MGTOW Life: Original Sin

A Churchian named Bnonn, covered here before, has produced a newsletter that contains the usual man-shaming screeds dialed up to 11. Feels good. The cucks will get more shrill yet as their meatshield headcounts approach zero and the cucks take their own turn suffering for their civilization-destroying practices.

In the process, Bnonn’s screed does an excellent job of demonstrating the link between MGTOW beliefs and Christianity. The most fascinating part of Red Pill & Manosphere teachings for me has been the independent rediscovery and confirmation of Original Sin. Indeed, I believe that MGTOW is at heart a specifically Christian attitude and belief.

Eve was created to be Adam’s assistant and companion. All was well. Then Chad the Snake came along and convinced Eve to rebel against God & Adam. Eve chose the snake over God and when Adam found out, he followed Eve into damnation even though he knew from personal experience that God was the smart choice.

Eve envied God His status as a deity and seized a shortcut to Godhood. Adam listened to his little head instead of his big head. The resulting curses? Women would be always tempted to envy men and need to be controlled, while men would have to earn their food.

So now, how did our modern society fail? The Communists of the ’50s and ’60s convinced women to rebel, aka free love and grrlpwr, and the Silent & Baby Boomer men/fathers prided themselves on indulging female liberation… to the destruction of their own sons, then their own country’s sovereignty, then their own ethnic group’s survival, and soon, humanity’s ability to live in safety from Satan’s Throne of a unified world government. To be sure, the problem was always lurking in the background… which Scripture predicted and history confirmed… but modern telecommunications have permitted the weaponization of humanity’s first flaw on a global scale.

Meanwhile, female envy and usurpation of “male privilege” is not only uncontrolled, it’s actively encouraged, and the winners of our current way of life demand that the losers do the work so the winners don’t have to. The curse is rejected.

On that note, let’s fisk Bnonn’s newsletter. I only indented the text to preserve his italicization. Hat tip to 7817 and princeasbel on Dalrock’s blog for the linkage.

Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems. —Dalrock’s Law of Feminism

This saying is true, and worthy of full acceptance. But there are Christians fighting feminism who are inclined to an opposite error. It is in some ways a much more serious one, because it implicitly denies what even feminism implicitly affirms: that men are, by nature, in charge.

The is classic Churchianism: “you might be right but we must be careful to not be too right”.

It is therefore important to reprove Christians who are falling into this error, and exhort them to true biblical manhood.

We can state the error simply as the inverse of Dalrock’s Law: the belief that women are evil and naturally want to dominate men, followed by demands that women solve this problem by submitting to men.

In Dalrock’s Law, the error is in the first clause—that men in general want to harm women—while a certain truth is recognized in the second—that men are the ones with the power to achieve feminism’s goals.

Bnonn establishes that the problem today is Dalrock and offers an alternative to Dalrock’s Law. One wonders if he plans to waste a single breath condemning feral women and the men who encourage them.

“The belief that women are evil and naturally want to dominate men” is straight outta Genesis. I despise all self-identified Christians who uphold the Bible as God’s Word yet cannot agree with it past chapter 3. (If they think evolution is true then they didn’t get past chapter 1, verse 1: “In the beginning, God created…”)

Similarly, the “demand that women solve this problem by submitting to men” is God’s demand to women, not mens’ demand to women. It is exceedingly difficult to force submission on those who wish not to submit; God learned that Himself with the Israelites.

Bnonn’s Inverse Dalrock’s Law is redundant with basic Christian theology.

But in the Inverse Law, a certain truth is recognized in the first clause—”your desire shall be for your husband”—but a much more serious error is implied in the second—that women have the power to achieve the biblical ideal of patriarchy. The reason we don’t have patriarchy now, in other words, or the reason the church (not to speak of society) is imploding under feminism, is that women are not submitting. If they would only return to their proper place, patriarchy would be restored.

Patriarchy is not an agenda that needs deliberate enactment and enforcement by a government or other body of men. As I’ve said many times, the purpose of the Christian life is to become a certain kind of person, not achieve a certain kind of outcome. Any woman who restrains her envy of men and submits cheerfully to her father/husband is a patriarchal woman, approved by Father God Himself.

Women can do it on their own.

This relocates the locus of control from its biblical center in men exercising their innate father-rule on behalf of God, to an ironically feminist-sounding and entirely false center in women’s virtue. It is a functional denial that patriarchy is actually built into creation; that men are always the ones with the power, even when that power is being bent toward the aims of women.

Innate father-rule? Even those of us who aren’t fathers? Most of the men reading this are not in any position of authority. What does Bnonn expect us to do, walk into CEO Barbie’s office and inform her that her reign of terror is over and the patriarchy’s back in town?

This attitude is exactly why MGTOW is a thing. The demands being made of us are impossible. We are blamed for situations we didn’t create and ordered to fix them with authority we don’t have. The only winning move is not to play.

Correction. The only winning move is blaming these arrogant Churchians midwits for holding us down while the gynocracy mugs us in the devil’s name.

In this way, many of those fighting feminism fall into a mirror image of it. Just as genuine gender equality is most useful to feminism when it remains an ideal that is never realized—let alone lived out—the same becomes true for patriarchy under those fighting feminism. Claiming to believe in patriarchy, to paraphrase Paul, they nonetheless deny its power.

This self-contradiction is especially obvious if one suggests that men need to take responsibility for women submitting to them. How often will this be glossed as blaming men for women’s faults (which is indeed a common problem in the church among those afraid to criticize women). But holding men accountable to the role God gave them is not equivalent to winking at women’s sins. On the contrary, calling men to require women’s submission is exactly to hold women accountable to submit!

Here, the author refuses to grant legitimacy to the men who do the good work of pushing back against feminism, men such as Dalrock. “Do it my way or you’re as bad as they are! My way is to blame you for the problem until you magically make it go away!”

Consider a recent example of Christian confusion on this point. In The Love of the Game, Cane Caldo argues that the exhortation and reproof of men is both ubiquitous and ineffective in fighting feminism:

The truth is that American Christians have raised at least four generations of brassy whores and all we can do is talk about how to be the kind of men brassy whores prefer to marry. Throughout these generations Christian leaders and men have been exhorting one another to virtue and godliness with the same terrible results.

But the first sentence and the second sentence are clear and flat contradictions. Either four generations of Christian fathers (we use the term not just biologically) have been exhorting one another to virtue and godliness, or they have been raising brassy whores and talking about how to be the kind of men brassy whores prefer to marry. Virtuous, godly men don’t raise brassy whores, nor marry them; effeminate, gyneolatrous men do. And effeminate, gyneolatrous men are living in rebellion to God’s word and creation, and are not virtuous or godly at all.

Blame the victim, how original. Two words: Job’s wife.

What anti-feminist Christians give with one hand, they take away with the other. They rightly charge that men must reestablish their rule, but if we then reprove the men in rulership for effeminacy—bishops, pastors, elders—we are accused of blaming men for a problem caused by women.

He lies. We don’t advocate that “men reestablish their rule”. We advocate both men and women confronting the sex-specific evil inside their souls. We aren’t demanding some Heaven on Earth, we’re demanding you practice the very religion you preach at us like a magic spell.

It sounds good, rhetorically. You can see the irony of us pointing to men, rather than speaking to women, because it seems to match up to the narrative of how no one is willing to call women out, and instead take the safe route of lambasting men.

It’s not irony, Bnonn. It’s you following women in their hatred of honorable men, as your fedora-tipping forefathers did.

(We’d also add that really, calling out women online, behind a screen, anonymously, isn’t any braver or harder than anything else keyboard warriors do. Calling out women in real life is.)

A call for self-doxxing. It’s a sign you’re useless to God when you aren’t worried about the likes of Antifa paying you a house visit.

As we’ve noted, when you establish a position in reaction to an error, there is a serious risk of becoming the mirror image of the thing you hate. In this case, anti-feminists have simply inverted feminist hypoagency. Under feminism, women are never responsible for anything—it’s always men’s fault. “Weak men are screwing feminism up,” as Dalrock correctly quips. Under anti-feminism, the situation simply gets reversed, and men get the default hypoagency through the imputation of hyperagency to women. “Brassy women are screwing patriarchy up.”

Dalrock didn’t say that as a true statement. Again, this is a common way for Churchians to claim the moral high ground without ever having to risk their comfy pensions: “If you oppose them then you’re no different, because they oppose you! We must find the Middle Way!”

Hmm, doesn’t that demon hotel Jordan Peterson call for exactly that? I can’t be certain because the guy produces more word salad than a dictionary in a shredder.

But the fact is, the situation we face is not an either-or, zero-sum game.

Christ or Satan, Bnonn. There is no spiritual Switzerland.

It’s not that either rebellious women are the problem, or effeminate men are—and since rebellious women are the problem, it’s not effeminate men.

It’s both-and. Rebellious women are the problem and effeminate men are.

Having first misstated our position, Bnonn faults that position. He even tries to slip in “effeminate men”, which is not our complaint of men who encourage women in their envy and rebellion against men.

The two halves of Original Sin are feral women and the men who follow them into Hell, working together against the two halves of men who stand aloof and the women who follow those men into Heaven. Notice the one is a complete inversion of the other… of God’s natural order.

There are not two problems here. There are two sides of a spiritual war, Right and Wrong. It’s time to pick a uniform and burn a bridge, Bnonn.

Ironically, treating patriarchy as an unrealized ideal rather than a natural reality (whether from cynicism or naivety), is to adopt a masculine hypoagency which is the very pinnacle of effeminacy. It is to replace real masculine virtue with narrow, performative masculinity in anonymous sandboxes—playing make-believe at being men telling women no, rather than actually going out and telling women no.

Bnonn imputes authority to (other) men that they clearly don’t have so he can blame those men for not exercising said authority. That is what’s called “male privilege”, a nonentity that must exist because otherwise, men are innocent.

The fact is that toxic matriarchy requires male cooperation and enablement. Men just do have the power, and the only way for women to get it is for men to give it to them—as Dalrock’s Law rightly observes. Patriarchy is built into the structure of creation.

Who fell from grace first, Adam or Eve? Eve. Adam didn’t “give her his power” to do that.

So if we now find ourselves in a situation where the church is falling to pieces from being overrun by power-hungry brassy whores, whose fault is it?

The church is not being overrun by power-hungry women. It’s being overrun by men who worship women instead of God, in God’s name. Men who then blame all other men in order to hide their own guilt. Men like Bnonn.

Well it’s certainly the fault of the power-hungry brassy whores for taking the power.

But who gave it to them?

It’s not rocket surgery. Weak men and brassy women are both screwing patriarchy up. Indeed, it’s so obvious as to be uninteresting. We’re not here to endlessly reiterate the problem. We want to fix it.

Who will do that?

Who should we appeal to?

Who should we reprove and rebuke and exhort and train in righteousness?

If we have to choose, should it be the men of God, or the women of God?

For fuck’s sake. Bnonn the AMOG is wondering who he should appoint to solve the problem of feminism so he doesn’t have to. Well, don’t look at us MGTOW. We didn’t create this problem. We aren’t sustaining the problem, either. How could we? We aren’t even in the room.

We don’t believe there’s even the slightest question about this decision. The answer is always the men.

The answer is always YOU OTHER men. Not me! I’m too righteous and virtuous to be the problem!

Caldo suggests that for “any leader who wishes to be taken seriously,” “no less than half of his engendered instructions should be directed at women to be quiet and have some respect.” But this flies in the face of the basic dynamic of power. A 50/50 split makes no sense because there’s a fundamental 80/20 here. Pareto’s Principle alone would tell us that if we’re trying to fix a structural problem within a hierarchy, we should start with the people who have the actual power to fix it (not the perceived power). And since God built patriarchy into creation, that means the men. Men are the ones who have the power.

Which is it? Do we have patriarchy or matriarchy? If patriarchy then the men can solve the problem of feral women… but the problem doesn’t exist. If matriarchy then the men who are getting torn up by feral women aren’t able to fix the situation because THAT’S WHY THEY WERE VULNERABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Women are never in control of society. When they’ve given authority, they give it to evil men in turn, just as Eve did in Eden. She didn’t take control of Adam, she accepted the snake as her new master. For his part, Adam chose to follow Eve instead of God. All creation has been subject to the devil ever since.

How then, to fix the situation? Adam must refuse to follow Eve and her enablers into damnation. Adam must… go his own way. MGTOW is the solution, the bridge between the gynocracy burning itself out and the beginning of a new, healthy society. Or as God described MGTOW, “When the wicked rise to power, people go into hiding; but when the wicked perish, the righteous thrive.” Proverbs 28:28.

The problem we face is not caused by brassy women taking power. By definition, they don’t have the power to do that, or they wouldn’t need to take it! It’s caused by soft men raising up brassy women, who then demand power, which the soft men trip over themselves to give.

Soft men raise bad women? Or do women choose to go bad? It’s not like Daddy is the only influence upon her life. From peers & social media to the cash & prizes of frivorce, there’s a lot of temptation for a girl to go wrong. Bnonn does very ill to blame the man for the woman’s behavior.

Thus, to solve the problem, we must speak to the men. We can either treat the symptoms, or we can treat the disease; we haven’t the energy to do both. The symptoms are brassy women who demand power. The disease is fathers—pastors, leaders, husbands—who raise them up and capitulate to them.

So the question is simple: which will more effectively prevent and reverse the problem we’re facing?

Brassy women becoming submissive and no longer demanding power, while the men remain weak and still want to give it to them?

Yes. Women must learn to control their feral instincts, which they have despite being raised by either strong men or weak men.

Weak men becoming strong and no longer giving women power, while brassy women still demand it?

You want us weak men to become strong, Bnonn? Take your boot heel off our faces. Instead, blame our persecutors… as Cane Caldo taught.

Obviously (1) is preferable to nothing, and a combination (1) and (2) is ideal—but if we have to focus on achieving only one, it’s not even a contest. (2) is a dead ringer for stopping the problem in its tracks, while (1) will result in complete failure. This is because the backbone of the church—as with all society—is patriarchy; not submissive women. If men just say no, women can demand until they’re blue in the face, but they will get nothing, and patriarchy will remain intact. The same is not true if women are just submissive, because patriarchy can collapse all by itself without any woman doing anything. This is because—at the risk of belaboring the obvious—it is men who have the power, and so it’s men who ultimately decide whether they’re going to be patriarchs or not.

The Church is always a patriarchy because “God said so”; therefore, if any evil happens it’s because you weak male pew-warmers allowed it to happen! Sheesh. Matriarchy is not “female rulers”. It is “warlord rulers”. Powerful, evil men who maintain female support by crushing the male have-nots around them.

And that is why men go MGTOW. It’s not because we want to. It’s not because we want to see society die. It’s because our society has turned cannibal. If we go back to the plantation, we’ll be cut down by petty warlords needing to perform for female approval. If we don’t go back, those petty warlords will start cutting down each other in a twisted version of a Viking funeral.

Bnonn isn’t one of those warlords. He’s one of the Adams who is horrified by Eve’s choice but enables her because the alternative is following God… and never getting to be a god himself.

By contrast, MGTOW refuse to follow women into evil and self-destruction. What Adam should have done. He should have turned his back on Eve and started over with the next female God made for him.

All Adam in Eden had to do was nothing. Sit poolside. We’re sitting poolside, too, watching our leaders turn on each other because they cannot feed off us anymore. It’s not the victory we want but it’s a victory we can get. And the floor show promises to be spectacular!

Patriarchy is built into you. You cannot hide from it, and you cannot exercise it by simply sharing incisive online analyses of what is wrong with the world.

You have to actually take command of that world, starting with yourself, and those under your fatherhood—your wife and your children.

Again, Bnonn imputes Male Privilege to us so he can demand we solve problems we didn’t create, don’t maintain, don’t profit from and can’t solve. But Male Privilege does not exist. It’s merely the only way he can keep blaming us who have never even had a seat at the table.

Toxic matriarchy requires men’s cooperation. In the majority of cases (the minority being much more serious), the only price for not cooperating is social awkwardness brought on by Gillette shavers realizing they have no power over you. What kind of man is afraid of awkwardness?

Weak men of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains and your meaningless little lives! Oops.

True, it sometimes won’t go your way—that minority of cases is a real killer. Your many small victories may be dwarfed by your colossal defeats on the most important and life-changing issues. There is an army of white knights who will fight you on behalf of women, and many of them have real power—pastors, employers, police, judges, bureaucrats. It sucks, and we have every sympathy for you if you are defeated; but war is hell, and this is war.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? “It sucks and we’re sympathetic but hey, this is war and your destruction is a risk we’re willing to take”? I meant my “weak men of the world unite” comment as a snark but… that’s how you TRULY think of us?

I don’t need to advocate for MGTOW. It’s enough quote the opponents of MGTOW.

We’re not promised personal victory; we’re promised cosmic victory (2 Tim 2:12; Rom 8:17; Rev 20:4). The kingdom of the world will eventually become the kingdom of our Lord (Rev 11:15)—but it happens by taking up the sword of the spirit and the word of truth and discipling the nations to obey Jesus’ commands.

The only way to do that is individually, day by day. You must do it. We must do it.

Holy shit, he IS serious!

In victory or defeat, you are in command of your own life. It is your responsibility to teach your daughters to live quietly and reverently. It is your responsibility to call your wife to submission. It is your responsibility to tell her no when she is rebellious. And if you have a wife who will call other men to fight and defeat you when you tell her no, that’s because of a bad choice you made.




Very likely you made it in ignorance, and your situation is unjust—but you are still called to face it, and if necessary to suffer through it.

In the same way, if you’re a pastor whose congregation will not hear you telling women no, if they will find a way to remove you from leadership, you are called to stand firm. You will suffer, and you may lose your job, but is it better to be a weak man, scratching their itchy ears to save your paycheck? Of course not. Have you been beaten and scourged and stoned for standing firm before rebellious women and their white knights? Have you defended the Lord’s table with your very body, demanding that brassy whores take your life rather than take the sacrament to defile it? The apostles, the Reformers, our other spiritual fathers endured in such a way. You’re afraid to lose your livelihood; they were unafraid to lose their lives. You cannot fear God and fear man. You cannot serve two masters.

Sounds nice but he opposed Cane Caldo for preaching exactly this. Which is it?

Yes, we’re telling anti-feminist Christians to step up or shut up.

Are we trying to alienate men by saying this?

No. We are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. 2 Timothy 4:2–4 says:

…preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

The irony of Bnonn quoting this passage while telling the itchy ears of rebellious women that their evil is mens’ fault.

As we’ve said, fighting feminism risks coming the mirror image of feminism. So what must be our response? It must be to call men to genuine, biblical manhood by preaching the word.

The Bible is not a spellbook. There is nothing magical about preaching it at other people. The purpose of preaching it, especially back when illiteracy was common and books were not, is so the people (NOT the preacher) could apply the Bible to themselves.

I just blew the fuse of every Churchian who thinks leadership is preaching the Bible at people for forty years and then retiring in comfort. They don’t even check if anybody is still listening.

Step up because God commands it of you. It’s what he made men for.

Step up because defeating feminism will not happen by sitting on your loins. God requires you to gird up those loins for action. He requires you to stop being intimidated by the perceived power of women. He requires you to stop being fearful and negative, and to stand firm, and to suffer for him if necessary—looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who did the same thing for the joy of bringing victory out of defeat.

God requires you to do as I say so I don’t have to do it myself! Hardly the example Christ set. Feminism will defeat itself, just like fire and for the same reason: it can only exist by consuming more, more, ever more. By saving ourselves, we MGTOW pass through the fire able to rebuild the world. You’re welcome, world.

And for those who will not, for the grumblers and the malcontents following their own sinful desires, for the loud-mouthed boasters showing favoritism to gain advantage—our words will encourage them to expose themselves, so we can relegate them to the gloom of utter darkness as quickly as possible.

The sinful desire of not ending up a smear on the tank treads of Feminism because AMOGs like Bnonn can’t survive without our sacrifice. Heh, he even threatens us with going to Hell if we don’t do as he says. Bnonn doesn’t hold those keys and we already left the room. Just like he wanted?

Either exercise the power God gave you and stop giving it to brassy whores, or stop whining about brassy whores taking power. It’s your choice. Not theirs.

God gave us no power. Thanks for checking. You gave us no power either, Bnonn, so we MGTOWs make the one choice we can: live free or die.

Christ has called us to freedom. He died so we wouldn’t have to. Bnonn, stop preaching the Bible at others and preach it at yourself instead. You are the one who needs to hear it.


6 thoughts on “MGTOW Life: Original Sin

  1. “The belief that women are evil and naturally want to dominate men” is straight outta Genesis.

    And what Dalrock is saying about feminism is basically the inversion of this….men are evil and naturally want to dominate (or to them, harm) women.

    If there’s one thing I’ve learned…either we go with God’s word or we go with the inverse…and we often fight to the death for either.


  2. ‘Innate father-rule? Even those of us who aren’t fathers? Most of the men reading this are not in any position of authority.’

    True I think I even found this in Scripture today…from 1 Cor 4. Some translations state ‘tutor’ or ‘guide’…but a guide isn’t a father. Hence most men are probably at best…guides. I’d even call myself that title because I’m certainly no spiritual or biological father.


  3. Okay .. I have a couple of questions .. [1]

    Why did hotel staff watch her for 8 minutes (or more) ..

    And how long do your arms have to be .. or just double jointed maybe .. to pleasure yourself .. while handcuffed .. and sitting in the back of a cop car ..

    At 26 .. she’s already forgotten Chad .. and almost as bad as that girl that youtubed her and animals.

    [1] ..


  4. And if you have a wife who will call other men to fight and defeat you when you tell her no, that’s because of a bad choice you made.

    He appears to refuse to admit to the legal reality of our western nations, or to my non-omnipotence. I have neither the ability to force police officers to stop enforcing immoral laws, nor do I have the ability to predict what any given possible wife will do 20 years into the future.
    We can make choices to limit the ability of evil to harm us, but we cannot eliminate it. Gee, the idea of trying to limit evil, by making better choices… where have I come across that idea before… maybe MGTOW?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s