As you said, young men as a whole are not being taught how to assess the young women in their lives.
There is a wealth of warnings in the Proverbs for men about certain types of women to avoid, but it's a sad reality that I never once heard a sermon or a lesson on any of those passages.
I saw a little bit of attention drawn to Proverbs 31 as "an example of what women should be and an example of what men should look for in a woman", but that was only ever in passing and I don't recall ever hearing an in-depth sermon about it in any of the churches that I've been a part of.
It's also sad that I often got the impression that the underlying cause of why a preacher was trying to build up young men was because he was concerned that there wouldn't be any "good men" for the young women to marry.
That's one thing I've always appreciated about you Paul: I've always felt like you had men's best interests at heart, and that you cared for them simply for their own sake and not for the sake of ultimately somehow benefiting women.
Thanks for this particular talk Paul. It’s come for myself at a good time in my journey.
When I started down this path, I simply didn’t believe what I was hearing about female nature. In fact, I found a lot of the talks and videos, somewhat offensive and harsh.
But with the new reference model, I did some field testing, and eventually , reluctantly , had to concede the truth
Then came the process of digesting all the data, like who values family by filing for divorce.
Who blatantly, abuses, alienates and traumatizes their own children, divorced or otherwise.
Who’s default, daily behavior is to chip away at, using shame and belittlement, the one person who sacrifices and works tirelessly for their benefit - in order to maintain control of that person to do their bidding.
One moment, I will never forget, is when imposing and communicating red pill boundaries upon the women in my life, I got a reaction that both shocked and frightened me.
“He knows”
It was broadcast all over their facial expression, and for some of them, the dynamic of our relationship changed drastically
It it’s a shame to be sure , what a fucking waste, but I guess that is what is meant by a fallen world
I’ll focus on the helper part, but this closes the book for me and I’m gonna take this opportunity to move forward into a very sweet season
For the 3rd time, tears in my eyes. Beautiful tears. Magnificent poetic beauty in the way you 'rescue' the truth from 'script contamination' The melodic/rhythmic cadence to your delivery, your wisdom and charismatic presentations are of the highest order. If BOYS had a brother, teacher, Father, Pastor, like you, the world would be in a better place. >Gyno-centrism not a problem in the Catholic church? Is that why they turned Mary into God's mother?
Joe, valid points, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. If Jesus is God, and the mother of Jesus is Mary, then Mary is the Mother of God. It’s basic logic. It is not because it had to be this way, but because Jesus chose to be fully human and to have a mother. The relationship is not one of parasite/host. It is mother/son. If you don’t like this, you might want to complain to God, not the Catholic Church.
As Christ was the “second Adam” who undid the disobedience of Adam, Mary is the “second Eve”, who undid the disobedience of Eve. As Christ is the King of Heaven, Mary is its queen, just as the “queen mother” was the queen in the Davidic Kingdom (the queen was not one of the many wives of a Davidic king), as is clear from scripture that the Ark of the Covenant prefigured her:
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen THE ARK OF HIS COVENANT. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm. A great sign appeared in heaven: A WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN, with the moon under her feet AND A CROWN OF TWELVE STARS ON HER HEAD. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.. . .She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. Rev. 11:19 - 12:2, 12:5.
If the child is Christ, then the woman that gave birth to Christ is Mary, and that woman bears a crown, then the woman bearing the crown is a queen; the Queen of Heaven.
She is the complete opposite of a feminist and the complete opposite of a modern woman. She is the model of humility and obedience, even to the point of willing the torture and death of her only son for the sake of the human race at the cross. If God is our father by adoption, and Jesus is our brother by adoption, then Mary is our mother by adoption.
By all means denigrate modern women. They deserve it. But don’t denigrate the Mother of God.
We're free to disagree. Mary was most certainly NOT the mother of God. And Jesus was NEVER fully human. Jesus was God incarnate, God in a human form. Jesus was God among us. God in a human tent. Mary was indeed a unicorn, but NOT the mother of God. Mary was the mother of Jesus, (God in a human form) but NOT God's mother. God doesn't have a mother or Father; God IS the Father & mother. Also, Mary & Joseph resumed 'normal' relations' after Jesus was born and they had another child named John. Mary was a virgin when God impregnated her, but she did NOT stay a virgin. Jesus had a HALF BROTHER named John.
I must say Mr. Elam, I'm really liking this Christian/red pill fusion! It's such a natural, obvious fit, and you are just the man to pull them together! Thanks!
As an aside I looked this guy up. Hes located in Florida close to Orlando. He’s one of those ministers that has his wife as a “co-pastor” which is becoming typical. Seems he forgot about the verse that women are to remain silent in church. I know I’m throwing stones as a Catholic, since Vatican 2 women were permitted to read scripture as lectors, which goes against that verse, although Vatican 2 allowed nothing of the sort. Trad Catholics don’t allow this, which is a big reason the pope hates us.
Paul, being a Catholic, this was hard for me to hear, but you are spot on. I’m 55. I’ve been going to Mass regularly since I was about 10 years old. So in 45 years, with typical weekly Mass attendance, 45 yrs. X 52 weeks/yr is at least 2,340 Masses (not including “holy days of obligation”, daily masses which I still occasionally attend, but minus the occasional missed Mass due to illness), that equates to at least 2,340 Masses. I don’t recall (possible it happened but I don’t remember) the priest ever preaching on the obligations of wives, about bad women, or the traps for men today (or even the pitfalls for women and girls). You are certainly correct in your observations. Gynocentrism is alive and well, even in the Catholic Church. The only relatively minor exception are the “Traditional Catholic”, that is, Latin Mass, communities. Although small, these communities are SUPPOSED to hold to the traditional Catholic faith as taught before Vatican II, and they largely do, but I don’t think we see a significant pushback against gynocentrism even there. Tim Gordon is one of these “Trad Catholic” as am I. I don’t know if Wilson is. Here is a sampling from Fr. Chad Ripperber, Traditional Catholic priest, which is an exception to the rule in “novus ordo” parishes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e7slbAugBQ
Mr. Wilson was obviously attempting a cope. But I’d like to explain in fuller detail the point I think he may have been trying to make, then give further explanation why he is wrong, and give further commentary.
Wilson may have meant that there is not a gynocentrism problem in the Catholic/Latin Church in countries like the Philippines, Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Wilson may be right. But if these regions don’t have a gynocentrism problem (or its lessened there), I don’t think it’s primarily due to the influence of the Catholic Church. It’s primarily due to those cultures being naturally more conservative. This is obvious, because the Catholic Church in the West is infected by gynocentrism, the difference is explained almost solely by culture and nationality, not the Catholic Church.
With all that said, he does tangentially address a point, although inexplicitly. The Protestant revolt was arguably the most consequential liberal movement of the last 500 years. Borne out of the Enlightenment, it produced the view of personal autonomy in religious matters. If one can interpret the Bible alone and without the need of any teaching authority, that is, the Church, that outlook is essentially liberal, and dare I say, revolutionary. All liberal movements build on prior liberal movements. So religious revolution produced revolutions against sovereign kings. Which produced liberal social movements and trends like capitalism (unfettered economic exchange) communism, feminism, universal sufferage, porn, and no fault divorce. So if he is arguing that the Catholic Church is not the historical SOURCE of the gynocentrism problem, then point scored for him. He is correct. But practically speaking, and where the rubber meets the road, the Catholic Church (in the West at least) is no less infected by gynocentrism, owing largely to the influence of the culture in the West in which the Catholic Church is situated. For example, the phenomenon of annulments in the Catholic Church is primarily a western thing, owing primarily to civil divorce in the West which annulments are mostly a reaction to.
Another reason he is wrong, or why he does not explicitly state his assumptions: For a church to enforce marriage according to this view (which I support), YOU CAN HAVE ONLY ONE CHURCH. If “the church” were to enforce marital affairs, and my church doesn’t give me what I want, then I just migrate to a different church. This was essentially what caused the Protestant revolt in the English-speaking world. Henry VIII, because the Pope would not grant him an annulment/divorce, declared himself the head of the church in England. A compelling argument could be made that if it were not for this move by Henry, the Protestant revolt would have been confined in the West to the backwater areas of northern Germany, Sweden and Norway. It was Henry’s entry onto the Protestant side that sealed the English-speaking world for - and the ultimate spread of - Protestantism. Anyway, the point is that for his view to be effective (which I wish for), you can have only one church as the enforcer. This was the case in all of Christendom for roughly 1,100 years; from Constantine to Henry VIII. The One Church was the conscience of the state and an indispensable part of the Christian Social Order, as the soul is indispensable to the body of a man. It is possible that it can happen again, after The Chastisement, but that is what is necessary for this vision to come to fruition, and Wilson does not connect the dots for the viewer.
The Catholic Church is the source of authentic Christian doctrine. Note that few traditional Catholic teachings are being taught from the pulpit in Catholic churches. The faithful are woefully under catechized, and the gynocentrism problem is part of this larger problem of general apostasy (prophesied by St. Paul in scripture, referred to as the “Great Apostasy” which many Christians, not just traditional Catholics, believe we are living through right now).
However, I don’t believe the Catholic Church is naturally gynocentric. It’s not part of it’s DNA. It is the way it is due to the corruption of Western culture surrounding it and failure of Catholics to influence said culture for the better. And so when (not if) we get to the point of a “deluge moment” (or Chastisement, as we Catholics refer to this expected future event), the Catholic Church could be the enforcement mechanism as Wilson envisions, but sadly, not a second before then.
Spoken like a TRUE disciple of Christ, Jason. Thank the Lord men like you are speaking up. There is indeed hope, as long good men refuse to deny the truth. Happy Father's Day to you!
Great talk, as always!
As you said, young men as a whole are not being taught how to assess the young women in their lives.
There is a wealth of warnings in the Proverbs for men about certain types of women to avoid, but it's a sad reality that I never once heard a sermon or a lesson on any of those passages.
I saw a little bit of attention drawn to Proverbs 31 as "an example of what women should be and an example of what men should look for in a woman", but that was only ever in passing and I don't recall ever hearing an in-depth sermon about it in any of the churches that I've been a part of.
It's also sad that I often got the impression that the underlying cause of why a preacher was trying to build up young men was because he was concerned that there wouldn't be any "good men" for the young women to marry.
That's one thing I've always appreciated about you Paul: I've always felt like you had men's best interests at heart, and that you cared for them simply for their own sake and not for the sake of ultimately somehow benefiting women.
Keep up the great work!
Kind words, good sir. Thank you.
GBS! Brilliant!
Thanks for this particular talk Paul. It’s come for myself at a good time in my journey.
When I started down this path, I simply didn’t believe what I was hearing about female nature. In fact, I found a lot of the talks and videos, somewhat offensive and harsh.
But with the new reference model, I did some field testing, and eventually , reluctantly , had to concede the truth
Then came the process of digesting all the data, like who values family by filing for divorce.
Who blatantly, abuses, alienates and traumatizes their own children, divorced or otherwise.
Who’s default, daily behavior is to chip away at, using shame and belittlement, the one person who sacrifices and works tirelessly for their benefit - in order to maintain control of that person to do their bidding.
One moment, I will never forget, is when imposing and communicating red pill boundaries upon the women in my life, I got a reaction that both shocked and frightened me.
“He knows”
It was broadcast all over their facial expression, and for some of them, the dynamic of our relationship changed drastically
It it’s a shame to be sure , what a fucking waste, but I guess that is what is meant by a fallen world
I’ll focus on the helper part, but this closes the book for me and I’m gonna take this opportunity to move forward into a very sweet season
Thanks again, man
The red pill. It ain't for sissies. But man does it ever pay off.
Good onya, mate.
For the 3rd time, tears in my eyes. Beautiful tears. Magnificent poetic beauty in the way you 'rescue' the truth from 'script contamination' The melodic/rhythmic cadence to your delivery, your wisdom and charismatic presentations are of the highest order. If BOYS had a brother, teacher, Father, Pastor, like you, the world would be in a better place. >Gyno-centrism not a problem in the Catholic church? Is that why they turned Mary into God's mother?
Joe, valid points, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. If Jesus is God, and the mother of Jesus is Mary, then Mary is the Mother of God. It’s basic logic. It is not because it had to be this way, but because Jesus chose to be fully human and to have a mother. The relationship is not one of parasite/host. It is mother/son. If you don’t like this, you might want to complain to God, not the Catholic Church.
As Christ was the “second Adam” who undid the disobedience of Adam, Mary is the “second Eve”, who undid the disobedience of Eve. As Christ is the King of Heaven, Mary is its queen, just as the “queen mother” was the queen in the Davidic Kingdom (the queen was not one of the many wives of a Davidic king), as is clear from scripture that the Ark of the Covenant prefigured her:
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen THE ARK OF HIS COVENANT. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm. A great sign appeared in heaven: A WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN, with the moon under her feet AND A CROWN OF TWELVE STARS ON HER HEAD. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.. . .She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. Rev. 11:19 - 12:2, 12:5.
If the child is Christ, then the woman that gave birth to Christ is Mary, and that woman bears a crown, then the woman bearing the crown is a queen; the Queen of Heaven.
She is the complete opposite of a feminist and the complete opposite of a modern woman. She is the model of humility and obedience, even to the point of willing the torture and death of her only son for the sake of the human race at the cross. If God is our father by adoption, and Jesus is our brother by adoption, then Mary is our mother by adoption.
By all means denigrate modern women. They deserve it. But don’t denigrate the Mother of God.
We're free to disagree. Mary was most certainly NOT the mother of God. And Jesus was NEVER fully human. Jesus was God incarnate, God in a human form. Jesus was God among us. God in a human tent. Mary was indeed a unicorn, but NOT the mother of God. Mary was the mother of Jesus, (God in a human form) but NOT God's mother. God doesn't have a mother or Father; God IS the Father & mother. Also, Mary & Joseph resumed 'normal' relations' after Jesus was born and they had another child named John. Mary was a virgin when God impregnated her, but she did NOT stay a virgin. Jesus had a HALF BROTHER named John.
I must say Mr. Elam, I'm really liking this Christian/red pill fusion! It's such a natural, obvious fit, and you are just the man to pull them together! Thanks!
Thank you! This kind of supportive comment from listeners really helps keep the juices flowing!
Now get a load of this shit. You can do a episode critiquing this trash alone: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.instagram.com%2Freel%2FC4NBo7iNrz3%2F&h=AT2ast3YuIQp90U4aXsPINIVYv6f1ZVxORf8mOa-09lg7-4xhJKx3sENPlRiO86weskUcpJj4aNH-XSLZjQVp2Wqm1bkokgwCAG6FxArAFZXj50r9BtYO5FVOe4aiYSXJpG4mDdSMv3owJIJxB7YMwYzNqY4313sjQ&s=1
Oh wow. That is just sick.
The comments of the women fawning over what this guy is teaching is just as bad.
He seems like the fresh & fit version of a trad/cuck preacher
lol he’s anything but trad. Cuck I’ll grant for sure.
When I say 'trad' I don't mean traditional, I mean FAKE traditionalists, i.e. Feigning/invoking tradition, but only imposing it on MEN.
Well ok.
As an aside I looked this guy up. Hes located in Florida close to Orlando. He’s one of those ministers that has his wife as a “co-pastor” which is becoming typical. Seems he forgot about the verse that women are to remain silent in church. I know I’m throwing stones as a Catholic, since Vatican 2 women were permitted to read scripture as lectors, which goes against that verse, although Vatican 2 allowed nothing of the sort. Trad Catholics don’t allow this, which is a big reason the pope hates us.
Andrew and Tim cosplay when they go to church.
OK … lol , “ball gag and latex suit” holy shit I almost posed myself 😂😂😂
Paul, being a Catholic, this was hard for me to hear, but you are spot on. I’m 55. I’ve been going to Mass regularly since I was about 10 years old. So in 45 years, with typical weekly Mass attendance, 45 yrs. X 52 weeks/yr is at least 2,340 Masses (not including “holy days of obligation”, daily masses which I still occasionally attend, but minus the occasional missed Mass due to illness), that equates to at least 2,340 Masses. I don’t recall (possible it happened but I don’t remember) the priest ever preaching on the obligations of wives, about bad women, or the traps for men today (or even the pitfalls for women and girls). You are certainly correct in your observations. Gynocentrism is alive and well, even in the Catholic Church. The only relatively minor exception are the “Traditional Catholic”, that is, Latin Mass, communities. Although small, these communities are SUPPOSED to hold to the traditional Catholic faith as taught before Vatican II, and they largely do, but I don’t think we see a significant pushback against gynocentrism even there. Tim Gordon is one of these “Trad Catholic” as am I. I don’t know if Wilson is. Here is a sampling from Fr. Chad Ripperber, Traditional Catholic priest, which is an exception to the rule in “novus ordo” parishes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e7slbAugBQ
Mr. Wilson was obviously attempting a cope. But I’d like to explain in fuller detail the point I think he may have been trying to make, then give further explanation why he is wrong, and give further commentary.
Wilson may have meant that there is not a gynocentrism problem in the Catholic/Latin Church in countries like the Philippines, Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Wilson may be right. But if these regions don’t have a gynocentrism problem (or its lessened there), I don’t think it’s primarily due to the influence of the Catholic Church. It’s primarily due to those cultures being naturally more conservative. This is obvious, because the Catholic Church in the West is infected by gynocentrism, the difference is explained almost solely by culture and nationality, not the Catholic Church.
With all that said, he does tangentially address a point, although inexplicitly. The Protestant revolt was arguably the most consequential liberal movement of the last 500 years. Borne out of the Enlightenment, it produced the view of personal autonomy in religious matters. If one can interpret the Bible alone and without the need of any teaching authority, that is, the Church, that outlook is essentially liberal, and dare I say, revolutionary. All liberal movements build on prior liberal movements. So religious revolution produced revolutions against sovereign kings. Which produced liberal social movements and trends like capitalism (unfettered economic exchange) communism, feminism, universal sufferage, porn, and no fault divorce. So if he is arguing that the Catholic Church is not the historical SOURCE of the gynocentrism problem, then point scored for him. He is correct. But practically speaking, and where the rubber meets the road, the Catholic Church (in the West at least) is no less infected by gynocentrism, owing largely to the influence of the culture in the West in which the Catholic Church is situated. For example, the phenomenon of annulments in the Catholic Church is primarily a western thing, owing primarily to civil divorce in the West which annulments are mostly a reaction to.
Another reason he is wrong, or why he does not explicitly state his assumptions: For a church to enforce marriage according to this view (which I support), YOU CAN HAVE ONLY ONE CHURCH. If “the church” were to enforce marital affairs, and my church doesn’t give me what I want, then I just migrate to a different church. This was essentially what caused the Protestant revolt in the English-speaking world. Henry VIII, because the Pope would not grant him an annulment/divorce, declared himself the head of the church in England. A compelling argument could be made that if it were not for this move by Henry, the Protestant revolt would have been confined in the West to the backwater areas of northern Germany, Sweden and Norway. It was Henry’s entry onto the Protestant side that sealed the English-speaking world for - and the ultimate spread of - Protestantism. Anyway, the point is that for his view to be effective (which I wish for), you can have only one church as the enforcer. This was the case in all of Christendom for roughly 1,100 years; from Constantine to Henry VIII. The One Church was the conscience of the state and an indispensable part of the Christian Social Order, as the soul is indispensable to the body of a man. It is possible that it can happen again, after The Chastisement, but that is what is necessary for this vision to come to fruition, and Wilson does not connect the dots for the viewer.
The Catholic Church is the source of authentic Christian doctrine. Note that few traditional Catholic teachings are being taught from the pulpit in Catholic churches. The faithful are woefully under catechized, and the gynocentrism problem is part of this larger problem of general apostasy (prophesied by St. Paul in scripture, referred to as the “Great Apostasy” which many Christians, not just traditional Catholics, believe we are living through right now).
However, I don’t believe the Catholic Church is naturally gynocentric. It’s not part of it’s DNA. It is the way it is due to the corruption of Western culture surrounding it and failure of Catholics to influence said culture for the better. And so when (not if) we get to the point of a “deluge moment” (or Chastisement, as we Catholics refer to this expected future event), the Catholic Church could be the enforcement mechanism as Wilson envisions, but sadly, not a second before then.
Spoken like a TRUE disciple of Christ, Jason. Thank the Lord men like you are speaking up. There is indeed hope, as long good men refuse to deny the truth. Happy Father's Day to you!