Dishonest Dalrock Thinks He’s Winning (Again)

Screen Shot 2019-02-16 at 16.43.00

Feeling distinctly uncreative this evening, I decided to steal the title of this post from Artisanal Toad. I also wouldn’t claim to care too much about Dalrock’s latest womanly whining, except for the fact that Jason is currently being skewered in the sewer which is Dalrock’s comment section.

Just for fun, I’ll include some of the weepings, wailings and gnashings of teeth. Bear in mind that these are only a small sample of the Cruxtoid curses that have been leveled at Jason from Dalrock’s mediocrities. I’m sure there are others, but I’m not going to spend more time in that stinkhole than necessary.

Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 21.33.32

PokeSalad, a true masochist, only ever seems to appear when people are slinging insults. As such, I believe he embodies the archetypical psychic vampire that he, ironically, whines about here.

Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 21.33.54

I don’t know why Oscar is jumping into the fray. In the past I always found him reasonable. Jason is describing the general AMOG attitude extant on Dalrock’s goon-blog, and Oscar is personalizing it and whining about it. That’s not a particularly manly tact. I suppose this speaks to the allure of painting oneself as some sort of “victim” whenever there’s a disagreement on the internet.

And then there are all the usual spankards…

Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 21.34.40

Billy spends most of his time spreading his own misery around to others. I can feel sorry for his situation, but that hardly excuses his endless nonsense.

Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 21.35.01

Cane Caldo, (Dalrock’s No. 1 asslicker,) begins with a typical passive-aggressive accusation that Jason is lying about himself. Thus begins a process which may end with Cane and Dalrock accusing their latest target of being a sex pervert. They tend to target people who are more intelligent, better adjusted, and more successful than they, making all their antics immediately suspect. Envy, it’s said, is a sin, but Dalrock and Cane have never paid much mind to that part of their scriptures. Lying is also a sin, but Dalrock and Cane do that regularly also.

There’s another guy that these whiners like to bee-yatch about, which is closer to the point I wanted to touch upon today.

Digging into the source, It becomes immediately apparent that Dalrock’s latest opponent is at least one standard deviation more intelligent than he is. The dude I’m talking about goes by the name Bnonn. I’ve been reading his blog.

For those of you who don’t like him, I am curious as to your motivations. He seems demonstrably more honest than Dalrock, and at least as familiar with your religious texts. He also strikes me as a guy who cares deeply about men (at least those of the Christian variety).

Personally, I find Bnonn irritating for the shortsighted advice he gives (he wants us all to use our real names as we mock internet feminists). I also find him unforgivably lazy. Here’s an example:

Screen Shot 2019-02-16 at 16.25.15

The problem with Bnonn’s article here is complex, but one of my points can be illustrated by an analogy.

I often debate white racial nationalists on the internet. I do this not because I dislike them personally (I don’t know them), and I’m also not motivated by any sort of personal angst. Certainly I don’t hate white people (I’m whiter than nearly all the white nationalists I argue with). I debate them because I know that their ideological edifice is a dead-end.

The best way to debate white racial nationalists is to be as charitable as possible, and to argue against the best theorists I can find in this regard. I could pick out some slackjawed, drooling, losers, who don’t understand basic logical concepts, but that sort of nuking fish in a barrel isn’t really productive.

Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 22.15.20

Rather than debating a slackjawed, drooling halfwit like Cane Caldo, who doesn’t understand the problems with affirming the consequent, why doesn’t Bnonn pick out a more skillful opponent? His blog suggests he can certainly prevail in such a contest, and as such, my assumption is apathy on his part.

Yes, you can win an argument with Cane Caldo. I’ve won arguments with him. Jason is winning an argument with him now. Such a match is akin to slapping the snot out of some random retard’s nose as he steps offa the short bus.

Tonight, I finally dug into what Dalrock has been doing for the past several weeks. I am not favorably impressed. Bnonn Tennant is simply toying with Dalrock, and halfheartedly at that. Bnonn is winning all of the arguments Dalrock starts with him, and the usual suspects are too clueless to understand what’s going on.

More blood in the gutter, and me without my spoon.

Author: Boxer

Sinister All-Male Dancer. Secret King of all Gamma Males. Member of Frankfurt School. Your Fave Contrarian!

46 thoughts on “Dishonest Dalrock Thinks He’s Winning (Again)”

  1. This was so brilliantly written Boxer that I’ve saved it in my favorites, awesome stuff my friend

  2. After spending a full hour reading the Bnonn blog, I remain dreadfully confused as to why Dalrock has spent the last few months nitpicking at the guy. They seem to agree on most things. I’m forced to conclude that Dalrock simply seems threatened by a more intelligent man, and more skillful writer, sharing his views on the internet.

    I believe the smart peeps call such stuff “the narcissism of minor differences.”

    Whatever the underlying issue, Dalrock oughta stop. He’s making a jackass of himself, and all his suckups and sycophants who celebrate his failure make him look like a bargain basement Jim Jones.

  3. Yup you’re so right but even though Dalrock is making an ass of himself he still wins because he exercises the ban hammer when the conversation starts to go against him
    Dalrock is intellectually dishonest and that is his greatest downfall
    I’m enjoying Bnonn taking apart Dalrock, and in the words of Thanos “this does put a smile on my face ” lol

  4. “…Jason is currently being skewered in the sewer…”

    Jason has implied that he is going to kill himself. The goons at Dalrock just don’t care. It’s all just (ironic) accusations of attention-seeking behavior there and they don’t care if it isn’t true. I don’t understand how any Christian who uses moderation would take such a chance on his blog, but there it is.

    “I remain dreadfully confused as to why Dalrock has spent the last few months nitpicking at the guy.”

    Under normal circumstances Dalrock does not engage in serious critical debate. I think this time he actually feels threatened. Quite a few bloggers recently have called him out. Bnonn is one. He was also taken to task in the recent interview/podcast preparation, a situation he has struggled to control. The man does not take criticism well, as Brother Necron has noted.

    “…all his suckups and sycophants who celebrate his failure make him look like a bargain basement Jim Jones”

    It’s always good to call out your cheerleading squad for being idiots, unless you only care about keeping your cheerleading squad.

    “Yes, you can win an argument with Cane Caldo.”

    At this point, Cane Caldo gets one or two sentence responses from me (if that). The man can’t be argued with. There is little point in trying.

  5. FWIW…there was a reason I couldn’t figure out why I left that blog for a long time. I came back…but now I think I know the reason. It’s the same topic over and over again with the same comments over and over again. Sure I got sucked into the emotional vampires…it seems they never want solutions but rather the problem to continue so they can continue. I’m in the business of trying to solve the problem.

    feministhater will hate all things marriage, Billy will talk about how his wife left because pastor Bob told her to, Cane will back his boy and accuse everyone else of being a homo, jason will talk about how game, frame, and alpha doesn’t work, Scott will talk about his orthodox farm marriage to a single mother. There are a few commenters with some interesting perspectives.

  6. I have to little time to post here .. much less at Doll’s place .. due to work and personal life duties and responsibilities.

    Frankly I don’t recall why we didn’t leave Doll’s site sooner.

  7. Jason has implied that he is going to kill himself. The goons at Dalrock just don’t care. It’s all just (ironic) accusations of attention-seeking behavior there and they don’t care if it isn’t true. I don’t understand how any Christian who uses moderation would take such a chance on his blog, but there it is.

    Well on the other side of that I don’t know why a Christian like jason would contemplate suicide…given that God is the one who gave us life and as such is the one who has the right to take it back on His time. Besides what are anons on the internet going to say to convince him to not do it? I mean don’t listen to those demons trying to paint a false narrative about how your life is.

  8. Jason has implied that he is going to kill himself.

    Sigh .. Derek .. (I don’t read at Doll’s place anymore) .. can you provide quotes and links?

    Does anyone have contact with Jason?

    The goons at Dalrock just don’t care.

    Not surprising from that lynch-mob.

  9. “…why doesn’t Bnonn pick out a more skillful opponent? “

    Where does a person find skillful opponents?

    I argued against AT for a while, and those were always good debates until I started finding contradictions and fallacies in his arguments which he just ignored. So I gave up there.

    I’ve tried arguing on Dalrock. He’s even dedicated a post or two to “rebutting” my comments. It can be good, but the moderation hold makes it too frustrating to do more than just cursory comments. My best comments almost always get no responses. I also got tired of arguing with Cane Caldo all the time.

    I’ve argued with Bob Seidensticker (who debated William Lane Craig, so he’s not a nobody). That was an incredibly frustrating experience.

    Twitter is a cesspool. It’s difficult to find even one person for skillful debate. I’ve been blocked or unfollowed more often than found quality debate.

    There have been very few places where I’ve managed to find quality rational debate. Deep Strength and Lexet are both quality opponents. I frequent the comment sections of their blogs (as I do this one). There are many skillful bloggers that I mostly agree with, but people you agree with don’t make good opponents.

  10. “Well on the other side of that I don’t know why a Christian like jason would contemplate suicide…given that God is the one who gave us life and as such is the one who has the right to take it back on His time…I mean don’t listen to those demons trying to paint a false narrative about how your life is.”

    I must assume from this comment that you’ve never hurt that badly. Being Christian does not shield one from despair. As I understand it, Jason prays hours a day. This tells me he is hurting badly and God is the only reason he is still with us. I’ve been there. I know what that is like. It’s been more than two decades since I was in that situation, but I can still remember that emotional intensity as if it were yesterday. I fought through it because I’m a fighter, but not everyone is. Some lose the battle.

    “Besides what are anons on the internet going to say to convince him to not do it? “

    We’ll have to agree to disagree. Jason has a lot of anonymous people on the internet praying for him. He’s a real person and real people are concerned for him.

    He deleted his blog in response to a bunch of ignorant stupid comments by the typical Dalrockians. For better or worse, those anons on the internet do have an effect.

  11. Thanks Derek .. that was depressing.

    Sharkly and RPL (even though BillyS in his self-absorbed way) tried to talk him off a ledge ..

    but it seems like Jason has entered the final stage(s) (of life with us) .. and other than professional help .. I don’t know what we could do.

    Thoughts?

  12. From my perspective ..

    Jason needs a life-line .. he’s sinking fast.

  13. Being Christian does not shield one from despair.

    No, but the very things he’s doing like getting into fights and commenting about his despair are not helping either. Having faith and hope in the Lord is the shield from despair…not focusing inwardly at your demons and trying to fight them alone all the time.

    I too was in a dark place…maybe not to the level of Jason with drug addiction…but with my own personal sins. Focusing on one’s self all the time didn’t make the matter better…it was daily prayer and focusing on Christ that brought hope.

  14. There’s too many quality posts from everyone in here for me to reply to, honeycomb, Derek, even Earl, who I’ve battled before, but we all agree on the essentials

    If Jason kills himself, that’s on Dalrock’s head, like I’ve identified before Dalrock is a coward hiding behind the strictest moderation that ive ever seen, and he is supported by a pack of rabid dogs like Cane Caldo and others which has turned his site into a closed off almost cultic community and when others try to debate him, he closes rank and starts the ban hammer
    Bnonn is completely destroying Dalrock in this latest fiasco and I notice somebody called Warthog is defeating him as well…. It’s only a matter of time before they get blocked and banned though

    Warthog rightly argues the point, which Dalrock stubbornly refuses to see, that husbands have got the backing of scripture to enforce corporal punishment on a disobedient rebellious wife. Since feminism and the State with its gynocentric laws have emasculated men and taken away the authority of a husband, what good is it for him to insist that a wife should be in subjection and submit to his authority if it can’t be enforced by disciplining your wife? It’s empty authority at best which is why a wife does whatever the hell she wants to do in a marriage because she has the entire backing of the legal system and 99% of all churches to rebel against her husband

    Unless things change, I would go so far as to say that a man who gets married, is actually sinning, because he’s entering into a contract where his entire male authority and rightful headship over the woman is stripped away from him and he is to be subservient to his wife and obey her
    This not only destroys a man’s soul but it also enables a continual resentment and hatred of God’s authority by the wife
    This evil, despicable state of affairs is why God is ready to spew the laodicean church out of his mouth
    When women rule, as they do now, the land itself mourns and society is destroyed

  15. Since feminism and the State with its gynocentric laws have emasculated men and taken away the authority of a husband, what good is it for him to insist that a wife should be in subjection and submit to his authority if it can’t be enforced by disciplining your wife?

    Personally…the Masonic state marital laws are Satanic in nature to purposely invert marriage so that the woman is in authority and the husband is subject to her. However that is not how God created marriage to be…with the Scriptural backing as how marriage was created. Christ the head and the church the body that submits to Christ (per St. Paul) is THE model that marriage is.

    The commentators at Dalrock (and I’ll admit I was one of them before really digging into the Word) only see marriage as the state/churchian type and that’s all it’ll ever be. So rather than just saying the solution is right there in Scripture…here’s another article we can dissect where a churchian/secular guy says the woman is the head of the marriage.

  16. FIFY ..

    and he is supported by a pack of rabid dogs like Cane Caldo and others which has turned his site into a closed off almost cultic community

  17. Welcome to the age of post-truth! We’ve already decided what to believe, and we only entertain arguments that support our preconclusions!

  18. Not to disagree how much guilt they would bare .. but with the below case law .. we now have a perch to view the future ..

    And more importantly ..

    https://www.nbc-2.com/story/39923013/court-upholds-conviction-of-woman-who-coerced-boyfriend-into-killing-himself

    I believe “a duty to act” is the center piece to amount legal guilt they have in any actions Jason takes.

    That said ..

    It’s the non-legal position that troubles me .. how hard a heart do you or must you have to treat a man this way .. forget how disrespectful it is .. this is a direct reflection of their hardened hearts.

  19. Dear Fellas:

    Please see below…

    Yup you’re so right but even though Dalrock is making an ass of himself he still wins because he exercises the ban hammer when the conversation starts to go against him.

    Dalrock can not win against Bnonn, because Bnonn has his own platform from which to analyze the androsphere.

    As an aside, I’d really encourage all you Christian guys to go read Bnonn’s blog. He’s a very clever thinker and a skillful writer. You probably won’t agree with everything he says, but he’s just as entertaining as Dalrock and far more thoughtful.

    Where does a person find skillful opponents?

    More skillful than Cane Caldo? Pretty much anywhere.

    Back in the day, I had very productive arguments about race with both Weev and Richard Spencer. Neither of those guys were idiots, and they both argued very effectively. It’s more difficult to do this now that twitter has banned us all.

    I could have debated some random drooler offa the Stormfront board, and it would have been a completely meaningless waste of time. That’s basically what Bnonn is doing, when he takes apart Cane Caldo — a dullard who uses ten-dollar words he doesn’t understand, and makes laughably invalid arguments in his posts.

    Perhaps Bnonn is just wasting time with Dalrock and Cane for his own amusement. I can’t claim to have never done this myself, but the fact remains that such exchanges are pretty much worthless.

  20. “As an aside, I’d really encourage all you Christian guys to go read Bnonn’s blog. He’s a very clever thinker and a skillful writer. You probably won’t agree with everything he says, but he’s just as entertaining as Dalrock and far more thoughtful.”

    He does have legitimate insights, a recent example being Deborah’s status as a Judge being a mark of shame upon Israel rather than a license to disobey. It has the side effect of highlight how Leftoids don’t have the disgust reflex.

    But he’s not an ally until he takes a stand against the gynocentric status quo. Good Bible studies are a dime a dozen; theologians who listen to what they preach at others, exceedingly rare.

  21. he’s not an ally until he takes a stand against the gynocentric status quo.

    This sort of purity spiraling is de rigueur on Dalrock’s comment section, but we require examples in this post code. I read several of his articles yesterday. I found no evidence of feminist alliance in any of them. Can you post a quick link to Bnonn’s latest concession?

    Good Bible studies are a dime a dozen; theologians who listen to what they preach at others, exceedingly rare.

    I don’t think good exegesis is common at all. Most of the Christian priests (and Jewish ones too, come to think of it) are hopelessly trapped in feminist ideology, making all their advice bad. It might be that my standards are too high, but when I want sound analysis, I have to seek out an old believer (as in, post seventy years old) — or youtube some ancient shit that was out of fashion before I was born.

  22. @Earl

    Never thought I would see myself agreeing with you Earl, lol, but what you just said is 100% truth
    Dalrock and his commentators ONLY see marriage as a State sanctioned institution, i.e if you don’t get married in a church, or a formal ceremony with a marriage certificate /license and exchange vows with your wife, then you’re not truly married.
    Dalrock couldn’t prove that is God’s true model of marriage if he staid up all night, with a 20,000 watt bulb
    Both me, Artisanal Toad, and others have completely debunked the State’s idea of marriage in various blogs and social media platforms, but Dalrock and his minions stubbornly refuse to admit the State’s model of marriage is NOT supported in scripture

    Thank you Earl, I do appreciate your input on what constitutes marriage in Boxer’s blog

    A big shout out to Derek, honeycomb, as well, I love reading all you guy’s comments

  23. Derek Ramsey,

    “Quite a few bloggers recently have called him out.”

    That’s news to me. I’d like to see it. Please provide blog names.

  24. Yes, much of the response on Dalrock to seventiesjason‘s comments is inexcusable. I would like to help him, but I have no idea how to do so. When I asked two simple questions, he did not respond. Maybe he didn’t see them, maybe he did. I don’t know.

  25. I don’t understand the perceived issues with Bnonn. For many at Dalrock, it seems that his failure to be in perfect agreement with their own understanding makes him a pariah. On that particular basis, I’d say they ought to dislike almost every other commenter there, because I am reasonably certain none of them agree on absolutely everything.

    I find Bnonn to be quite intelligent, a decent writer, and relatively patriarchal. A rare combination. On the whole, I expect he could beat anyone at Dalrock in debate while hardly breaking a sweat.

  26. @Gunner Q

    Sorry Gunner, I forgot to include you in my shout-out as well, your comments are an inspiration for me as well
    And of course our host here Boxer as well

  27. Never thought I would see myself agreeing with you Earl, lol

    We only disagree about one thing.

    I’m not stupid enough to say the state model of marriage is not corrupt. I think it was purposely put that way…even other countries that have similar no fault laws the divorce rate skyrockets because women get out of marriage.

  28. @OKRickety

    I apologize for my lack of precision. I was careless and overzealous in stating my opinion. Please allow me to restate my case.

    Dalrock engages in censorship to control criticism. Brother Necron has highlighted comment moderation and bans. It is much less known that Dalrock also controls the narrative through pingback handling. He selects what he allows and does not allow. He sees the criticism and censors accordingly.

    Dalrock’s response to criticism appears to have changed. I can’t readily recall a time when he has been on the defensive like this.* As Boxer pointed out, if Dalrock wanted to debate, why hasn’t he picked out more skillful opponents in the past? Normally he picked easy opponents, like Pastor Wilson, people who won’t know he is blogging about them (and thus won’t respond), or non-bloggers. In most cases he can control the narrative.

    Dalrock agreed to the Warhorn Media interview, but I suspect that they were going to discuss him with or without his input. It’s out of his control, but he’s trying hard to front-run the discussion by covering it on his blog in advance of the podcast. Bnonn, as Boxer has pointed out, has him on the defensive. Brother Jason recently touched a nerve. Brother Necron and I have called him out on our respective blogs, with interestingly different results.

    I find this interesting and worth noting. I don’t completely know what to make of it.

    * I do recall when he was criticized by AT and wrote a long post in response. The result? Banning AT.

  29. “Can you post a quick link to Bnonn’s latest concession?”

    His second most recent post is on whether Christians should attend church.

    https://bnonn.com/qa-why-should-christians-attend-church/

    “At the most basic level, the response to “I don’t fit in” is: so what? It misses the point because it’s not about you. Do not be conformed to the Western individualist self-serving mindset, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, presenting yourself as a living sacrifice which is holy and pleasing to God.”

    The purpose of churches is for the leadership to support the people, not the other way around. Christ discussed this in Mark 10:42-45: “Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    I attended church religiously (no pun) until my mid-thirties. Never in all that time, in any denomination, did any church give the first care about my welfare. No help in getting work, less than no help in attracting a wife, no opportunity to hone my skills other than attending Bible studies.

    “At a more pragmatic level, my [Bnonn’s] response would also be: have you tried to actually serve the church? Maybe the reason you don’t fit in is because you expect others to do the work of fitting you in for you, instead of taking some initiative. Have you looked for real ways to proactively offer yourself in the service of others? There aren’t that many people who do this, so the chances are that if you offer, there will be genuine interest and appreciation. And who cares if it’s a menial task; can you do it?”

    I did all that. I did menial labor such as washing dishes and running the auditorium projector, which became a running joke for me because so many churches offered that “service option”. I was given no reward and no possibility for advancement. Understand, I do highly technical and legal work that few others can, and I do it well enough to have accrued such trust that one screwup could cost my company millions of dollars in damages. I also train & manage people and advise on hiring to the owner. I have much to offer any organization.

    But the church wants none of that. I’m an experienced leader… never an opening in leadership. I’m a skilled and knowledgeable theologian who is comfortable with public speaking… never a chance to teach. I’ve learned a lot about politics and discerning evil… anathema to the daily Church routine! But folks like Bnonn helpfully suggest that maybe I’m too arrogant to do the menial labor that’s already being done by the 70-IQ kid who never learned to count to 10 because he was born with only eight fingers.

    The reason I now demand a seat at the leadership table is because that’s the only way I can meaningfully contribute to the Church. There’s plenty of old folks and schoolkids to wash the freakin’ dishes. They don’t need a highly skilled veteran of the trenches to run a slide projector. The Bible even discusses “spiritual gifts” of leadership, administration, teaching, wisdom and discernment. Manual labor and babysitting should not be the go-to answers for how to help.

    Bnonn was asked why Christians should attend church and he replied with a few relevant Bible quotes. That’s great. But the truth is, we Christians whose lives aren’t complete messes don’t feel welcome at church because we aren’t welcome and the pastor sees the more competent among us as a threat to his position. The Church is not relevant to the lives of its members and instead of admitting that maybe it should be, Bnonn responded that we should be willing to do menial labor for Jesus.

    I was once that ignorant. I can sympathize with men like Bnonn, who enjoy the academics so much that we miss the power plays and exclusions. But waking up is hard. I didn’t wake up until I got tired of sitting through the academics and wanted to start passing on what I’d learned. Nothing major, maybe a Bible study on the side with weekly topics for the interested to debate. Wow, even the suggestion of that was educational!

    Until Bnonn takes that step himself and feels a little ambition, swims a little against the currents of modernity, he’s not going to realize what a chump he’s being even if he can quote the Bible in-context. That’s the kind of thing I meant by “stand against the gynocentric status quo”.

    Why do I no longer go to church? Because the church doesn’t want me when I go and doesn’t miss me when I leave. Nobody can quote enough Bible at me to change that because the problem is not on my side.

  30. If you’re what the Rational Male website would call an AFC, you just hope to better your personal position, and maybe assist men near to you, by use of the information and perspectives gained from reading in the men’s sphere. In that respect I have not yet arrived at the point that I can declare for some and reject others. I owe too much to too many bloggers and commenters from across the spectrum.

    There are commenters in this very thread that have taught me valuable lessons, on brother Boxer’s blog and other locations, that I’ve both internalized and passed along to younger men.

    I’m a fanboy of the men’s sphere bloggers generally speaking. Perhaps I lack discernment, but I certainly do appreciate their efforts. Even the ones that are at loggerheads with one another.

  31. Gunner Q,
    I agree with you. The Great Whore is made up of a myriad of false churches. We’ve all been to them and witnessed the emptiness of their talk. I try to sharpen and be sharpened online and in person as I go about my day.

    greensideout,
    Good comment, I also like many different sites. Maybe it is cognitive dissonance, but I can enjoy both Dalrock’s and Boxer’s Blogs, even if they’re not getting along right now.

    honeycomb,
    Yes, I was trying to encourage Jason. It is hard to know exactly how to deal with him. He seems to have a natural inclination to find offense in the writing of others and to take it personally. Then he lashes back. I’m sure there was a lifetime of personal experience that lead up to this point, but right now, some of his reactions feed the conflicts that hurt him. so I’m not sure there is any “safe” place for him to be on the internet if he is actually suicidal. There too, I’m never sure. I’ve heard of some in-laws of in-laws who routinely threaten suicide for attention, pity, and even just to win arguments, by shutting down debate against them. But since I don’t know Jason, I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, while also not being too “rewarding” of his seeming suicidal threats and despondency. Hopefully I struck a decent balance. And I do sometimes pray for folks, that they will receive my comments in the right spirit. Words are so easy to twist, if you want to twist ’em. Hopefully I never come onto the internet just to piss in other folks cornflakes. If I’m not helping, then I’m wasting my time, because I intend to help during the time I spend commenting online.

    Yeah, some folks on Dalrock’s site can get into tearing down those who should be our allies. Although I may use some harsh language myself, I try to influence them, and not only insult them for what we disagree on. For instance, I hope to have an influence on Bnonn, when I disagree with him, I’m not trying to make an enemy of him, but a closer ally, by debating and hopefully we will both move closer to the other’s position. Seriously, I’m a big tent guy when it comes to the patriarchal revolution I’d love to see. If we don’t get the majority of the influential people on board, we are missing out on a lot of traction we could have. I’m actually happy Bnonn has a new site up, and is putting his ideas out for all to read, I’d just like to influence him a little more towards what I believe to be some Red Pill truths. Sometimes it isn’t even a matter of disagreement of beliefs, as it is a matter of emphasis. Bnonn still seems to have “Smokey the Magnificent” and the other women in his life up on a pedestal. Which I understand, because I was once that way too with any woman who hadn’t yet shat on me. But, I got to see the evil underbelly of the beast, and I’m not even through the grinder yet.
    Fundamentally Bnonn still sees women as being in the image of his god. Perhaps it is only natural because he is worshipping the Great Whore, holding to many teachings of the apostate church. When he effeminizes the Father, by forcing His image onto women, he is blasphemous, just like Ariana Grande singing “God is a Woman”. Once “Smokey the Magnificent” is stripped of the image and glory of God, and becomes just the glory of Bnonn, then her position beneath Bnonn’s pedestal , and her resulting reverence for his allotment of divine glory, will seem only natural and right to Bnonn.(1 Corinthians 11:7)

  32. Fundamentally Bnonn still sees women as being in the image of his god.

    Again, you guys need to post some evidence of these charges if you’re going to make them on this blog. I don’t tolerate Dalrock/Cane Caldo obfuscation, where we label our opponents trannies and pedophiles when we lose arguments with them.

    https://v5k2c2.com/2017/03/24/boxer-his-stable-of-kooks/

    If Bnonn is a feminist, I’m sure it’ll be easy to convince me with a link and a quote.

    Gunner’s source was not convincing, by the way. The fact that Bnonn has some opinions on Christian praxis (i.e. “gathering together in Jesus’ name”) doesn’t make him a servant of Gloria Steinem.

    I am totally open to the possibility that I’ve missed something in Bnonn’s corpus. I spent a little over an hour there, yesterday, and that was it; but in that time, I saw nothing more than him wiping the floor with Dalrock and Cane Caldo (and pretty handily, too) while making salient points and being supportive of my Christian brothers.

    Dalrock is getting his ass kicked by Bnonn on a regular basis. That doesn’t make Bnonn a feminist, and labeling him one doesn’t detract from his reduction of the supposed “great leaders of the manosphere” to the level of laughingstocks. (I think it’s pretty laughable, anyway.)

  33. First Gunner wrote (about Bnonn):

    he’s not an ally until he takes a stand against the gynocentric status quo.

    Then I asked:

    This sort of purity spiraling is de rigueur on Dalrock’s comment section, but we require examples in this post code. I read several of his articles yesterday. I found no evidence of feminist alliance in any of them. Can you post a quick link to Bnonn’s latest concession?

    Gunner responded:

    His second most recent post is on whether Christians should attend church.

    I read the link you posted. I didn’t see any evidence of allegiance to feminism.

    It may be that you apply some unstated first principle, like all Christian churches are feminist. In that case, I’ll disagree, but respect your position and won’t pretend to argue against it (I’m a student of Christianity, but not a Christian, after all.)

    In any case, what I read on the Bnonn blog seems to be decidedly antifeminist. The fact that you disagree with him on interpreting the scriptures doesn’t change that. If I’m wrong, post a link and a quote to something explicit.

  34. “…something explicit…”

    I took the opportunity to read a little bit on Bnonn’s site. It is good reading. Gunner Q, IMO, has taken the church attendance requirement completely out of context.

    Bnonn’s whole premise is that Jesus taught the Kingdom of God (which is true) and that the average evangelical Christian doesn’t know what the Kingdom of God is (which is also true). Jesus came to bring a public, global, eternal, earthly kingdom ruled by him. It would fully commence upon his second coming, but must first be built up by his followers making more followers. Kingdoms cannot exist in individual isolation (this would be contradictory), so it is essential that the body of believers be joined together under Jesus’ kingship. This is what the Bible calls church or congregation.

    “I didn’t see any evidence of allegiance to feminism.”

    Church is not about whether you get to serve doing this or that, because it’s not about you and your needs. It is not about whether the church is preaching patriarchy and against feminism, per se. It is whether or not we are getting on with the primary task of the Great Commission. The rest of the details are not unimportant, but they are secondary.

    In essence, Bnonn has a different focus, a different emphasis. That doesn’t make him wrong.

  35. @Sharkly

    Your evidence does not support the charge of apostasy.

    “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

    The argument can be described formally:

    1) God created Male and Female
    2) God called them ‘Adam’
    3) By #1 and #2, ‘them’ is the plural male and female
    4) ‘adam’ is singular, masculine
    5) By #3 and #4, the plural male and female is represented/named by the singular masculine ‘adam’.
    6) ‘Adam’ (often translated ‘man’ in English) in Hebrew is a singular, collective noun (like ‘mankind’ in English). To wit:

    “And God said, Let us make man in our image…In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him”

    7) By #6, ‘adam’ (singular, masculine, collective noun) is made in the image of God
    8) By #5 and #7, both female and male are made in the image of God.

  36. Dear Sharkly:

    Thanks for posting that article. I read it, and all the attached comments, carefully.

    While I can’t say if you have a better handle of your religious text than Bnonn, I pride myself on being a misogynist, and see nothing that gives the impression that Bnonn is a feminist.

    More generally, the temptation to which Dalrock and Cane Caldo often succumb, to libel one’s ideological opponents with phony charges, isn’t effective rhetorically. It makes the accuser sound silly. It’s possible for men, operating in good faith, to disagree about a complicated text, and arguing over the subject has the potential to open up a clearing for further discussion.

    Boxer

  37. I was banned at Dalrocks blog before getting banned by Dalrock was cool.

    Naturally I don’t follow that blog for obvious reasons, so it was interesting to see this little kerfuffle aired here. The chickens slowly but surely seem to be coming home to roost for Dalrock and his feminist agenda.

  38. My friend Boxer,
    I pride myself on being a misogynist, and see nothing that gives the impression that Bnonn is a feminist.

    I don’t think he is a feminist either. Nor do I think you or I are feminists. However our culture is now so saturated with feminist views and laid on feminist foundations, that we often don’t realize the parts of feminism we believe until we are delivered from belief in them. I never realized how Blue Pill I had been trained to be, until I got Red Pilled the hard way. I’m sure that even now I still unknowingly hold some feminist delusions I have been taught since childhood, however, I’d like to continue to root them out and replace them with the truth.
    I don’t know if somewhere I directly called Bnonn a feminist, but I doubt it. That would tend to alienate him from listening to me. I’m much more likely to have pointed out that he had a more feminist particular belief than I, so as to alienate him from that more feminist belief. If I make charges against someone, and sometimes I do, and sometimes I even go over the top, it is to goad them into reconsidering. A very rational man will usually self asses the merit of an accusation before responding, and acknowledge internally where it might be true. Often during this moment of introspection is when they are most likely to consider changing opinions.

  39. Dear Derek Ramsey,

    I am Sorry that I am missing your point. I’m not really getting where your numbering is coming from, so I can’t respond directly.
    Yes, the word “adam” is tricky since it has more than one usage. Just like the English words “man” and “mankind” have multiple meanings. Some folks forget that “mankind” is also the opposite of womankind. Which is why the other side of the argument should at least acknowledge that Genesis never makes it clear that women are in the image of God. It is only there, if you really want to find it that way. You also have to believe that God is intentionally a bit carelessly vague in His writing to believe He is trying to explain that both men and women are in His image. And you also have to believe that The Apostle Paul was wrong in 1 Corinthians 11:7, or at least incredibly misleading.

    Much of this was argued previously at:
    https://bnonn.com/are-women-made-in-the-image-of-god/

    In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female were not created on the same day, by the way. There was at the minimum at least a Sabbath day in between their creation, if not longer. The phrase “the eighth day” often used signifying the creation of Eve, and womankind, is as much a guess as saying Jesus was born on December 25th.

    I’ll tell you of my mental enlightenment into the exclusivity of the image of God onto males: I had recently been thrust into the divorce machine, falsely accused of sexual addiction to the point of being a danger to my children, in order to steal them completely from me for about nine months until I was able to get that doubly disproven. I had come to see my wife acting evilly and awfully against me for only delusional reasons. There was no just cause for her to mistreat me, and the children. I found the Red Pill while seeking out solutions. And, I was at a point where I was open to realizing that what I had been taught to the contrary was Satanic Feminist lies. I prayed incessantly for wisdom Like the Book of James recommends, and also for insight, discernment, and discretion, to lead my wife aright. Then one day while reading Genesis 1:27 I suddenly saw that it was a legally correct product description.
    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Firstly we are told doubly that “adam” was created in God’s image, and then we are told that God created both sexes, specifically omitting mention of that being done in His image. A poetic contrast. I’ll give an example of a product description:
    At ‘My Size’ we are the makers of the world’s largest condom, for the biggest condoms in the world, buy our ‘My Size’ 69; we make absolutely every size available, here at ‘My Size’.
    So are all their sizes the world’s largest, or just the one size?

    Anyhow, once I got to thinking about it and trying to see if there were other texts that talked about the image of God. There were, and all of them, whether originally in Aramaic or Greek, only ever talked about men as being in the image of God. And 1 Corinthians 11:7 makes it clear to all but the most resistant minds that women are not. Also I found that this is the original interpretation of the early church fathers, and that the idea that women might also be in God’s image is a later “discovery” introduced perhaps to bolster the deifying of Mary, and Etc., when that was gaining traction in some churches.
    My contention is that the image of God is foundational to whether male and female are either equal or not. And if They are equal, and women are being held down by God and His patriarchal religion, then there is a lot of explaining needed for God’s unnatural treatment of women as a lower creature. However if you understand that men alone are gifted with the image of God and that women were created later as a second class of human without the divine attributes, a lesser vessel more prone to sins of negligence and usurping from their own place and duty, then it is only right and sensible that they not be artificially treated equally or given any authority over men, and should remain always in humble silence when the churches gather with heads veiled in the presence of God and His holy angels, and etc.
    If you understand the foundation, the rest builds on it.
    If you have the wrong foundation, the whole of it becomes tricky and needs a clever minded man, like Bnonn, to even begin to explain all the seeming inconsistencies that arise from the fouling foundation of separate but equal in the image of God, yet inexplicably getting the lesser half of “equal” every time things get assigned.

    Ephesians 5 images marriage as the similitude of Christ and the church. With the husband in the image of the divine Christ the last Adam, and the wife in the image of the church. I ask again, which one is in the image of God?
    Women have ceremonial uncleanness designed into them. That ain’t equal! Nor godlike. I’ve never wanted a bloody time of the month for myself, like girls envy having a penis. Truly things are not equal, because they were never intended to be. The woman was created for “the man”(adam). To be a helper, not an equal. A different vessel, a second lesser vessel, made last of all. If you are ashamed of that, you’re ashamed of God’s doings, because you have been deceived to believe the woman is equal and thus deserves more equal treatment from an unloving God. When she is in fact not the image or glory of God, and should always reverence that about her husband, no matter what else about him may be above or below the average man. Men all being gods above all women, is the correct answer to hypergamy. If women were trained from birth that men are the only permissible images graven in the image of God and bestowed with a portion of His glory to be idolized and subject to in every thing as unto the lord, they could then show all men respect, and not just the most desirable top 10%. But y’all can feed their hypergamy a dose of ‘equally in the image of God’ and then wonder why even the fatties only desire a man who is exceptional in some other way. You fools! You left go of the divine truth that all men are exceptionally glorified above all women, and that every woman marries-up in God’s world! No need to even consider becoming unhaaaapy ladies. You can be certain, until death do you part, that your husband is a god, and that you married an exalted creature higher than yourself, and all of womankind. You are fortunate he condescended to unite with such an entirely carnal creature as yourself.

  40. “Dalrock agreed to the Warhorn Media interview, but I suspect that they were going to discuss him with or without his input. It’s out of his control, but he’s trying hard to front-run the discussion by covering it on his blog in advance of the podcast.”

    Dalrock just posted the following: Warhorn responds. Responds. To make reply. Warhorn sought out Dalrock for an interview for their podcast. They did not set out to “respond” to Dalrock. What ego that man has to make it all about him. Apparently they declined to give Dalrock the maximum attention he craved. So apparently all Dalrock’s arguments are pure gold because they refused to engage.

  41. Dalrock, being anonymous, has no authority. He needs others to give him legitimacy since he has none intrinsically. Dalrock needs Warhorn. By contrast, Warhorn doesn’t need validation from Dalrock. It has its own authority and it does not need to share it with Dalrock. Why should anyone give some random nobody on the internet their valuable attention?

    Frequently people refuse to engage with Dalrock. He issues open challenges and gets silence back. He expresses his frustration, but covers it by declaring victory (though this is logically fallacious) No one has a duty to engage him. Dalrock is sealioning. He calls foul when people refuse to engage him in argument. Well too bad, nobody owes you anything.

Comments are closed.