Brian DeVries

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

I agree that it's a huge part of why we are here, but only as a symptom, not a cause. Abortion is downstream of declaring women equal to men by fiat and granting them equal political say. To whatever extent someone were to argue we're under divine judgment _because_ of abortion (not that _you're_ doing it here), that divine judgment would stem from that same root upending of the divine and natural order.

See @paleochristcon and @Rach4Patriarchy's "force doctrine" arguments against feminism for a more robust explanation of what I'm talking about here, if you haven't.

See also Basic Logic's "Woke 1.0" video on the coming shifts within the left; while I don't expect the second "based" group is going to be large, I doubt it will be zero: https://t.co/Em4h57BMKb

Purity testing every potential ally is less necessary the clearer our vision of "victory" is. For example, Asmongold has repeatedly declared he views America necessarily as a Christian nation, which is would be compatible with Christian Nationalism.

Likewise, Powdur's (understandable) view that abortion is useful for slowing the demographic replacement of our countries is pointing to the root cause she correctly sees. If we can address our demographic security effectively, then her cause to support abortion dimisishes proportionally.

The clearer our vision, the easier it will be for others to make common cause with us, because the differences of opinion on things like abortion will be known. It also means that we don't have to promote them to some sort of "thought leader" position --- after all, we're pursuing our vision, not somebody else's. Others don't have to agree with us on everything to join our ranks, and we should be more than happy to have them.

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

To start, @NDHuskerfan711 is correct in his response, especially from a spiritual perspective. I'll note a few other things as well.

First, his support for abortion is hardly surprising considering the spirit of our age. But his support seems primarily pragmatic, not principled. He seems willing to adapt to the specifics of the circumstance while maintaining flexibility on the generality; see his response to the "please feel sorry for us, we killed our kid because he had Downs syndrome" couple here: https://t.co/BIVVuNZ8mc

Second, he has been broadcasting the correct view of the Lindsay Clancy case to his viewers and showcasing the lunacy of her supporters. In addition to the obvious benefit of increasing the acceptance of "repeal the 19th" inside of the Overton window, this serves another vital point: it gives us the anchor point for the inductive argument against abortion.

Regardless of whether Clancy was "insane," it remains the fact that her children were killed. This prompts the question of "does the timing matter": what if she only killed the 8 month old, would that still count? What if he was 6 months old? Or 6 weeks? Or 6 days? 6 hours after birth? Then what changed between 6 hours before birth and 6 hours after birth? And so on.

Those of us who care about abortion can immediately identify from there why these women "stand with Lindsay" --- this is a referendum-by-proxy on the "right" for them to kill their children on a whim. A correct answer on this question (which Asmongold has been pushing) makes it much easier to reach the correct answers about abortion specifically. I just don't think he's considered those yet.

Finally, we are not in a position to treat abortion as a Shibboleth. Roe v. Wade et al was repealed and abortion sent back to be a state issue (as it always should have been, Constitutionally). Fight those battles there as the opportunity presents itself, but anybody who thinks that's the biggest fish to fry isn't paying attention.

As Asmongold himself notes, he sees no point in declaring war on people who agree with him on 70%+ of issues. The leftists who want us dead, the foreigners who want to replace us, and the feminists who vote for both (including within the Church) are much more of a direct threat that we have to address before we have the luxury of treating the abortion debate as the top priority. And as a bonus, if we win on those (a massive "if" at this point), then the argument over abortion becomes much easier to have.

If you want a more extreme example, I'll point you to the Leaflit vs. Powdur disagreement on the utility of abortion, where Leaflit reaches the same conclusion.

So in other words, take the W, take a moment to thank God and to pray for our success and for the downfall of our enemies, and encourage the young men around you if they want to listen to Asmongold. Prepare them to understand why he's wrong where he's wrong, but he's pushing too many more important things too effectively to write him off on this one issue.

[Zack @Asmongold]

@McJuggerNuggets I originally defended you but after looking at your channel, it is the most demonic amalgamation of sympathy slop and tragedy porn that I've ever seen

I can't imagine how much of freak you would have to be to make content like that, genuinely sick and depraved

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

@Alerius210231 @MadamSavvy Wow.... I like this solution a LOT, well done!

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

0. Mexico hosted the match, not LA. Moreover, Mexico hosted *EVERY* match that their team played in. Precisely *ZERO* of Mexico's matches occurred in the United States.

1. Any Mexicans that traveled here *legally* in hopes their team would progress further are *guests* of the United States as their host country. So even if your assertion is accurate, that just means we should no longer trust Mexican citizens to be respectful guests in our country and should deal harshly with the ones we were foolish enough to let in.

2. You've given no evidence that the people in the video are here as visitors for the potential future games. Given the demographics of LA that @WallStreetApes describes, his expectation that these are just Mexico loyalists that *happen* to live in LA seems completely plausible.

3. Their willingness to commit random acts of violence on strangers who happen to be in their vicinity (within the United States) again means that they shouldn't have been allowed in the country in the first place (regardless of when they arrived) and should be returned home immediately, if not sooner.

4.. I don't care if you're not "Nexican" --- if you want to run cover for their bad behavior and justify it by "I have poor reading comprehension" then you should be sent back alongside them.

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

White elder Millenial here (who's also in Texas, so howdy!).

I'll also note (to emphasize the next point) that I'm in staunch disagreement with you, because I think the problems with Blacks stem from a deeper layer than "just" culture and upbringing (which I know is an oversimplification).

For example, I think CRA'65 should have never been passed in the first place (along with pretty much everything else in the 20th century), though I understand why it was at the time: with the same hope you're mirroring in your article here.

I say the above to [try to] lend a little more "oomph" to this: I do still share that hope that *you're* correct. And seeing this post and other Blacks rightly calling out this utter lunacy (I caught several that Branca showed on his stream today) helps fuel that hope.

Please, please keep fighting.

I don't know how this will get solved, other than it's almost certainly not going to be "nice."

But I do know for certain that there are a LOT of sane American Blacks that need better representation at that discussion than Hotep and Monique Alexander.

I hope this post lands with all the encouragement I intend:

For the love of all that is holy

For the love of yourself and your kith and kin

For the love of your race

And for the love of OUR state and country

Please keep going!

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

@KirscheVerstahl Obligatory reminder to never trust subhuman journos on understanding these self defense cases. Shoutout to the great @TheBrancaShow for those that want to understand *why* this article is such shit. He even has a free book that goes into even more depth!

https://t.co/zFI0Le55EJ

[Sensurround @ShamashAran]

Looks like Karmello Anthony's mother got her wish for mercy. 35 years in prison is a pretty light sentence.

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

@WildMoonbeams @AutismCapital Because we don't want to bully him, we want to bully the horrible people who would use him as a meat shield for their own degen bully-worthy behavior. Obviously.

[superteala @superteala]

👀 @Rach4Patriarchy is completely correct. Everyone should read her book. Occult Feminism.

[Rachel Wilson @Rach4Patriarchy]

The Overton window has shifted so much in the last 25 years that most classical liberals think they are conservatives. It’s one of a few reasons I don’t use the term conservative to describe myself. It doesn’t tell anybody anything about what you believe. People will fully support a liberal agenda and just because they are not extreme woke left, they will label themselves conservative. Happens all the time.

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

Where did I say or imply that you'd concluded that I did, or that I thought you'd said what was in her post?

Pedantry aside (as much fun as it is), as someone who's a self-described Eve post enjoyer who also agrees with what I said, I'm asking if you can help me bridge the gap between those two by explaining why she found my post demoralizing.

An answer of "I dunno bro, I'm not a mind reader" is a perfectly acceptable answer, but it seemed reasonable to ask if you were able to give a more fleshed-out or useful explanation, that's all.

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

My baseball bat and constructive advice, in that order.

"These women are not blameless," then you spend the rest of your post blaming men for not approaching.

"I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive to men's struggles" is HR-speek for "I don't give a shit about men's struggles." (Think: "I'm sorry you feel that way. Now do what I want.") Speak plainly. If you want to be demure, then advocate for repealing the 19th Amendment first.

"I have to wonder why Christian men don't believe the prize outweighs the risks" then you describe the prize as strictly sex, which is dirt cheap in our current environment.

"[a] highly religious, patriarchal community" is clearly not your current environment. Thus, it is illogical to complain that your current environment does not produce the results of a completely foreign one (and one I'd argue does not exist in any meaningful way in the West, particularly the United States).

In such a patriarchal environment, your only concern would be to prepare the young women under your charge to be proper helpmeets for when the men finally retake their rightful ruling role and burn down the longhouse that is the modern church.

Put another way, it is not your purview to dictate terms to men, and women's Genesis 3 desire to rule --- having been left completely unchecked for 50+ years --- has bequeathed the current hellscape. Train your women to accept the headship of their husbands' righteous rule (for example, being able to explain why "yes sir" is the only appropriate answer to the "red dress question" that made the rounds a couple months ago). Men will tend to training other men to ensure that rule is just, because we're the only ones who can.

Here is the reality, and the constructive advice. Remember: women gatekeep sex, men gatekeep the relationship. Right now women are giving the sex away for free (both IRL and especially online), so if you're thinking the men's only choices are "die a virgin or marry one of my wonderful young women" then I have some bad news for you. Most men will choose to escape that false dichotomy entirely --- for those that are able, to the night club hookups or secular LTR dating; for those that aren't, to PornHub and OnlyFans. The few that choose neither are not the men you want approaching your wonderful young women because they completely lack agency over their own lives and are unfit to lead.

This is the reality that Pat is addressing in his posts, and one you still seem to feel in control of. You aren't, you never were, and the more that women have been allowed to pretend, the worse things have gotten.

One more time: it's not for you to demand, or even expect, that men "do" anything, at least in this "meta" context. Your task is to prepare your wonderful women for when their future husbands "do."

Furthermore, this means that your women MUST bring something else to the table besides sex. Your post is maintaining "but I am the table!"-tier delusional thinking, as @ItIsHoeMath likes to say. Sorry, women's liberation inflated the comparative value of sex to "worthless." Adapt your mating strategy accordingly.

Next, understand that social media has played a direct role in the decline in cold approaches, which it sounds like you're expecting. "The worst she can say is no" is no longer true when you can become an involuntary viral sensation for all the wrong reasons. Hell, you can look on this very site and find posts from women describing how "mortified" they were that they were cold-approached at church.

On that note, I'd also urge you to properly educate your women on the dangers of social media: it has weapons-grade refined "comparison is the thief of joy" into a tactical nuke aimed directly at them. I have long held that social media is more dangerous and damaging to women than porn has ever been to men; before you object, consider we've had porn for a LOT longer without staring down the barrel of collapsing birth rates. As an added bonus, AI is also going to turn it into a security risk, so your women should keep that in mind the next time they post pictures of themselves or (much worse) their kids. "I'm not on any social media" is approaching "I'm a virgin" in terms of sexual market value at this point.

Finally, I'll highlight two posts by Devon Eriksen, who has hit this nail on the head multiple times from multiple angles. You (and your husband, I presume) should carefully read through his entire posting history like you're on a directed mission from God if you're serious about solving these problems.

First up: https://t.co/3cfpNI6xU8

If your women think they're traddie baddies who can cop this attitude (a not-insignificant amount of which I see in your posts here), they should begin their Cat Mom arc as soon as humanly possible because they will make their future husbands' lives hell, "patriarchal" or not. Start or redouble efforts to deprogram the "don't let a man boss you around" attitude, because being able to demonstrate that to a man early on is one of those things they can bring to the table. The less deprogramming he needs to do, the sooner he can conclude the vetting process with a proposal.

(As to how to ensure that it's genuine and not a mask just to get to the proposal before reverting to boss-babe priors? I leave that in your hands. But please make sure it's there, for the sake of God and country.)

Second, and more importantly: https://t.co/3cfpNI6xU8

You should read the whole thing aloud repeatedly until it sticks, but I'll summarize: stop expecting men to cold approach. It was a very sub-optimal approach when it was normalized, it's become crushingly counter-productive in the modern age, and the expectation that this is what's supposed to happen is one of the reasons you and your wonderful women are feeling frustrated.

Instead, teach your women the old ways of flirting: i.e., being the initiator in a plausibly-deniable way. You've got the old classics like "tuck the hair behind the ear" and "catch his eye, then look away and smile," but those are just the ones I know anything about as a guy who was never educated in such things. This is why you, as a woman, are charged with training women --- you have an intuitive understanding of these things I will never have.

I can only say that modern problems might require modern solutions, so get creative with it. Sure, she loaded that box into her car all by herself, but maybe she "needs" help unloading it. Maybe she "needs" him to "settle a bet" between her and a friend. You get the idea.

Past that, how does she play to her strengths to maintain his interest? Can she hold a conversation about deep topics without becoming offended? Can she cook a meal that gives him a spark of joy in his day? At a minimum, can she bring peace to his life, such that he feels safer in her presence than her absence?

Here's the bonus: if you can get a couple of them paired off, you can maybe start to rebuild the peer-to-peer vetting networks that functional societies have enjoyed, which is how my wife and I got together.

And I'll agree, men need to be taught to see those signals in the first place (I certainly never was), correctly interpret if they're aimed at them, and then properly vet the women for marriageability. Leave that to people like Pat.

But understand this: the "worst she can say is no" era is clearly in its death throes, the "men should stay celibate till their 30s" expectation is hopefully being butchered as quickly as possible, and the "my vagina is the one and only prize" attitude has been dead for decades. No amount of exclaiming how things "should" be will change any of those realities.

Remember, men gatekeep the relationship that your women want. They can practice abstinence from providing the relationship with a near-zero loss of sexual gratification in the current environment, and regardless of how suboptimal or even harmful it is for him, it's clearly infinitely worse for your wonderful women.

Teach your women how to look at a man, decide whether she'd let him fuck her, catch his attention, and then demonstrate her high marriage quality as quickly as possible so they can both get what they want and start building a union together.

To maximize the odds of success, suggest she do so while wearing a properly-fitted "Repeal the 19th" T-shirt.

[Mitochondrial Eve @tardwife4life]

I totally agree that normie marriage is incredibly broken. But the original context of the post is regarding a highly religious, patriarchal community where marriage has more benefits for men.

And the men in these communities generally don't believe in sex before marriage.

So it seems their predicament boils down to whether the risks of pursuing women (not insignificant) outweigh the implications of not pursuing women and spending their life a virgin and alone (extremely significant).

I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive to men's struggles. I'm just getting very frustrated seeing some wonderful young women at church spend week after week waiting to be approached.

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

Okay, so maybe you can help me out here --- what did I say that was demoralizing? (And tagging @tardwife4life if she wants to chime in, but obviously it's her perogative and the last I'll bother her with this post at least.)

And like I said in another reply, I think she's got the right end of the stick on plenty else. (I think she's probably correct about the dampened sex drive, for instance; will be reading through her article in the next day or two.)

This is just one case where she's got the wrong framing of the problem, and a bad specification is far worse than no specification at all (why yes, I am a software engineer, how could you tell?).

I'll fully agree with "brevity is my dump stat" as a criticism, but at no point did I say that she should shut down her advocacy for men, or stop trying to pair off her young women, or that they all deserved to die alone or something.

So genuinely asking, for whatever that's worth on the internets.

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

@RageRead @phdcornbread @DeanTheLean90 I really don't understand why X hates it when I try to include quotes in replies, but the text says:

"Essential Dating Tactic: If you want to know whether or not your girlfriend will be a submissive wife, have her listen to this video by Lila Rose and give you her take."

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

On the one hand, if the modern dating system is to have any purpose (I'm not convinced it does, but let's say), it should serve as a gradual transition between being single and being married, at least on this front. So by the time they get married, the woman should be demonstrating this submissiveness to her bethrothed, and he should be taking the leadership role between the two of them. There should be minimal difference the day before and the day after the wedding (again, on this front specifically).

Now if we want to kick it back to old-school, then being able to see how she behaves towards her father would also be a good proxy. But I think we've got a long row to hoe to get to where that's reliable.

Regardless of all that, we should take heart and thank God for those like ABS and Lila Rose embodying the perfect time-saving dating hacks:

https://t.co/okzJzxEbHq

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

First, agreed on "conservative Christian" women --- I've got a bone the size of a T-Rex femur to pick with them.

Second, what do you think Rachel Wilson would disagree with out of the things I've said?

Third, same to you --- where do you say I'm off-base or wrong or etc.?

I at all times reserve the right to be wrong, so if I've missed something or made a mistake, I'd love for somebody to point it out.

Thus far nobody has.

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

@paleochristcon Thanks! Same to you, ya smug bastard! 😂

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

Did you read where I said "Put another way, it is not your purview [as a woman] to dictate terms to men... [m]en will tend to training other men to ensure that rule is just, because we're the only ones who can."

So who then is the "we" that has criticisms of men? Because what you've just described sounds less like "criticism" and more like the "training" I was referring to, even if it's just documenting things you've found successful. The next questions are why it was successful and whether it can scale.

You say "I can't ensure my complaint against men is addressed," which is correct if it stays a complaint. Doesn't sound like it has, from what you've said here.

I will say that just because the cold approach has worked for you doesn't really address anything in my post, especially without adding more specifics. If it was working (i.e., at least led to encounters, if not marriages), at scale, in a church environment, then the number of women being asked out would be above 0 and this entire post chain wouldn't have occurred.

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

First, complain away --- it's not like I have any authority to stop you, nor do I suspect you would if I did.

Second, the complaint in this specific case is "men are no longer cold-approaching girls at church like they used to." I have explained some of the reasons why that is, namely that it was a sub-optimal strategy when it was normalized whose utility has since completely collapsed. I then provided an alternative strategy that I think would be more useful, particularly within a Church context. Thus I consider this particular complaint closed as "WONTFIX" unless somebody has a specific argument against either my explanation or alternative.

Also did you actually read the Devon Eriksen posts I linked before your fingers hit the keyboard?

Third and more generally, how do you suppose you'll ensure your complaint against men is going to be addressed? Assuming you're a woman*, you can't use force (see: force doctrine), so you either appeal to other men to use force on your behalf, or you use manipulation (e.g., threatening to withhold sex). Both lines of credit, as it were, are already maxed out. Pastors regularly exhort men to be "servant leaders" (i.e., be a figurehead while your wife orders you around) and side with women in most disagreements and punish the husbands, while they are completely silent on the demands the Bible places on women (to submit and obey their husbands). Meanwhile, the wide availability of willing women and-or porn has inflated "sex" to a worthless currency for women to negotiate with.

Finally, we have built a society and Church in the United States that caters almost exclusively to women's wants and needs while removing practically every restriction on their behavior. The results have been disastrous, particularly for men, and unfortunately you need men to keep the world spinning while the women produce the next generation (which they're not).

So sure, you can complain about men, or you can start helping us older men figure out how we can fix things for the younger men so our civilization can continue. The complaints demanding men "do better" sure seem to be working, no?

*This doesn't change if you're a man, either, because you're still heavily outnumbered by the guys checked out of the current system, and you're not gonna be able to force all of them to "do better."

[High-Risk Asset @HighRiskAsset]

@cplan_logician Do we really have to fit everything that is wrong with women into a tweet before we can criticize men? This is not the premise of anything useful.

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

First, complain away --- it's not like I have any authority to stop you, nor do I suspect you would if I did.

Second, the complaint in this specific case is "men are no longer cold-approaching girls at church like they used to." I have explained some of the reasons why that is, namely that it was a sub-optimal strategy when it was normalized whose utility has since completely collapsed. I then provided an alternative strategy that I think would be more useful, particularly within a Church context. Thus I consider this particular complaint closed as "WONTFIX" unless somebody has a specific argument against either my explanation or alternative.

Also did you actually read the Devon Eriksen posts I linked before your fingers hit the keyboard?

Third and more generally, how do you suppose you'll ensure your complaint against men is going to be addressed? Assuming you're a woman*, you can't use force (see: force doctrine), so you either appeal to other men to use force on your behalf, or you use manipulation (e.g., threatening to withhold sex). Both lines of credit, as it were, are already maxed out. Pastors regularly exhort men to be "servant leaders" (i.e., be a figurehead while your wife orders you around) and side with women in most disagreements and punish the husbands, while they are completely silent on the demands the Bible places on women (to submit and obey their husbands). Meanwhile, the wide availability of willing women and-or porn has inflated "sex" to a worthless currency for women to negotiate with.

Finally, we have built a society and Church in the United States that caters almost exclusively to women's wants and needs while removing practically every restriction on their behavior. The results have been disastrous, particularly for men, and unfortunately you need men to keep the world spinning while the women produce the next generation (which they're not).

So sure, you can complain about men, or you can start helping us older men figure out how we can fix things for the younger men so our civilization can continue. The complaints demanding men "do better" sure seem to be working, no?

*This doesn't change if you're a man, either, because you're still heavily outnumbered by the guys checked out of the current system, and you're not gonna be able to force all of them to "do better."

[Brian DeVries @cplan_logician]

Where did I say you weren't an ally? I've followed you for a while and I've certainly liked more than a handful of your posts as they've come across my feed.

You yourself admitted your efforts are not bearing the fruit you'd like to see and voiced your frustration at the situation.

The way we describe problems matters because it drives how we think about solutions (Sapir-Whorf etc.). Your framing put the locus of the problem on men for not doing what you would like them to do. Furthermore, that framing aligns you --- intentionally or not --- with the same Christian feminists who were just angrily demanding men accept the latest whore-to-holy pipeline production. Part of the solution to this mess is going to be convincing men to stop listening to women, particularly those they aren't married to, and turbo-especially the feminist scolds like ABS.

So I bluntly took a baseball bat to your framing because it was wrong. But at no point did I declare you an enemy or say anything about your other efforts to this point.

(Even here, I didn't say you WERE a Christian feminist, I said you're making it the mens' problem, which is the same framing that they have adopted.)

Instead, I then spent the vast majority of my post laying out the alternative strategy: rather than feeling frustrated over something you can't control (mens' choices, specifically the choice to make a cold approach to an unknown woman at church) --- a frustration I presume is also felt by your young women ---, focus on something you can control: teaching your young women how to catch a man's attention in the first place (eliminating the frustration at not getting a cold approach, because it gives her the first move) and building the scaffolding to support a short courtship (decreasing the man's sense of risk in such a scenario) that @Pat_Stedman talked about elsewhere.

I'm not trying to demoralize you, I'm trying to help you.

So if your current approach isn't working, and my post makes you want to give up entirely (for some reason I can't fathom), then why not give this approach a shot before throwing in the towel? Surely your young women have a guy or two in mind that they'd want to take a shot (hopefully not all the same one of course). Maybe have your husband or an elder vet the guy a bit first if you're worried, but otherwise help her figure out how to get his attention. Hell, maybe you're the one asking for both of their help unloading your car, and can play stealth semi-matchmaker that way. And if he doesn't pick up on the hints (almost guaranteed today), you can help nudge him along with a matronly* "you know she was flirting with you, right?" Maybe he bites, maybe he doesn't, but at least she can move on knowing she gave it a shot (and who knows what the near future holds), instead of impotently waiting for him to read her mind. And you've probably helped the guy get a little better at the dance too.

Run it by your husband, see what he thinks.

And ignore retards like Sam down there. Being in the UK, her brand of raging anti-Christian feminism is currently on track to get exactly what she's demanded, good and hard. Or maybe we win. Either way, that'll be the end of that.

*No, this isn't a crack about age, because I don't know you obviously. I'm referring to your position in the situation.