of “sexual freedom and gender equality”.

      Christianity as the West knows it has good in it, but is compromised from a very early date. The Puritans recognized this and cleaned house the best they could, and out of this renaissance of Hebrew learning two great empires were born: the British, then the American. Nick, like many other things, almost everything you see written about the Puritans is a lie, but a lie meant to lead you away from the truth, not necessarily a flat negation. The Puritan movement goes back to King Alfred, England’s greatest king, and Saint Patrick, who converted Ireland to a form of Chrisitanity that so paniced the Church of Rome that they sent the strength of the Continent over to suppress it (William the Conqueror)

      Even among the descendants of the Puritans, few know this true history or know the essential bits to be able to connect the dots. I connected the dots, and only years later did i discover my ancestor rode with Cromwell. Huaahh! If there is anything you’d like to know, I’ve put as much time into learning Bible/Christianity as you have into learning Game. If I have some knowledge, I’ll share. If there is something I don’t know, I’ll say so.

      Let’s take this lack of belief in God. I’ve met many atheists. First thing I ask, have they had any supernatural experiences. They have not. Then I ask, if you did, how would you recognize it as such? If you have any basic education in statistics it then becomes easy to give you some heuristics to recognize the supernatural impinging on your life. I am fortunate; I have had supernatural experiences WITNESSED BY HUNDREDS OF OTHERS that confirmed the reality of the supernatural. I’ll go farther; confirmed the reality of God. But without that, indeed, why believe? One man told me his life was “just better” when he believed and practiced. For most people, that might be as good as it gets. It certainly is good for society when we have an agreed upon code of honor and set of morals, and what is good for society is also good for the individual. Good leads to more life, evil leads to less life.

      • Adding to the previous comment, what is good for society si good for the individual, assumingj the very long view. what is good for society in the short term (200-300 year range) can b ebad for the individual, and always is bad for society. The Glubb cycle of 270 years is defeated by the moral code in the Bible. Few societies have the wisdom to recognize and respect that.

        Texas Arcane spoke often of building a Vault, like Noah built his ark. Knowing about the Glubb cycle, Tex wasn’t far off. Perhaps not a literal vault, but we are at a point in the cycle where it is good to have a harem and a posse of grown sons, trained in the arts of war, and a boat at your disposal to get off the Island when things go South, as they will fairly soon.

      • My brain can’t get around the idea of men being able to have two wives if it is a 50-50 split between men and women born in a peaceful non warlike society, please can you explain why you think your mathematical models are right?

        Also “two shall become one flesh” would imply to me monogamy, can you explain the rationalisation as to why you believe this not to be the case?

      • @Tim about every man having two wives, even at a 50/50 gender ratio, the key is the age of marriage, 16 for women, 35 for men. That age differential makes all the difference. If the population is booming and every woman has 8 kids, the male age of marriage could drop down to 27 or even lower. This isn’t something you can easily wrap your head around at first. I wrote a simulation and ran it year by year to observe the results. What clued me in was an article a few years ago about the Jewish and Mormon marriage problem. Some types of Judaism had a desparate shortage of eligible men, oh no! But other branches had no shortage. What was the difference? Get this… a mere 2 year age difference. In the group where the males started marrying two years after the females, the females took on the role of chaser. So I just wrote a population simulation, with birth, death, marriage, keeping everything consistent with real life and watched what happened. See, the wisdom of God is greater than the logic and reason of Man. Often we can’t figure stuff out, but we can observe it. In the simulation, I asked one question: if every man takes two wives, given all the other things happening as normal, what would happen? And what ended up happening was just as predicted from reading the article about the Mormon/Jewish husband shortage: men married later. I have a missionary friend, now retired. He spent many years in the Middle East. On the DL he teold me things he saw and heard while there. And you know… in the polygamous parts, the age of marriage ends up being the same as what my simulation arrived at, young and fertile for women, mature and well adjusted for men. Fits perfectly with what the red pill manosphere has learned about sexual dimorphism. The Bible is perfectly balanced.

        Now, as to “two becoming one flesh”, it isn’t implicitly monogamous. A man becomes one flesh with his wife every time she conceives his child. The Apostle Paul said not to use a whore, because then you become “one flesh” with her. (1 Corinthians 6:16) Guess what… that harlot became “one flesh” with all her previous lovers also. So, being “one flesh” with a woman” isn’t monogamous. One man and one woman can become one flesh, but you can become “one flesh” more than once, just as a tree produces more than one branch, more than one twig, more than one leaf.

        Finally, Tim, I’d like to leave you with this Bible quote:2 Samuel 12:8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

        In that quote, it is the prophet Nathan speaking the word of God directly to King David. What did God say? That He personally GAVE David multiple wives. And if David had wanted more wives, He would have given them to him. Does God give evil gifts to those that he loves? For the Bible says that God loved David a great deal. In fact, in Hebrew, the name David means “beloved”.

        I have an idea for a new simulation, to make it more like real world observed conditions (in polygamous societies)… what if every man had 1 wife, every 5th man had two wives, and every hundredth man had 8 wives. I expect the age of marriage for men would be considerably younger than in the “two wives for every man” scenario.

      • Right. Want to get into this more. I read on Roosh’s forum, a commenter said that if you were to read a bible it should read the New Jerusalem Bible or another form I don’t remember. Y/N? Why?

      • Right. I’d like to look into this more. I’m young and after a bit of daygame hedonism and years of being sexless I’ve realised that a halo wasn’t put around my head. Sure, sex made me more content with my life, but I definitely believe there is a fight going on between good and evil. I’ve been thinking about my “endgame” , spirituality, and what i’m actually doing for “society”.

        I read someone commented on Roosh’s recent blog post that the New Jerusalem Bible (or a different one I can’t remember) is best to read if you want to be introduced to christianity.

        Basically, how do I get started?

  3. If you’d like to have foundational assumptions rattled some more, I recommend Bruce Charlton’s blog, both present and past (seems to me his 2015-2016 period was particularly good). It had a similar effect on me as Mere Christianity is having on you…changing not just the arguments, but the foundation of how I perceive the arguments. (I also like Bruce’s reading recommendations…for instance, I think you would like Colin Wilson’s “The Outsider”.)

    I would love to see you review the Book of John. The idea of reading the whole Bible is intimidating (it’s long), but its parts differ greatly in importance, and the Book of John is arguably the most important part (and it’s short).

    One thing I find fascinating is to read modern conversion stories. John C. Wright, Edward Feser, and Bruce all have stories about how/why they made the leap from nonbeliever to believer hidden somewhere in their blogs. These stories probably won’t convert you; part of what I take from them is that everyone who arrives there is very different in how they arrive there.

  4. I figure a man’s spiritual belief is akin to a woman’s lust. You can’t pay much heed to what she says about it, you have to watch what she does, and so too with a man’s faith.

    In my quasi autistic and very logical understanding of Christianity I define faith as action in the face of uncertainty. Hence, a guy who decides that chasing skirt is a fools errand and spends his days MIGTOWing about in front of a screenful of hehtai is lacking faith. OTOH a guy who confronts the odds (about one in 11?) and sets out to wear holes in his shoeleather in search of Younger-Hotter-Tighter even though it might possibly yield blueballs is a man of faith.

    I think I read this story on wikipedia, so its probably apocryphal, but its a good summary of the essential question of religious faith: The rabbis of two Jewish sects argued overs generations about whether it is better to be born, or to not be born. Eventually they agreed that it is better to not be born – BUT – given that one is born into the world, it is best to live in such a way as to try to make being born better than not being born. Ie., to act in such a way as to reduce human suffering. (Perhaps by providing adventure sex to long suffering ladies.…)

    Now Christians have come along and argued that since the day God sent His begotten Son down to hobnob with we mortals the scales have tilted definitively in favor of being being better than not being. (And Mary got the best adventure sex of all now didn’t she. What an act for ol’ Joseph to follow! But Jesus had a pile of siblings, so maybe Joe did ok. The good book doesn’t say anything about Mary being an Alpha widow and whoring about like that chick that Hosea got himself hitched to. Stands to reason it would have been mentioned it if she had.)

    So what I’m trying to get at is this: Every man of action is a man of faith. And every male feminist is Anti-Christ. Explains why they cheer on the murder of children, and the destruction of God’s order by debasing the Dollar and the Pound Sterling, and a whole lot of other near-inexplicable leftist rot.

  5. I don’t find it so hard to believe in God – it’s mostly a matter of direct experience and communication, and being willing to put your faith in whatever experiences you get from that.

    You’ve already cottoned on to the notion that the world is being run by supernatural evil, or at least people who believe in supernatural evil. That’s a quite solid insight for an atheist, I’d say.

    I feel like I’m in a minority here because 1) I can clearly see the pro-civilizational benefits of Christianity and 2) I don’t have a problem to believe in God.

    My sticking-points would more be along the lines of “did it actually happen the way it’s described in the Bible?” and “is Christian theology on to something or just a post-hoc philosophical construction?”

    I can have faith in God but it’s harder to accept things like eg historicity of the Gospels or validity of the Nicene Creed on faith.

    A few people to study on the first note would be Bart Ehrman (who believes the historical record supports a kind of minimal-Christ) and Richard Carrier (who is a complete mythicist, ie believes the NT is 100% allegory).

    Without those two pieces in place, belief in God in and of itself leads to a position similar to that of the Perennialists – that every religion is inspired in some way, and carries a similar message of transcending the lower-self in order to reach higher-states. Similar themes as “I am that I am” (God as consciousness / existence itself), “God is Love” (divine love) and “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you” (the divine is within) can be found in other religions, for sure.

    In fact, CS Lewis considered that there are two serious religions in the world: Christianity and Hinduism.

    Here is a very interesting Youtube channel, a Christian mystic who attempts to draw the dots between different religions: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC20-LI-TfGtmuhMTm4EaQ6g/videos

    I don’t want to make it sound like I have the answers here, I’m still trying to find my way.

    I’d second the recommendation to check out Bruce Charlton, and also add Illuminatus / Personal Power Meditation: https://www.personalpowermeditation.com/

    He’s a reformed pick-up artist (used to go by CorvettePUA on mASF) who now writes about meditation and similar topics.

    I’m not saying the way is found in some eastern hippie cult, but I personally have had a lot of success with the eastern type of mindfulness meditation. If nothing else, as an instrumental aid for letting go of certain thought-patterns that keep one in worldly pursuits.

    Pardon the jumble of sentences, it’s sometimes hard to form a coherent theme out of so many strands of thought.

  6. might wanna watch jordan peterson’s lectures on the bible, nick 😉 [He hasn’t even read the Bible. K.]

  7. Have you ever googled MRI imagination god? I like what it comes up.

    Were videogames left aside in your life as well?

  8. Gotta love how you don’t honor. your parents and come up with a childish and unspiritual threadworn political label for them. Are you capable of thinking for yourself? Somewhere I recall C.S. Lewis saying that the only thing that should be before the word Christian is the word mere – no political labels etc [What on earth are you banging on about, you fool? K.]

  9. I personally didn’t look deeper into any Abrahamic religions until most recently after a few personal events made me rethink the actions I was taking in the last 10 years. We could say they were a gift, having reached out for a sign and guidance, But I won’t get into the specifics so as to not deviate from my intended message.

    But the long and short of it is, based on my own experience, until we admit to our own vulnerability and realise that we can’t go through this temporary life alone and genuinely reach out for some guidance will we be shown the way,

    At worst, no one will be able to relate to you anymore and will lose a lot of friends. At best, you will begin to see the world differently and realise just how corrupted and evil everything is.

    I’ll end this with the following quote:

    “The world is a prison for the believer, and a paradise for the disbeliever.”

    • The quote reminds me of an essay by Father Matthew Raphael Johnson (the Orthodox Nationalist), in arguing against the controversial ‘Toll House’ doctrine of Seraphim Rose, as well as the Catholic idea of Purgatory:

      “The sufferings of this life are almost all the result of sin and thus, we’re granted forgiveness in line with our pain. In other words, sin contains its own punishment. This is quite
      different from a Purgation in the papal sense. Purgatory is unneeded because sin itself is painful. Purgatory is our life – to say the least. Those who don’t suffer – and I know of several individuals who have never suffered in their lives – don’t know how to call out to God. They don’t know how to pray or rely on him. They’re lost.”


      Makes sense to me. I’m always surprised when I meet people who think child trannies, vibrant multiculturalism and cultural Marxism in the current year are a good thing and aren’t suffering in any way.

      On a more positive but still related note, I’ve always liked this Tolkien quote:

      “We all long for Eden, and we are constantly glimpsing it: our whole nature at its best and least corrupted, its gentlest and most human, is still soaked with the sense of exile.”

  10. Thanks for an insightful and bold review. Lewis is not alone. There are others who articulate the christian position in juxtaposition to other world views. One of them prof. John Lennox (mathematics at oxford)

  11. You’ve already taken the red pill, Nick … now it’s time to take the Christ pill …

  12. I am reading this myself at the moment. I am very interested in how your exploration of Christianity and pursuit of faith goes. I am on a similar journey and although I am younger than you, I have had a very similar upbringing to the one you have described. I was not even the slightest bit “spiritual” in my youth so it has been incredibly hard to open up and truly have faith in the divine, please do keep us in the loop on how your journey progresses.

    I am curious what else you plan to read with regards to Christianity? I found this blog post from Vox advising someone else on studying it: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/11/mailvox-studying-christianity.html

  13. Quite liked reading books by him as a young lad.
    Also if my memory serves me right Anthony Hopkins played him in a film I saw many moons ago.

  14. 1. Problem of evil or most arguments against god you picked are really bad. Truly strawmen. Always all of the better arguments involve Bayesian statistics, cognitive science, epistemology, sociology (constructivism) possibly even anthropology. I suspect your courses would have really bad content. I know philosophers and many of them are too arrogant about their own discipline.
    2. I agree about the “cowardice” part but also “atheists” as if they were some uniform group. I suppose you are refering to some self-identifying atheist group.
    3. Media are liars but why would you read them? Smart people don’t read news, biased or not.
    4. Humans possibly have genetic bias to believe in God. Whether group-level adaptations happen in genes is still a big question mark but it could be adaptive even on personal level.
    5. I have an atheist relative who is way more intelligent (130-140) than me with a career in field you cannot succeed with bullshit, truly a genius and he reads Bible every christmas. Not because he believes in God but because understands its value in society. And I know plenty of smart intellectuals who don’t believe in God understand the value of Christianity in building civilization. Hell even my father doesn’t believe in God but he suggested me to join church. Also here most right-wing intellectuals who definitely understand the game left is playing, are anti-immigration, possibly don’t believe in God themselves still promote christianity.

    p.s. I am fan of your work.

    • Just for the record. I do not promote God, theism or christianity in anyway. Personally I dislike it but I can understand why one would join a religious group.

      I’d caution against these armchair sociologists and echo chambers. Understanding these thing is a life-work, there’s a reason why most physicists ignore hobby physicist blogs. 🙂

      Even if christianity has played major rolse in building civilization, it doesn’t mean civilization would have not happened without it.

  15. Christianity is indeed one of the core building blocks of Western civilization. I think one of it’s greatest features is a society-wide implementation of monogamous marriage, which suppreses the hypergamous nature of females, allowing beta males to become invested in society and build things. A great book on religion and sex is “Sex and Culture” by Joseph Unwin: here’s a short review: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/the-price-of-female-sexual-freedom/ In short, he researches 80 civilizations, and finds that without monogamy, societies perish. And monogamy is almost always tied to patriarchal monotheistic religion (which Christianity is).

    I think one of the great tasks over the next 100 years is putting the sexual genie back in the bottle. How do we reduce sexual freedom and re-implement monogamy, allowing for a re-birth of civilization? The answer I believe comes through religion. Females, being emotional and superstitious by nature, are uniquely susceptible to religion…it’s probably the only way to convince them to voluntarily give up their reproductive freedom…their birth control pills, right to vote, etc.

    But will this religious revival come via Christianity? As noted in your book review, there are many features of Christianity that give people doubt. Many passages in the Bible can be inconsistent with science, our understanding of the earth, and how the world works today. I think an update to Christianity may be needed…the creation of a new religion to reflect all the good things about Christianity, but modified to reflect our better understanding of the world (my belief is all religions were created by a group of wise men, then wrapped in divine inspiration). Perhaps a group of wise men reading this blog today will someday become motivated to initiate this task.

    • Monogamy has none of the benefits you claim for it. If it did, God would have mandated it for Israel. Instead, He regulated polygamy.

      As for Unwin’s book, you can’t use it to defend monogamy. Out of the 80 societies he documented, most were actually polygamous. When I read the book, I realised that he was using monogamy as a politically correct (for his time) code word for “chastity under patriarchy”. And patriarchy is, by necessity, polygamous. And chaste. If you advocate “monogamy” as outlined in Unwin’s book, fine. Just know the word “monogamy” is a lie and a deception, a pious fraud told to get his message across.

    • Monogamy wasn’t the invention of Christianity, it was the corruption of Christianity. Monogamy is a Roman and Babylonian social technology that was used to create MORE betas to be used in service to empire. Monogamy is a tool for the domestication of man. Once domesticated, man is invariably conquered by his untamed brethren. Castration? No thanks. Monogamy is one of the blots that Christianity has to remove if it is to remove other things like the adulterous code of “Chivalry”, which you can see across many posts at Dalrock’s blog. Monogamy leads to prostitution and adultery and eventually the collapse of society. It is an evil practice from the same anti-natalists that saw the pinnacle of holiness as chopping off ones wang and flinging it into the temple of Artemis as an offering to the butch lesbian virgin goddess of Asia Minor, Greece, Syria, and even the Canaanites before the Israelites genocided them.

    • I’d caution against armchair sociologists who have not published in peer-reviewed journals. There’s a reason why professional physicists don’t read amateur blogs.

    • There’s really no reversing it. Civilisation is literally on its way to a collapse and if the signs listed in the holy books is anything to go by, then we’re closer to it than we think. These were revelations that were made centuries ago, and it’s scary how accurate they are. In fact, the further I’ve continued to investigate the scriptures, the even greater respect I’ve built towards them and has lead me to less doubt that they were messages from a divine creator.

      If you become a believer, you really only have one option: Pursue the almost impossible task of avoiding sin in a world full of it and hold onto dear life to your faith. In the end, That’s all you’ll be left with once it’s all over.

  16. As for putting the sexual genie back in the bottle… the key is to never let it out. The few lucky men who can find a trad-wife will have to monitor and manage them, produce children, and father their children so as to keep them on the right path. This is also the way of nature. The old growth dies off; what survives renews it all. The currently whored out women are essentially dead. Very few of them can be recovered for the purposes of wifery and child production. Unlike the old Australia discussed on Jim’s blog, the authorities are powerful and cohesive enough to stop any mass organisation of men to fix the problem. The women are embracing the foreign invaders because their own men are busy preventing each other from commanding respect.

  17. I’m glad you’re re-assessing Christianity, Nick. I myself had something of a ‘breakdown’ earlier last year. I remember being 15 and proudly declaring my atheism to the world, feeling very smug and pleased with myself, and believing that without God watching over us we were free to do as we wish without having to worry about the consequences. Two decades later, I reached a low and had a kind of spiritual crisis when I finally realised that without God, without the chance of salvation, there is literally no point to existence, that there can be no objective right or wrong, and that life is just a process of maximising utility until death.

    C S Lewis writes beautifully and was able to skilfully express the basic ideas behind Christianity to the layman without getting caught up in the inter-denominational cat-fights over the nature of the Trinity or obscure biblical references. Of course, he was writing at a time when the Anglican Church’s re-unification with the Orthodox Church was still a real possibility (unfortunately, the Church of England has absolutely gone off the rails since then). I’ve even revisited his Chronicles of Narnia series recently, and am only slightly ashamed to say that I almost cried like a complete faggot at the way he manages to portray the idea of Jesus (as the lion, Aslan).

    Michael Heiser (of the Naked Bible podcast, which I highly recommend) explains the issues surrounding omniscience, omnipotence and free will very well. In a nutshell, God is all-powerful and all-knowing, but he has also made us in his image, which means we have free will, and are therefore free not to follow his laws (from whence comes evil). Therefore he doesn’t constantly intervene in a way that would override our free will and make it redundant. But even out of evil, God can bring about an ultimate good. Heiser uses the metaphor of a chess game:

    – The god of the Muslims might say, ‘I know every move you will make in this game, and I”m going to win’;
    – The Christian God will say, ‘you can make whatever moves you want; I’m still going to win’.

    In fact, that’s one of the main points of the Bible story. The Israelites (who, PRIOR to the coming of Jesus, were God’s chosen people) continually lapse into corruption and wickedness, and are punished accordingly, but God is always able to bring a greater good from such catastrophes. In a sense, he’s a bit like the ultra-calibrated day-gamer who always manages to adjust and adapt his game to whatever the Devil throws at him.

    I’d like to write a more thorough apologetic, but as you’ve noted above, you can look at the kind of people who continually attack Christianity and start to grasp that there’s really something there that we should be defending. No other religion today has been subjected to as much effort to dilute, debase and destroy it as Christianity. Muslims also believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, but you never hear anyone ridiculing them, for example. Buddhists and Hindus also believe some utterly bonkers stuff, but largely escape scrutiny and don’t have anyone forcing them to accept gay marriage. You can look at the French and Russian Revolutions as well, and observe the lengths to which the Jacobins and communists went to wipe out Christianity. Another theme in the Bible is that disaster (typically foreign invasion) befalls those who turn away from God – the parallels are obvious. And like Solzhenitsyn said regarding the Russian Revolution: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened’.

    Unfortunately, in addition to the satanic establishment’s attacks, there’s also a school of thought on the dissident right that keeps pushing the trope that Christianity is all about worshiping a ‘Jew on a stick’, that the God of the Old Testament is a ‘Semitic volcano demon’, that Christianity is just rebranded paganism, that it’s about being a good doormat who ‘loves thy neighbour’ to the point of cultural suicide, and that it’s incompatible with nationalism. None of which is true. But very few men on our side are challenging these falsehoods.

    Despite being baptised Anglican as a child, I was raised in a largely atheistic environment and didn’t even want to entertain the idea that I might have been wrong about Christianity until recently. I found a church with a relatively conservative minister and started attending. At one point, the minister said to me, since I had no history of religiosity and had felt the need to search for God nonetheless, ‘you should consider that God has “tapped you on the shoulder” because there’s some work that he wants to do through you’.

    I guess that’s why I felt the need to write this long, rambling comment. You’ve been gifted with a very strong mind, Nick, and have a way of explaining difficult ideas in a digestible format to a large audience. Don’t discount the possibility that you’ve been ‘tapped on the shoulder’ as well. Lack of spiritual belief and faith is not necessarily an impediment. My own faith is not that strong (which seems to be the case for many guys I meet), but for most people, faith is acquired through worship, intellectual effort and soul-searching; there are very few ‘naturals’. And most of them seem to have to go through drug addiction, concentration camps or near-death experiences to reach that point anyway. I’m quite happy to do things the long way.

    By chance, I actually started reading ‘Mere Christianity’ again about a week ago (I read it a few years ago but didn’t approach it in good faith), will be good to hear your more detailed thoughts on it.

  18. From an observational point of view I’m interested by how many comments there are on this post, and by the length as well. I’m surprised by the people hiding in the woodwork, as it were.

    • “We started out as socially inept and badly-dressed men wanting nothing more than to shag hot chicks, and ended up as spiritual warriors in the service of God, fighting the forces of darkness to restore the True and Long Lost Faith of our ancestors.”

      That’s one hell of a character arc when you think about it – you really can’t make this stuff up.

      • A few extra remarks.

        1. There’s the separate issue of whether Christianity is useful socially and whether god exists. I suspect Lewis wouldn’t come up with any of the better arguments for or against existence of God. C.S. Lewis is a novelist, an author. He hasn’t published a single article in peer-reviewed journals in hard sciences. Since most of literature is signalling it means novelists (much like artists and philosophers) can live in their la-la land. When you mentioned problem of evil, I can just say there’s no logical internal inconsistency to string theory (or pick better one since I think there is) either; doesn’t mean its physics. In fact even string theory has amassed a religious following. Humans are so great at this.
        3. The reason why you think Santa Claus is a joke but God is not is a product of culture. There’s not more evidence for Santa Claus than there is for God.
        3. I kind of regret speaking so positively about religion positively seeing that all kinds of preachers come out of the woodwork. And its just not religion, I’m also raising status of all kinds of faith-based bullshit. I will readily admit that I’m not old enough to know if religion is an useful social technology. But in a free world, you can join a church if you want.
        4. I’d like to remind that the reason you enjoy fat or carbohydrates is because they were scarce in EEA. They’re evolutionary adaptations. The interest to find some sort of God is probably an adaptation too.

      • There’s so much to unpack here, but I’ll give it a go.

        1. You’re correct that C S Lewis was not a scientist, or even a theologian. In fact, he copped a fair bit of flak even from his friends (such as Tolkien) for wading into such territory, even though he never pretended to be anything but a layman himself. That said, he’s well-regarded by many in the Orthodox Church who almost consider him one of their own.

        I used to be a ‘cultural Christian’, in that I recognised that Christianity was socially useful but didn’t really believe God could stand up to scientific scrutiny. However, the problem with the hard sciences is that, no matter how advanced our understanding becomes, we only seem to get better at answering the HOW, not the WHY (to paraphrase Nietzsche). This is the essential humanist dilemma. Similarly, our scientific theories are still theories themselves, and like they say, all human wisdom is foolishness compared to God and there’s an enormous amount we don’t know. I also know there are quite a few scientists (geologists, archaeologists, physicists and so forth) who have applied recent findings in their fields in an attempt to validate the scriptures, but even then I don’t think we’ll ever be able use science to give you ‘proof’ of God.

        I’m also becoming less convinced we can follow God’s law (i.e. adopt a ‘socially useful’ Christianity) without actually having faith in God. Once you remove God from the law, it seems the whole thing becomes untethered, and we end up doing whatever seems right in our own eyes. The proof is all around us that this hasn’t worked

        2. ‘I would like to believe in God, but there’s no proof one way or the other’ – I’ve heard this, or some variant, so many times. For a start, it ignores the fact that many scholars, notably Aquinas, have established ‘proofs’ of the existence of God. Of course, it won’t get you 100% of the way there – there’s still a leap of faith involved.
        For myself, I’ve constructed an ‘intellectual’ case for the existence of God, but it’s based on circumstantial evidence and my own personal experiences. I’m not going to convince anyone with it who doesn’t want to be persuaded.

        It reminds me a bit of approaching and banging hot chicks; if it were easy, everyone would be doing it and there would be nothing special about it. Faith requires some effort on our part; if everyone were presented with 100% proof of God and the existence of Heaven and Hell, then it seems to be there would be something redundant about it. It completely removes the burden from us.

        Also consider that we’ve become somewhat distant from God in recent times. There’s a passage at the start of the Samuel 1 (3:1) which notes that the Word of God was rare; that is, God appeared to be absent, due to the flagrant sinfulness of the Israelites. Likewise, in the Gospel of Matthew, the Jewish Pharisees (who despise Jesus) ask him for proof that he is the Messiah, and he replies that a wicked and unfaithful generation always demands a sign.

        This isn’t just Christians either; esotericists like Evola have argued that pre-modern man lived in much closer contact with the spiritual world and would have witnessed phenomena that would’ve seemed impossible to materialist modern man.

        3. I don’t know why you regret it. I think that most of us who have gotten into game have come to realise that the world is not as we were led to understand it, and are looking for truth and deeper meaning. It’s been a wild ride to say the least.

        4. I’m not ready to throw away evolution (it’s got a lot of explanatory value) but again it doesn’t really answer the essential questions: if evolution is true, why is there a need to continually evolve to higher states of being? From whence comes this desire to survive, to prosper and to continue the species? Is there a destination, or is it just an infinite ‘Red Queen’ style race against death?

        That said, I also think that a lot of evolutionary hypotheses are just silly armchair theory, e.g. thinking about the role of fat and carbohydrates several thousands of years ago as explaining why obesity has become such a problem in the last few decades (and ignoring that it wasn’t an issue in the preceding several thousand years).

      • Sorry my reply wans’t meant for you. Blog software put it in wrong place because I closed reply here before. It was meant for Krauser.

        1. Yes I understand his peers would regard him well for raising status of them. Simply because lots of people praise each other don’t mean they are “right” or have accurate beliefs about the world. Lots of echo chambers in the world.

        “Similarly, our scientific theories are still theories themselves, and like they say, all human wisdom is foolishness compared to God and there’s an enormous amount we don’t know.”
        Yes and evidence decides which theories are true. Humans have enormous capability to believe bullshit when reality doesn’t limit it. Yes I know some epistemological tricks around this but there’s no reason to believe some stories in some old book are any more true than any random story.

        2. There’s no reason for universe to be explainable to us. It might just kill us all tomorrow. If Aquinas had (is there a short version somewhere?) the proof I’m sure most scientists would believe. He lived way before scientific revolution and invention of calculus. I don’t believe this for a second.

        The reason proof is important is that for highest probability I believe Christianity was some man’s very long con and you are all falling into his “frame”. Religious leaders certainly know how to hold frame. And shun the non-believer.

        3. I regret because I’m raising the status of all kinds of bullshit. Religion also gives huge amount of power to religious leaders which I don’t want to give. Simply because you have been lied about some things doesn’t mean you need to do believe all kinds of bullshit.

        Yes I agree to try to find a meaning in life is very, very human. I certainly understand why one would become religious.

        3.b. I’m sure pre-modern man was way more spiritual. Also 5-DEO-DMT has been shown to create mystical experiences, this was observed in experiments in 1950’s or 60s. Read a book called DMT: The Spirit Molecule. It was great read, I read it in one evening. Fastest book I have ever read due to curiosity.

        Just like Krauser can tell bad game from great one, I read all these paragraphs with very different eye from yours.

        4. Yes please don’t throw away evolution. Its one of truest and deepest ideas ever discovered.

        I agree many evolutionary hypothesis are armchair theory but just like there’s no non-evolutionary and evolutionary biology, there’s no evolutionary and non-evolutionary psychology. Basically all living things in nature are product of evolutionary optimization process. Some processes just work on cultural level (and not on genetic level). Brain is an adaptation just like in other animals. How brain interacts with environment is obviously a very hard question.

        When someone asks why is there a religion, the correct scientific question is to ask what kind of evolutionary process would create it.

        I never mentioned anything about obesity The reason I used taste is that its way less plastic than say language production.

  19. Hey K,

    Your made from Wales is doing something truly inspiring for his 40th birthday his year.

    He is doing a 10/10 Harem goal. He just got a 1 year visa to Russia. So he’s going to spend 10 months in Russia, where each month, he will go out to daygame 10 times, and approach at least 10 girls each time.

    He’s going to document the whole this as a massive infield project.

    The goal is not just to get the bang. His goal is to document the initial approach, the date, the lay, and how he will turn as many of those Russian YHT into a Harem that know about each other. And culminating in threesomes and more.

    I wish him luck. This is ambitious, and interesting.

    And I also hope your daygame revulsion is getting better. You’ve built so much Intellectual Mastery value last year, it would be a shame to not test it again the SMP to see what happens. [Truly desperate, you mean. K.]

    • Maybe you know something I don’t know, which would make him desperate, but the signs aren’t really there:

      * He stopped all coaching for this year
      * He’s not going to write any books this year
      * He’s going to spend 10 months in Moscow, doing 100 approaches a month
      * He’s already there, and sent pictures of himself daygaming in the snow, talking to girls in the streets when it’s -11 degrees out
      * All he’s going to do this year is approach 1000 Russian girls in Moscow during 10 months, and document EVERYTHING, from approach, to texting, to dating, to bang, to converting into open relationships, to trying to get threesomes

      He already said he invented a new way to stop Russian girls without saying a word yet they know exactly what he wants, and it’s fully r-selected. Plus, also invented a new “park walk” date (Which Russian girls seem to always ask to meet and go for a walk) that leads directly to his bedroom.

      I think he just got his 40 years of age “midlife crisis” where he’s going full on to daygaming. He said he had been coaching so much it killed his mojo. And he needs to return to what he loves: Russian Girls, and daygame. [For the daygame community consumers, this project is a good thing. It’s Stealth Seduction Season Two and presumably he’s learned how to do it properly after making such an arse-up of the first attempt. If Tom keeps to his plan and doesn’t half-ass the final edit/production, the daygame community may be blessed with a new and interesting product. He could have his own version of an Infinite or Overkill. I mean desperate in terms of Tom’s own mental health and life plan. Contrary to popular opinion, and perhaps unexpectedly considering how often I mock him, I don’t actually wish Tom any genuine ill will. What I see in this plan is a desperate attempt to double-down on a life plan that isn’t working for him. No amount of pleasure can satisfy a man. Tom binned everything and went all-in on the nomadic player lifestyle. It hasn’t worked, and couldn’t work. Rather than step back and integrate a reasonable amount of game into a balanced life for a middle-aged man, he’s instead decided to drown out the existential angst through increased activity. Like how people become workaholics when everything else in life is shit. It is, ironically, avoidance. That is, avoidance of the next phase in his life. I predict several nervous breakdowns, a rushed final product, and a new ambitious scheme in 2020. K.]

      • I’m no Torero fanboy but to be fair to him Nick you did say you hadn’t actually seen Stealth Seduction.

        I have watched it in full and have to say that it’s extremely impressive, particularly considering it’s global and not just in EE. The boy has skills. It didn’t strike me as half-arsed at all, the annotations are painstakingly detailed across hours of footage.

        I’m turning 46 in two months and wondered what your end game plans are now Nick? I can’t see myself settling and marrying, I’m having too much fun, but am I right that you are retired from pickup and looking to start a family? All the best to you if you are.

      • [I have watched it in full and have to say that it’s extremely impressive, particularly considering it’s global and not just in EE. The boy has skills. It didn’t strike me as half-arsed at all, the annotations are painstakingly detailed across hours of footage.]

        If you compare Stealth Seduction to Daygame Overkill, Stealth Seduction is a piece of shit. [Lol. K.]

        If you compare it to youtube infields, the annotations help break down his verbal game.

        But it’s shit because the whole focus is on what is being said. It’s just audio, you can’t see his subcommunications or her non-verbal reactions. You don’t know how he is escalating or dealing with escalation resistance. And since, as Tom himself says: “Verbals are the poor-man’s non-verbals,” there is no examples of non-verbals. It’s just audios of him talking to girls, and annotations of him referring to his “toolkit,” which routines he is running 90% with a few comments on some unexpected scenarios like a girl arriving to the date 2 hours too late, or that girls telling him she is an Iranian Muslim, and him telling her the story of the Turkish girl who told him he can fuck her in the ass.

        So Stealth Seduction had: * Zero non verbals almost since 95% of the infields are just audio * His comments are mostly telling you the name of the routine, gambit or part of the “toolkit” he is using from his book Stealth Hustle * A few comments on special situations, but still the whole focus is on what is being said. No clue on what he is doing with proximity, his eyes, his touch, when does he touch or not, how does he calibrate to her reactions, when does he put pressure and when does he lay back in his body language, etc. None of that is there, just listening to him using all his routines mostly, and noticing her verbal responses to it. [Infinite shows how texting and date audio ought to be presented in a product. K.]

      • Btw, I personally think Daygame Mediocrity is one of the best products we have as daygamers.

        There is so much to learn from there, about calibration, sexual tension, forcing IOIs, etc. And since K considered it “a joke of a product,” I would love to see a new infield product with Overkill level of detailed analysis and maybe a double bill with the “approach-dating checklists” presentation. Because like K said in Virtua Resi, his game in Infinite is totally different from what he used to do at Mastery time.

        Anyways, I just find K a superior teacher and practitioner of Daygame, so it feels sad to plug “holes” with mediocre teachers who are thin on content and high on abstract concepts and them showing off how much better they are than a normal daygamer. [Thanks for kind words. Experienced daygamers see what Daygame Mediocrity really is. K.]

      • Come on Blue Valentine, that’s not honest or fair. Stealth Seduction has more than five hours of video. Have you really seen it all? There’s a lot of video of Tom seducing. Do you remember the Colombian girl, the Moldovan girl, the Polish instant dates and same day lays?

        It’s one thing to joke about Tom but another thing to lie about him.

      • Hunter, please.

        I have bought and been through the whole product.

        Even those ones you call “videos,” he has about 10 minutes of video interspaced within about 1h of audio. So yes, he may have the approach in POV cam on video, or the beginning of the date, but he always writes “she was getting suspicious about my cam, so I had to switch to audio” and then it all becomes audio with just telling which routines he is running. No idea “why,” because he did adapt the order of the routines to the girl, but he didn’t tell us why. There is no teaching of calibration or much detail other than eavesdropping on a daygamer on his dates. [Anyone else whose seen SS care to weigh in on this point of fact regarding what is on video and what is only audio? K.]

      • I’ll just quote Days of Game from his review: https://daysofgame.com/theory/tom-torero-stealth-seduction-review/

        “It’s mostly audio, in the form of video clips, but often the video goes black and you just hear the sound. Tom has overlaid words on the video, to point out what he’s doing, because again, this is not a seminar. This is not a “video breakdown” like you’ve seen Krauser do in Overkill or like the Daygame.com guys did with their infields. It’s different.”

        “I think Krauser has the formula right with his recent videos, again Overkill, and even Black Book. Maybe the right answer is a mix of that format, with more samples of the audio, and then break to analysis and point to what is happening… and skip the hours of mindless small talk and most of the comfort building… or offer that as reference only.

        I like how Krauser does notes on infield breakdowns on his blog, where he shows the timecode, then the comment. That would make all this much more interesting… to get it side by side, and edited, so you don’t have to sort thru the mindnumbing stuff.

        And while that won’t give you the very useful experience of hearing how to fill time, and blab about nothing for an hour… I think the average person will learn more.”

        “This is almost all audio, which makes it less entertaining, and less rich.”

        “It’s just not a good teaching format, IMHO. I think having the dates edited would improve the product… as listening to him chat up some of those girls, for hours, was painful. And there’s no good way to “scan.” I normally wouldn’t want to scan, but again… painful to listen to some of the chit-chat that goes on forever.

        So to “make sure you’re getting it all,” you’re forced to sit through all those hours. Much of which did not have video… so it’s blank screen and inane conversation. And again you have to watch (even the blank screen), as he’ll pop those notes up… super painful format. A good experiment, but a step backwards for me.

        Krauser’s overkill is ideal. Hotseat is ideal. That’s my opinion.”

        “I think this one… was a relatively failed experiment in a teaching tool.”

        “I think this product is his laziness disguised as “showing it all.” I think he was too lazy to format it, so he dumps it in your lap… which makes it almost useless.

        Editing counts.”

      • [Do you remember the Colombian girl, the Moldovan girl, the Polish instant dates and same day lays?]

        Or, to be even more fair, let’s ask Hunter:

        How much of those specific files is video and how much is Audio? I counted and the video there is about 15-20% of the file, and the rest is audio. And those are just the very rare files with some video in them.

        Anyway, I was a bit disappointed today. A month after Tom said he’s starting his huge infield project, just today in his podcast, he started to hint he may just make it a short documentary about his daygame in Russia. That will turn it into a propaganda piece rather than a proper daygame instruction product.

        He was so excited and started promising such a grandiose project, and now he’s thinking of making it just a documentary. Like wtf? Where are the men with balls in the daygame community who would undertake something truly big, like Krauser did with Infinite, where he risked going somewhere new which could have broken his game but it worked.

        A year in Russia approaching a 1000 girls and dating them is such a huge opportunity, and Tom started with big promises, and now a 1 hour documentary of his 10 months stay is like spitting in the face of his fans who believed what he was talking about in December. I hope he returns to his senses. He sounded exhausted today and a bit depressed. He said he did his 100 approaches in Moscow, and is going to Cyprus in the middle of nowhere to relax and rest and disconnect from the world for 10 days, then return to Moscow on the beginning of next month.

        This might be the first nervous breakdown K talked about. His “resolution” of the big infield project didn’t last 30 days.

      • >>> “Rather than step back and integrate a reasonable amount of game into a balanced life for a middle-aged man.”

        Did it mean that you are approving “BlackDragon’s Alpha Male 2.0” life style recommendation and integrating it into yours?

        PS. I’m not influenced by Nash(DaysOfGame.com) [I only skimmed BlackDragon’s blog so my opinion of him isn’t properly informed. My impression (correctly, or not) is he is an older guy, not especially high SMV, who uses online “game” to find girls, and has some kind of live-in MLTR home. If this is the case – and I stress it’s only an impression – then absolutely DO NOT approve of his material. Imagine how dreadful his quality is. Where are the infields / bona-fides? Lastly, what kind of self-obsessed fool wants to live in MLTRs for a family unit? Doing it without children is a ridiculous ego project in itself but harmful only to yourself. If children are involved it’s straight-up child abuse. What fiend would raise his kids in an environment deliberately created so a kid wonders, “why is daddy banging those two girls as well as mommy?”. Imagine the ridicule and shame for him at school. It disgusts me. But, I stress, I’m not sure that’s what BlackDragon is advocating. Either way, I don’t consider him a credible source. K.]

      • BlackDragon is doing Testosterone Replacement Therapy so that it helps his weight loss, libido and because it stops sperm production. So he can cum inside girls all he wants without them getting pregnant. For that reason, the children problem won’t be an issue. [I think you missed my point. K.]

  20. Any thoughts about the DWLF incident?

  21. Anyone who sets up a pick-up company in a city with less than a million people, and films infields there, is an uncalibrated fucktard. He deserves all the shit he gets.

  22. I never expected you being so much struck by that book. I have you in my mind as that cynical bastard that has all figured it out on what he believes or not. Seems like everyone keeps evolving till the end of his days.

    Regarding Christianity, the issue is that it was never really a religion, though they have us believe that. Churches are run like businesses. With whatever ill comes with that.

    It has always been more of a way of life.

  23. A catholic friend gave me this book, never read it. He was pretty blue-pilled on women, but otherwise I had better conversations with him than with most atheists. Christianity makes sense.

    As for the faith, I was raised an atheist as well, still am not most pious person. But I convinced myself rationally to believe in God.

    My reasoning goes: what created the universe? The big bang. OK, what created the big bang? Something something scientific. OK, what created that something scientific? Dunno. Lot’s of really big stuff we don’t know. Basic stuff like ‘why do atoms exist?’ ‘why life?’ ‘what is beyond the universe?’ I summarize all this and say: that is God. God is everything we don’t know, likely will never know. So, God exists.

    As for God’s interference in daily life: meh. God seems like a pretty distant cold fellow, pretty non-partial to what we’re doing. But he’s out there, somewhere.

    • that was carl sagan’s argument – if we find what created “us” (our universe,whatever) then the next question necessarily becomes “what created it?” why not just save a step

  24. You’d like G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy”, I think. Especially its style.

    I’m no longer a Christian (although I largely agree with your assessment of its worth), but Orthodoxy is one of the few books on Christianity that remains exciting and insightful; maybe because it doesn’t try to prove anything. It’s also genuinely FUNNY. I won’t quote because I wouldn’t be able to stop, but I highly recommend it.

  25. I had a similar upbringing. Atheist parents. Atheist schools.

    At some point I also thought I was a smart guy and that I had properly examined belief and knew it was wrong. Really though I was being dishonest and once I actually opened my heart to it, I saw the truth that’s just sitting there.

    I don’t believe you can force it though.

  26. My comment is a bit late, but it still seems worth it . I am a big fan of George Gilder , and this particular essay he wrote on the materialist superstition is brilliant in so many ways :
    about how atheists and scientists have tried to explain everything by attempting to reduce it to atoms and molecules functioning mechanistically. He quotes CS Lewis right up in the first couple of paragraphs.
    I would also recommend his 2013 book, “Knowledge and Power” .
    Along with Taleb and Osho, I would rank Mr. Gilder as a genuine philosopher for our age.

  27. From reading your blog over the past year Nick it seems like you did not go much deeper into trying to find God. (Apologies if I am completely off on this).

    I actually did based on reading Mere Christianity at roughly the same time. What I have realised from my research is that our education system has blinded us to any understanding of philosophy particularly with regards to metaphysics. This allows us to make use of a Christian worldview without actually acknowledging it.

    What makes matters worse for those of us in the west coming from an agnostic/atheistic worldview is if we do start to have a curiosity towards God, we are often exposed to a load of room temperature IQ apologetic from evangelicals. I was almost put off by this but I kept looking and I found an Orthodox Christian called Jay Dyer, he has a degree in philosophy and has never lost a debate to an atheist.

    If you are at all curious please watch the following 12 minute argument by him: (I have timestamped past the intro as he does allot of nutty stuff to appeal to the Zoomers)

    If this interested you at all but you need more detail, he did a debate with a biologist called JF who holds what I would say is relatively close to the standard atheistic view. Unfortunately this is a 3 hour debate but it does address the common areas of argument between Orthodox Christianiy and Atheism.

    Finally if you have any specific questions I should be able to tell you the standard argument we have for them or point you to the relevant video. I also have access to a private discord which Jay frequents so if you wanted to debate/question the man himself it can likely be arranged.

    God Bless,


  28. Looks like I managed to mess that up, relevant video is here: (I’m not going to try anything fancy now so just skip to 2:31).

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: