Transcription
Young men, we're just going to cut right to it. Find a woman. Fall in love. Get married. Have more children than you can afford.
Get married as young as possible. Get married and have a ton of kids. Well, now they say grow up and then get married. And in the past, they said get married and grow up.
You know what else they did back in the good old days? They actually had standards for women. And therefore, men received a modest, silent, submissive, and virtuous chased virgin on their wedding night. But now, those rules don't apply. The message is clear. Men have to man up, stop being scared, and just commit to marriage. While holding the same traditional standards for women makes you a red pillar and an incel. More and more men are voting with their feet and choosing not to get married at all.
I feel obligated to get married, but I'm going to be honest, I don't really want to.
But why is this happening? In this video, we're going to follow the data, the incentives, the institutions, and the history to figure out why the marriage crisis happened, why it's accelerating, and who's really benefiting from this collapse. Because one thing is clear. This is more than a crisis. And this might be the most important topic I've ever covered on this channel. This is why.
To understand why so many men are walking away from marriage today, you have to understand a brutal but simple truth that offends modern ears. The deal has changed. For most of human history, marriage was not a romantic lifestyle add-on. Men and women were not expected to live the same lives, share the same psychological rhythms, or occupy the same social spaces 24/7.
For all of recorded human history, whether you talk about the ancient Greeks, the Roman Empire, or Christendom, a man's life was outward facing. He went into the world to build, to trade, to fight, to govern, to take risks, to participate in politics, guilds, councils, wars, and public life. The home was not his emotional center. It was his harbor. He came home to a household that ran without him hovering over it. Children raised into order. This was never seen as cruelty. It was complimentarity. This was rooted in the reality that women must respect their husbands and husbands must love their wives, not the other way around. And how good a wife was came from her obedience and humility. When the head is in disorder, the whole body is destroyed. Therefore, God hath assigned to the man the care of public affairs, but to the woman the order of the house that peace may reign within.
And here's the part modern people hate to hear. Marriages were mostly arranged. And yes, divorce rates were dramatically lower. Nobody had to convince men that this was a good deal. Now compare that to today's totally cucked version of marriage. Where nowadays the only man a woman ever submits to is her boss, the government, and corporations. Today, marriage is sold to men. Is this you will work full-time in a system that already drains you. Then come home not to rest, but to pick up the kids from school, run the second shift and negotiate. Negotiate feelings. Negotiate who's cooking dinner. Negotiating why you don't want to stay in and watch a Disney movie after a 10-hour day. And the home becomes another arena of management. This is the modern dual income reality where you as a man are not respected but always expected to provide. And this isn't just vibes. In Japan, researchers found that higher regional dual income household rates were significantly associated with higher male unaling mortality even after controlling for unemployment and household financial variables. The data is clear. When women are placed in traditionally male-dominated spaces and roles, male well-being suffers significantly. The modern setup is miserable. So when society acts shocked that men look at this arrangement and say why would I want this?
Here is the missing piece. Men didn't stop wanting marriage. They stopped wanting this fake castrated version of marriage. Because as much as you socially engineer the times and women, you can't fool men's natural instinct and desire to know what's good for them. But that doesn't stop them from trying. Today's conservatives platform freshly baptized 304s on their podcasts and pay them to teach at conservative conventions as quote Christian female leaders. While over on Instagram, they still dance around in booty shorts and a face full of seductive makeup.
And I don't deal well with judgment. I'm a very rebellious person when it comes up to judgment.
And the same guys telling young men that modern marriage is a great deal end up doing their wives motherly duties and can't smoke a cigar in their own house. Yet, knowing all of this, the so-called right-wing media love rushing young guys into marriage and selling it like it's the magic antidote to social collapse while skimming right past the one question that actually matters. Why do so many men not even see a viable path to marriage anymore?
But I'm always I think I'm just too old or something. I'm like, why isn't anyone married?
So, they keep us trapped in the safest debate possible. They say divorce rates are dropping. The divorce rate is closer to 35%. The black pill responds, "No, they're not." Back and forth forever. Like, if we just win the divorce stat argument, suddenly the West starts having babies again.
But here's the darker truth that both the neocon right-wing and the red pill and black pill grifters get wrong. Divorce isn't the bottleneck. That's just the topic that keeps ad revenue flowing and keeping female audiences at bay. The reality is that even if divorce rates magically hit 0% tomorrow, even if you banned no fault divorce overnight, you still wouldn't get a marriage revival. Because the main obstacle is not legal risk. It's match scarcity. It's a widening gap in worldview and life goals, especially as huge numbers of women have radically moved leftwards and career first. While men's expectations for what a wife is haven't moved nearly as much. What has shifted though is the female formation. A lot of women have been trained to treat marriage less like a vow of mutual sacrifice and more like a lifestyle accessory. And the reasons for that are much more sinister than you think, and I'll get to that in a bit.
But we don't have to guess. When you survey unmarried adults who actually desire to marry, the top reason they're still single isn't I'm afraid of divorce court. It's brutally simple. It's hard to find the right person to marry. That's 58% the number one answer. Now, here's where it gets interesting because it exposes the contradiction that nobody wants to sit with. AEI points out that 45% of college educated single women say they're single largely because they can't find someone who meets their expectations. And at the same time, Pew research shows that the modern young female priority stack has shifted. 2th3 of women 18 to 34 rate career as a major life priority up from 56% in the late '9s. So translate that into plain English. Both sides are looking at the market and saying, "Where are the marriageable options?" But they don't even mean the same thing by marriageable. Men are thinking, "Is she submissive, faithful, home oriented, willing to build a family?" And on the flip, women are thinking, "How much of a modern woman can I get away with being while still receiving the benefits of a traditional husband?"
Marriage and kids is way more important.
If you really believe that, then why are you here working on your career?
That you're again, you're not making any sense.
Does he look good on my IG post, support my modern expectations across status, lifestyle, and career ambitions without limiting my modern individualism? And the boomers act shocked when nothing connects. Which is why this whole just get married script starts sounding less like leadership and more like a grift. So let's stop chasing the decoy. Let's talk about the bottleneck. How did we get here and what's keeping us here?
The real problem becomes clear when we look inside the female mind and analyze what they actually look for in a man these days. Trends in recent analysis show a few highly concerning things. One, that women are actually no longer really attracted to men. I'll get to that. And two, that most women have absolutely zero clue what they're looking for in a relationship. I almost lost my mind while researching for this script. So, please, I ask all of you to kindly support the channel through buy me a coffee.com/longsof faith because I'm a oneman team and your support is what keeps this content coming. And something new I'm doing is that supporters at $50 plus a month are listed as producers and have real input on topics for future episodes.
Back to the plot. When researchers first surveyed women's mate preferences in 1939, ambition and industriousness ranked as the most important traits in a future husband. By the 1990s, those same traits had fallen to ninth place. And in more recent replications, it's even lower. In fact, many Gen Z women see it as a red flag. A strong modern finding is that very high ambition can signal, I won't be warm, supportive, or available. In a 2022 paper surveying 13 large sample studies showed that mailed targets with highly ambitious goals were judged less warm and as having less relationship potential. But what replaced them? Traits like good personality, emotional maturity and compatibility. Qualities that while not bad in themselves are coded as softer, more relational, and yes, more feminine. In fact, strangely enough, these are actually the biggest traits men look for in their future wife. Yet, those wife expectations are being projected onto men.
Now, don't let any of this fool you. This isn't a generation of women who have suddenly risen in humility and no longer see men bringing in money as important, seeing the virtues of a poor and simple life as good. In fact, quite the opposite. In a 2025 survey of Gen Z daters, the average ideal annual income women expected from a partner was about six figures or more. About 1 in 10 Gen Z women said they're looking for someone earning $200,000 plus. The average income is about $60,000 in the US. So, women self-report that they want both a man who earns six figures and yet somehow doesn't have high ambitions at the same time. So, like where is this money going to come from? How are we going to earn six figures in a year in 2026 while not having either a big growing business or selling drugs? Why do we even survey them at this point? I think this is maybe where we begin to learn to stop listening to women's opinions.
But if you thought this was bad, just wait because these contradictions only keep getting more childish and frankly more hilarious as we go along. Pew found 71% of women say a man must be able to financially support a family. More than double what men expect from women. And I mean it makes sense. But now this is where while doing the research for this script, I think I started developing gray hairs. Get this. Women are also two to three times more likely to reject a partner who earns less than they do. Now, do you want to know what's funny about that? Young women in North America now on average earn about the same or even outear earn men in most metro areas and spreading. So if what women are saying is true, then that's bad news for basically 80% of the male population. That's not me making this up. This is women's own standards folding in on themselves in a contradiction.
Now why and how on earth did we get here? How did women's expectations become so contradictory? Why is a whole generation of young men being gaslit for a problem they didn't create? How did a wife's role shift from being protected to being worshiped? And how does all of this seem to perfectly coincide with the socialist manifesto written over 150 years ago? It all begins to make sense when we realize that basically none of this was organic and the roots go far deeper than the sexual revolution. That's why when we analyze the incentives, the money flow, and the social engineering, we can not only begin to make sense of all of this data, but we can clearly see what's coming next.
Now, the truth is, if we're going to fight the degeneracy of this culture, we can't do it while we're compromised ourselves. The reality is is that if you don't actually want to quit, no app on earth or anybody is going to do it for you. But if you, like many others, have a firm resolve that you no longer want to be a slave to porn, Relay could be a valid next step, offering practical support systems providing group accountability so that you're not fighting this addiction alone. When you sign up, you will automatically get paired with a community of people trying to quit as well, and have access to resources that help you through it. Many reviews said that the teams were what made the biggest difference for them. But the best news is that unlike most porn quitting apps that hide behind a payw wall, Relay offers a free 7-day trial so that you can find out right away if this is something that might work for you. Not only that, Relay is so confident that you will see results in 30 days that they will give you your money back if you don't. There's not much to lose. The code is lung 7 for a free 7-day trial.
Back to the plot. Over the last century, and most notably in the last decade, the mainstream has been carefully engineering and rewarding a very specific male archetype. Safe, emotionally expressive, agreeable, non-confrontational, endlessly validating, but somehow yet still competent and successful and confident and high status. Start with psychology. In 2018, the American Psychological Association published guidelines for working with boys and men that framed traditional masculine ideology as harmful. Once one of the largest psychological bodies on Earth encodes that language into best practice, it doesn't stay in PDFs. Although it might be promoted by them, it filters into therapist training, school counseling scripts, healthy masculinity workshops, HR compliance language, psychoanalytic language, then into parenting into the default moral reflex. When a firm man is unsafe and a boundary is control and leadership is insecurity.
Then pediatrics piles on. The American Academy of Pediatrics has openly pushed parents away from spanking and towards positive discipline. So a whole generation grows up in a world where authority is negotiation. Correction feels like harm and consequences are treated like trauma.
Then the NGO layer industrializes it. Equimundo, formerly Prundo, runs the Caring Masculinity Fund, which receives $20 million from Melinda French Gates via pivotal ventures in 2024, supporting global programs to promote men as caregivers in counter traditional masculine norms. That's a lot of money. Global Fund for Children pushes Boys Beyond Bias and Healthy Masculinities backed by major UK public funding and has invested $56 million into 1,000 plus organizations. Add in bigname funders like Ford, Open Society, and Foundation Chanel. Now, keep some of these names like Open Society in the back of your mind because they'll be relevant later. And here's the punchline. What looks like millions of independent groups is often one big funding pipeline. An OECD report in 2021 notes that 10 major foundations account for 97% of crossborder philanthropic giving to gender equality in developing countries and there are 1.8 million NOS in the US. Yet private funding is concentrated among fewer than 100 major foundations and corporations. The top 10 to 20 are especially dominant and we'll go over their ideology and why they have so much in common in a bit. It's much darker than you think.
The next step is for media to seal it and to package it, to make it normalized. And this is the part people really underestimate because they think that movies and ads are just entertainment.
That's right, you sad excuse of a man, you've been rendered completely helpless by a woman.
But I do wonder as a third-wave feminist if it's even possible for women to reclaim their sexuality in this deeply entrenched patriarchal society.
Take the word semester. Okay. This is a perfect example of this school's discriminatory preference of seaman to ovaries. That's why I'm petitioning to have next term be referred to as the winter. O vest.
Common sense media's watching gender review flat out summarizes decades of research and argues that kids TV and movies do in fact shape beliefs about how boys and girls should behave. So it's clear media does shape the way we think about ourselves. So what stories did we feed an entire generation? Brave in 2012. Tradition and marriage framed as the cage to escape. Father is lovable but ineffective and quite pathetic. Authority becomes a joke, something that's negotiable and can be argued with. Tangled in 2010 and Moana in 2016, that she doesn't need a man art goes mainstream. Romance gets minimized or removed. Heroism becomes personal destiny and self-defin.
You are not my hero.
Then corporate advertising pours gasoline on it. Gillette literally reruns its legacy slogan, the best a man can get, as a lecture on toxic masculinity with the now famous we believe campaign and backs it with a $1 million per year for 3 years donation commitment. That's not a neutral cultural moment. That's capital in institutions rewarding one direction of manhood and punishing the other. And it doesn't stop at one brand. There are coordinated transnational efforts to standardize good messaging across advertising and media. The transition from the industrial to the intelligent age is occurring at an exponential pace.
But what does this mean for our mindsets? Do we in fact need to reset our mindsets for this future, a very different future? Because maybe what we've learned so far isn't going to be so useful.
We are missing in our society two fundamental pillars. It's truth and its trust. The UN Women's Unereotype Alliance explicitly targets all media and advertising content and UN women reported global memberships around 240 companies with 12 national chapters.
Now zoom out and connected to propaganda mechanics because this isn't new and we don't have to look any further than Edward Bernay. Most people listening know who Sigman Freud was but for purposes of this discussion who was he? um for this discussion. He was Eddie Bernay's uncle. He was the man who told him exactly how to understand human psychology and how to use it. And while Freud was using psychology to try to basically free people from their emotional bonds, his nephew took a different lesson from it. He used psychology and an understanding of why people behave the way they do to help tie them to his clients, be they companies or politicians. the godfather of modern PR or basically every modern corporation utilizes his principles and he explains to us that quote women are just as subject to the commands of invisible government as our men and then immediately describes how industry can create demand by persuading a popular actress pushing the idea through media and reorganizing supply to meet it. The plain English is this. If you can route social instincts through women's tastes and status cues, you can rewire the whole household because women were wired to become the sexual gatekeepers. And if men want sex, they're going to have to behave. And the woman's idea of behavior is exactly what society has programmed her to believe. That's how they control the household.
And I found that ideas were weapons and were even more effective than bullets. So, when girls grow up with traditional masculinity being pathized, mocked, and retrained, what do you think they'll select for when it's time for them to get married? They'll select for the safe man, agreeable, emotionally fluent, feminine, non-confrontational, who won't challenge, won't correct, and won't impose limits because that's how their father was. That's how their grandfather was. That's how everybody they knew was. And women always look up to the men in their life for examples. And that's how you end up with a generation of women that demand provider outcomes while being trained to distrust the traits required to produce them.
One of the most jarring examples of the shift is recorded in our media outcomes. In the 1980s, actors like Mel Gibson, Shan Connory, Tom Cruz, Richard Jer, and Brad Pitt were ranked as the most attractive men by young women. They all happen to be traditionally masculine men with rugged and unckempt looks playing action star roles heavily associated with leadership, danger, and risk-taking. Fast forward to 2025 where females were asked to pick who the most attractive men are. Guys like Pedro Pascal, Timothy Shamlet, and the current sexiest man alive who was Jonathan Bailey who made history as the first openly Skittles recipient of the title. So get this. The most attractive man according to women in 2025 is Skittles. Someone who isn't even attracted to women. Let that sink in. And it gets even worse when you look at the characters they portray.
And I'm going to have you introduce yourself. Let's see your nails first.
Oh, yes, of course.
They're very nice. Yeah, they're very beautiful.
Pedro Pascal has even taken on the title of daddy of the internet, which is a title he happily accept. Daddy is a state of mind. You know what I'm saying? I'm your daddy.
And women are depicted as going crazy for him. Female Reddit commenters answer the question of what makes him so attractive, citing reasons like his openness and that he feels safe. I I I I I want people to to be safe and to be protected and um and and I want very much to live on the right side of history.
Now, these are just a handful of examples among thousands, but what it tells us is simple. You're not watching preferences evolve in a vacuum. You're watching a manufactured incentive structure, and the dating market is just downstream from it.
Here's where it gets truly relentless. And we see these preferences getting baked into real life consequences because this isn't just messaging. Recently in British Columbia, a father who opposed his child's gender transition and repeatedly violated court orders and a publication ban was sentenced to jail for contempt. The child, at the time 14 years old, wanted to undergo hormone treatment at the suggestion of their medical team at the BC Children's Hospital Gender Clinic. The mother supported her son's decision, but the father objected and sought an injunction to prevent the treatment. The BC Court of Appeal ultimately granted the child the right to consent to certain treatments on their own behalf so long as they were able to understand the repercussions at 14 years old. A large focus on the court's decision also applied to the father's conduct. The father had been publicly vocal about his objections to his son's attempts at transitioning and repeatedly quote misgendered his son in doing so. The behavior had led the mother to seek a declaration that the father's actions constituted family violence, which would have enabled her to obtain a protection order against him. Instead, the appeals court chose to issue a conduct order against the father, limiting his ability to speak about his child publicly. Further, the father was ordered to refer to his son by the child's preferred pronouns and name. The signal to every other parent is obvious. Step outside the script publicly, and not only will you be shamed by the system, but you can lose everything. the same tactics of the reign of terror. Fright is might.
Take a real life example of this fear made manifest. And even worse, it's in the traditional Christian sphere. The Hillary Crowder story illustrates this perfectly. She was marketed as the ideal tradife in a highprofile Christian conservative marriage to Steven Crowder, a vocal advocate of traditional roles, no fault divorce reform, and lifelong marital commitment. Yet, Hillary filed for divorce in late 2021 with Steven announcing it publicly in April 2023, claiming it wasn't his choice and lamenting the no fault laws that allowed her unilateral decision.
Well, I guess let me be clear here. Uh, I have been living with a proverbial boot on my neck for going on years now. Since 2021, I've been living through what has increasingly been a horrendous divorce. Now, let me say in the outset to be clear, no, this was not my choice.
Yet, she took everything public. Leaked Ring camera footage from a 2021 argument showed Steven being a little mean to her over wely duties, which quickly got Steven labeled as an abuser with Tradcon influencers like Candace Owens rushing to give his ex-wife a platform.
And the video essentially reveals just how emotionally abusive he has been.
If you watch the actual video, I mean, it's obviously not perfect, but I think people have had worse fights.
Now, the contradictions are hilarious. These women's self-awareness levels are basically at zero. A notable recent example in July 2025, she posted that the most alpha thing a man can do is marry and be faithful to a good woman for the entirety of his life and to be willing to storm the gates of hell to stay married to her. This embodies the reality of covert Christian feminism. It blends traditional values were convenient with modern feminist tools like no fault divorce, public shaming, and alliance with critics. On the other hand, men are held to an absolute standard. No excuses, no exit, fully committed and no chance of walking away. While the woman who walks away retains moral authority to redefine true manhood and good Christian wifehood, excuses are made for her. Alleged abuse, allegations, reasons, personal unhappiness, but men's commitment still non-negotiable. We ought to storm the gates. That's the pattern. Selective traditionalism plus modern tools, no fault exit, public shaming, and moral authority after walking away.
So, by the time we're talking about dating and marriage, you're not dealing with preferences. You're dealing with formation. And don't worry, the next generation of Hillary Crowers is brewing. All you have to do is scroll a Christian dating app as a man to find the glaring lack of marriageable women. You'll find profiles labeled as quote very conservative and quote weekly mass attendee. Paired with photos indistinguishable from mainstream Instagram ho culture, bios full of lines like quote, "My love language is physical touch." These are really weird standards to have as a traditional Catholic. But instead of recognizing that traditionally masculine men actually want traditionally feminine women, these same women go online to complain about it. Where are the girls finding good Catholic guys? And one responds, for real, girl, the one practicing Catholic man I know has quote take the red pill as their Instagram bio. Bro, exactly. A lot of Catholic guys I see online are those types of guys, which is so repulsive. And since I highly doubt that these Catholic red pillars in question are vocal advocates of polygamy and sexual degeneracy, as those are contrary to core Catholic dogmas, it's safe to assume that what these women are critiquing as the red pill is really men who demand submission, femininity, and traditional values, which are actually core Christian values. They won't admit that they just don't like Christianity. The same thread later vindicates our suspicion. Quote, "Catholic men are too rigid about gender roles. They don't want their wife to have a career or travel. It's easier to date Protestants than Catholics. Others add directing them at men. Be careful that you're not looking to be served. Quote, "Men need to cook, clean, and change diapers. Household chores aren't masculine or feminine."
So, one thing is clear. The octopus of Marxist thought has spread its tentacles to all of the corners of society, even the most traditional. Now, at this point, you're wondering, who benefits from all of this? Why do these global elites, NOS's, think tanks spend so much resource and so much money on changing women's worldviews and specifically white Caucasian ethnographic European women.
To understand this better, we need to go back in time before World War II, before World War I, and actually before the 20th century entirely. Because when the socialists and sexual revolution declared war on the family, it's said that the end goal was to replace the father with the state, to monopolize power and to maintain a tight grip on society. George Bernard Shaw, the founder of the Fabian Society, one of the most influential socialist groups that has influenced geopolitical entities such as the World Economic Forum, the London School of Economics, tells us the plan himself. Quote, "The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialization of the selective breeding of men." End quote. If we desire a certain type of civilization and culture, we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.
There are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. And uh I think it would be a good thing to uh make everybody come before a properly appointed board just that he might come before the income tax commissioners and say every 5 years or every seven years just put him there and say sir or madam now will you be kind enough to justify your existence. If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or collect a little more, then we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to you.
That was the mantra and goal of the sexual revolution. And if you want an entire comprehensive video on the sexual revolution, go and watch the biggest lie we ever bought. That video goes into it in full detail, but the incentives are clear. Dissolve the family as a unit, gain influence over an entire nation, and exterminate by force or by replacement those who do not want to go along with the plan. HG Wells, another adopter of Fabian socialism and prominent global thinker, who openly called for the replacement of the private family with the state family, repeatedly emphasized that the future world order would require populations capable of collective obedience and resistance to individualistic fragmentation. And this wouldn't happen overnight. Although groups like the Fabians aligned closely with many Marxist dogmas like the idea that capitalism is a world system and that the general socialist movement is international and aims at overthrowing bourgeoa rule everywhere. Fabians were not a monolith. However, the most influential among them were pro- international governance and imperial/ international planning instincts, technocratic management, elite coordination, and later support for international bodies and world order thinking. While Wells criticized all religions doctrinally, he consistently framed Islamic societies as socially cohesive in contrast to what he saw as the degeneracy and fragmentation of Christian Europe. His problem was never Islam's authority. It was who controlled it. To him, the Christian reliance on bishops and the papacy made it impossible to subvert the patriarchy. However, he saw the institutions of Islam as easily subvertible. George Bernard Shaw famously quotes, "I have always held the religion of Muhammad in the highest estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It's the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age." He wasn't praising Islam for being true, but for being easily hijackable and socially engineerable, for being able to be used for its quote wonderful vitality and outbreeding the true enemy, which was always the Christian patriarchy.
Well, there's no problem. If you had a gun, shoot him in the head.
That's why when we see the most progressive and socialistleaning governments in the world, bringing in mass migration from Islamic dominant regions, they never have a problem with their form of patriarchy, their legal enforcement of women's modesty, silence, and obedience. They never labeled these cultures as promoting incel toxic masculinity. In fact, they often praise it and encourage it. On April 10th, 2024, the prime minister's official aid statement praised the many contributions of Canada's Muslim communities and said that they helped build the strong and diverse Canada we love and know, adding that quote, "We will always stand with them." Canada also created and maintains an official special representative on combating Islamophobia, described as a champion to support and enhance the federal government's efforts in the fight against Islamophobia. The rule is simple. Patriarchy is only toxic when Christians practice it. When it shows up inside an imported block, it becomes cultural difference and a protected class or a voting constituency.
In the worst years, over 30 churches were attacked in these regions alone. You'd think this would spark urgent national action, but instead, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau poured gasoline on the fire, figuratively speaking. In 2021, Trudeau publicly stated that he understood why churches were being burned.
One of my reflections is I understand the anger that's out there against institutions like the Catholic Church. It is uh real and it is fully understandable and you don't even have to guess what the elite posture is towards Christianity. Jacqu Atali, one of the most explicit public advocates of global governance, frames the core danger to globalism as Christianity regaining authority over thought. He writes that after quote, eight centuries of battles in Europe to win independence of thought from the religious, the threat is that Christianity wakes up and starts acting like Christianity again.
And that's why everyone gets this solution so bloody wrong. We've understood marriage wrongly for too long. And that's why everyone is talking past each other. The right makes an idol out of marriage like we're going to time travel back to a clean little 1950s sitcom if we just shame the men hard enough. They practically start identifying a man's masculinity with his wife and kids when Christianity never actually teaches that. And the Blackpill nihilist crowd doesn't even have any sort of ethical framework to tell you what's good and bad in the first place. So one side worships marriage and the other side worships despair and nihilism and the system keeps winning.
Let's start with the black pill before I rake the neocons over the coals. A lot of black pill observations are real. The incentives are completely broken. The market is distorted and pretending otherwise is simply code. But Blackpill doesn't stop at diagnosis. It stops at nihilism. It tells you that this is just how it is. Adapt or rot. And that's exactly why people like Pearl are walking contradictions. They want to profit off of the rage, but they can't offer a moral endgame other than spite, clout, and endless commentary. They diagnose the sickness and then they sell you a lifestyle in the sickness. And guys like Clvicular who inadvertently end up promoting the same exact agenda of the sexual revolution and the same kind of male image that these sexual revolution Marxist engineers wanted for man in the first place. A guy who's promiscuous who just says, "Well, you know what? There's no point. None of this is going to change. We better just go along with the way society's going." Wouldn't you maybe swim against the stream or go jump into a different stream? No, because that's that's not a realistic outcome, you know, to what? Take away all the liberties that we've granted women to cause a lot of detriment to society. You might as well adapt to the times. It simply just ends in another contradiction.
And here's the twist. When you actually read scripture and the fathers, you'd be shocked by how much Orthodox Catholic Christianity sympathizes with parts of the black bill without the nihilism. St. Paul is brutally honest. Marriage is indeed good, but it's not ultimate. He explicitly holds up celibacy as a higher calling for undivided devotion to God for those who are capable of it. Christianity does not teach nor ever has taught that a real man must marry. It teaches something far more offensive to modern ears. A real man must be free. Free enough to marry without worshiping it. Free enough to walk away from sin, even if it costs him comfort. Free enough to be alone without becoming bitter, pornrained, or cowardly. Free enough to sacrifice without becoming a s.
Now, here's where the neocons and tradons deserve the fire. They talk like marriage is the cure for civilizational collapse, but they refuse to confront why the collapse happen. They'll moralize men all day. Step up, man up, just commit. But they won't declare war on the incentive system that made commitment implode on itself. They'll do endless content about divorce rates. But they won't touch on the real bottleneck, formation, ideology, and the female revolt against Christian order because that would offend their own donors, their own audiences, and their own self-respectable brand. So instead, they sell a counterfeit masculinity, a masculinity measured by female approval. Get the wife, get the family, get the picture perfect proof that you're not an insult. They've turned the altar into a status symbol. And when it doesn't work, when men get burned, they blame the men again. That's the trap. Black bill tells you to give up and neocons tell you to submit to the system. Both capitulating to the ultimate Marxist plan for society.
If you're going to live in the world, learn to become successful in it. That could mean becoming wealthy, learning how to invest, learning how to build an empire and influence. These things compound over time more than you think. And that always turns into political influence when it matters. Because the culture will not shift until men stop singing marriage like it's required for masculinity. Women will not stop acting this way until the incentives change and men start telling them that enough is enough. So yes, at the end of the day, it does come down to men, but not in the way they've been preaching at you for years, that you need to change and you need to get more fit and you need to make more money, but rather in the way that you need to change the world and tell these terrorists to shut the hell up. And that starts with the first revolution no think tank can handle. Men who fear God more than women, who love truth more than comfort, who build households on order and not vibes, and who refuse to participate in a system that punishes fatherhood and rewards rebellion. Until next time, this is Lungs of Faith. And as always, don't negotiate with terrorists.
They want to count me out. Next time pick a higher number. Next time we should run for cover. Next time let the giant slumber. They will keep me down.