Christian, husband, dad of 4, pastor, member of the Confessional Lutheran Ministerium, believer in justification by faith alone in Christ.
Las Cruces, NM
Joined December 2022
- Tweets578
- Following153
- Followers141
- Likes3.6K
Paul Rydecki retweeted
There’s not a war on this planet that the United States should be involved in right now, monetarily or militarily.
Paul Rydecki retweeted
Step 11: Be gracious on the date. He probably hasn't been on a lot of dates. You probably have not either. This is an opportunity to practice asking, talking, and listening. Learn about what you like in a guy, learn about what you don't like about yourself when you are with a guy. Maybe you talk too much or you talk too little or you are too critical or too sheepish if an uncomfortable topic arises. Dating is a skill. Use every date to better yourself, and help that guy be a better date in the future.
Provided you follow most of these guidelines, it's very likely he'll ask for date number 2. Unless there's clear worldview misalignment or he has obvious character flaws, you should say yes again. Why? Because you need the practice. And women generally don't develop an attraction until they develop an emotional connection. And emotional connections usually don't happen after one date.
If you don't want to say yes to the second date, reward him even as you graciously decline. "Thank you for having the courage to ask me out. Thank you for planning our first date, picking me up, and introducing me to Ethiopian food. I don't think our worldviews are compatible, but you're going to make a great husband for some hopeful girl."
Ladies, your problem is not that you are too selective about the person you want to marry. Your problem is you are too selective about who you say yes to for those first few dates. You should hyper-scrutinize someone that you're dating exclusively, getting engaged to, and joining your life with in marriage. But when it comes to dating, you should be casting the net wide.
Do not listen to cynical influencers who tell you there's no good guys out there. There are! You just cannot eliminate them as a possibility before you even exchange numbers. Further, dating well plays a role in making them into the man you ultimately will want to marry.
Sincerely, a woman who has been happily married for 28 years who wants you to be the wife and mother you long to be. 2/2
Paul Rydecki retweeted
Attention Young Women:
I am surrounded by 20ish-year-old guys who want to date and get married. They are smart, capable, hard working and cute. They're hesitant to ask girls out or don't know where to find the good ones. If you are one of the good ones, here's what you need to do.
Step 1: Change your expectations about how you'll meet. You might've built a story up in your head about the first look that resembles a plot line from Gilmore Girls. It won't happen like that, and your insistence that it be instantly Instagrammable is knocking a lot of good guys out of the dating pool.
Step 2: Get fit. You don't need to be a size 4, but this generation of young men is serious about stewarding their bodies and they want a woman who cares for hers.
Step 3: Grow your hair out (and don't dye it blue). It may sound superficial to you, but these young men want a girl who is feminine, and long locks are an indicator that you are.
Step 4: Go clean your list. You are probably too selective about who you say yes to because you evaluate a coffee offer with the seriousness of a marriage proposal. So you say "no" when he asks for your number if he's an inch too short or three years too old, or does not yet make six figures, or wants to have a farm someday or doesn't want to have a farm someday. Ditch your list. As long as he does not creep you out, if he has the guts to ask you on a date, say yes.
Step 5: Sign up for any event where you know like-minded guys will be. The local Young Republicans mixer, a hiking group, a lively singles youth night at church. If you're not seeing these guys, it's because you're not situating yourself where these guys are. Change your routine.
Step 6: Get a gym membership and dress modestly. That not only accomplishes step two, but it puts you in regular contact with a lot of guys who are working to better themselves. But don't set a thirst trap. Stand out by wearing workout gear that draws attention to your face, not your cleavage.
Step 7: When the guy who you see every Wednesday and Friday, who has given you pointers on better form for your RDLs, asks for your number, unless you genuinely feel unsafe, give it to him.
Step 8: When he calls you two days later and asks you out for coffee or dinner, say yes. Even if you don't "like" him. This matters for two reasons. 1. You are conditioning him to initiate, and that will benefit you if you date long-term, or benefit other women he asks out in the future because you conditioned him to associate the risk of asking with the reward of a "yes." Hopefully some other girl is building up your future husband's confidence by saying yes when he asks her on a coffee date. 2. You don't actually know who you like. 50% of women marry a guy where there was no initial spark. They did not know they liked him until they saw him for a few weeks or a few months.
Step 9: IMPORTANT - learn to flirt. That doesn't mean licking your lips suggestively or wearing a miniskirt. It means singling him out for attention. A guy is much more likely to ask you on a date if you've signaled that you will say yes. You do that by making eye contact, smiling at him, and responding to any small "bids" for connection.
Step 10: He may not get all the dating etiquette exactly right that first time. He may not show up with flowers or open the door for you. But whatever he does that is commendable, notice it and thank him for it. A woman's greatest power is not bossing and directing, it is responding to and encouraging masculine energy in the right direction through sweetness and precise validation. Don't knock a sincere guy out of the running because he didn't execute a date perfectly. On the first date, the third, the fifth, you are evaluating for worldview alignment and character. Not elaborate planning for your night out.
1/2
Attention Young Men:
I am surrounded by 20 year old girls in my life that are smart, capable, hard working and cute. Nobody is dating them. Not sure what the deal is, but I don’t get it.
Step 1: Stop playing video games
Step 2: Head to great clips and get that lettuce cleaned up
Step 3: Hit a shower (when dating hygiene is critical)
Step 4: Go clean your car
Step 5: Sign up for a yoga class
Step 6: Go to the yoga class
Step 7: Ask a cute for her phone number at yoga class (yes you can meet girls IRL and not just on the apps - 10/10 the Dirt Dog highly recommends)
Step 8: Follow up within 2 days with a phone call and ask them out for this coming weekend Friday or Saturday night.
Step 9: IMPORTANT - come up with a good game plane for date night. Get a dinner reservation, get an activity planned. Let them know in advance what you are doing so they can dress appropriately. I know you are gunna roll off the couch and head to date night, but they are not. They are going to stress about what to wear and call at least 6 different people on FaceTime to ask their opinion.
Step 10: I highly recommend you bring flowers to the door step. I’m not covering that you go to the doorstep, because if you don’t do that you have no hope here. Women want men to date them. You don’t need to break the bank on flowers. Head to Trader Joe’s. Grab 2 different kinds of flowers. If you don’t know what matches find the closest looking lady to your mom at TJ’s and ask her. Wrap the 2 flowers into 1 bouquet with paper. Bonus Points you can cut open a TJ bag and use that as the paper.
Step 11: Be a gentleman on the date. She isn’t there to hear your life story. Ask her about her. For every 1 question you answer, ask her 3. Open Doors, pay for the meal, be polite.
Provided you follow most of this guideline you are highly likely to get yourself an opportunity for date number 2.
Keep going until you find someone that you can’t imagine not being around all the time. That’s when you have found a good one for you.
My life is complete with my wife as my companion. I wish you the same fortune in life. Happy Hunting.
Paul Rydecki retweeted
Charlie Kirk suspected immediately that October 7 was an Israeli false flag. Our leaders ignored him, which is why our empire is now being destroyed by Netanyahu-led wars. Dave Smith on this generation’s 9-11.
Paul Rydecki retweeted
"We tore down the three walls of marriage- permanence, complementarity, monogamy.
A generation of children is now exposed to the instability of serial relationships, the risks posed by unrelated adults, mother-hunger, and father-hunger, identity loss through anonymous gamete purchase, developmental deprivation, and exploitation by an industry that manufactures children for any adult with money and a contract.
Like the inhabitants of Jerusalem, children are paying the price for living without walls."
"In the name of gay rights, we tore down the wall of complementarity.
The law can make mothers and fathers optional on paper, but it will never make a mother and father optional in the life of a child."
— @Katy_Faust at NatCon Jerusalem
Paul Rydecki retweeted
Only a rare saint lives and dies for an abstract idea like “beautiful and true.” Ordinary people live and die for their families, friends, and communities. All three have been carelessly dismantled in recent decades. Families have been undermined because children have to move away to find decent jobs. Friendships have become shallow because job churn leads to lower investment in relationships, and local friend groups have been replaced by group chats with “best friends” that haven’t seen each other in years. Communities worthy of the name are almost non-existent, as frequent relocations create neighborhoods full of strangers. And at higher levels (eg, the nation), elites and creatives have for many years been unable to articulate a “we” that isn’t built on demonizing half or more of the population. On top of it all, the internet has made many young people borderline autistic in terms of their ability to form relationships, and to endure frustration, disappointment, failure, etc.
People are isolated from each other, and the culture offers them nothing around which to rally except the temporary enthusiasm of divisive political causes. “Living and dying for the beautiful and true” is a nice-sounding phrase to promote a conservative book, but our time would be better spent worrying about record-high rates of suicide, depression, drug abuse, etc.
Paul Rydecki retweeted
I love when Trump supporters say you have to vote Republican even though you didn’t get “everything you wanted.”
It sounds a lot better than saying “you have to vote Republican even though they lied you into an unwinnable war of aggression, on behalf of a foreign nation, after promising not to.”
Paul Rydecki retweeted
Let me explain why today's adults want toys.
We have an entire generation who grew up in families fragmented by no-fault divorce and sexual “liberation”—with parents who divorced, never married each other, or brought a revolving door of partners into the home.
Those children were starved of the stability, maternal love, and paternal love they needed to mature.
Parents are supposed to understand, support, and accommodate their children. But when adult sexual identity, validation, and desire take priority, children are forced to understand, support, and accommodate their parents.
Adult sexual liberation --> inverting the parent-child relationship.
Those kids are adults now, but they never really had a childhood. Finally in control of their own lives, they’re grasping for some semblance of the childhood they were denied.
We can only hope their attempt to reclaim childhood stops with the He-Man dolls—and that they don’t repeat the cycle by forcing their own children to carry adult burdens.
Toys 'R' Us to open 120 stores, biggest expansion in years - thanks to adults who 'didn't wanna grow up' trib.al/Z9cNnHq
Paul Rydecki retweeted
Reject the term racist, don’t use it or defend yourself from it
It’s a communist term designed to destroy your country
Christians should avoid ethnic hatred of all types but “racism” must lose its status as a magical word
Paul Rydecki retweeted
Democrats historically wanted to import foreigners and put them on welfare because they believed this would lead to the immigrants voting for Democrats.
Republicans historically wanted to import foreigners because their
big business donors wanted a class of indentured laborers who cost less than actual Americans.
Democrats kept this state of affairs alive by calling anyone who opposed it racist. Republicans kept this state of affairs alive by calling anyone who opposed it communist and anti-market.
Our country is now overrun with foreigners, welfare seems to be entirely fraudulent, we’re $40 trillion in debt, our cities are ground zero for millennia-old ethnic and tribal conflicts, and our own countrymen can’t find work or afford a home in a nation built for them by their ancestors.
And if you have a problem with this, Democrats will call you a racist and Republican politicians will call you communist and also call you racist.
Paul Rydecki retweeted
And maybe the reason I am reading this moment differently than others is because while I think government dependency is of course poison, I think the greatest poison that our culture is suffering from right now is feminism. It has impacted every aspect of our lives. It is the air that we breathe and the water that we’re swimming in. So much so, many self-identified conservatives don’t even see it anymore. Or even worse, they see it and have decided to cater to it.
As much as some of you feel grieved to hear self identified conservatives arguing for what you believe is expanding entitlements, I believe it is MUCH more grievous to see self identified conservatives arguing that it’s good for both mom and dad to be in the workforce all day.
I did not know that our movement was so far removed from biblical wisdom.
Paul Rydecki retweeted
With all respect this is not how "Christianity failed"
China is having this problem, so are South Korea and Japan and a whole bunch of non-Christian Nations
When Muslims or Hindus move to the West their birthrates fall off in a generation
The key factor here is modernity not Christianity, this is the civilizational cycle producing the Ibsen woman that Oswald Spengler described, the woman who sees herself first as companion or partner instead of mother
Once having children becomes a question instead of an inevitable rhythm of life Spengler said the civilization is already in its winter
Civilization can't survive the liberation of women from their natural God-designed roles, no matter what religion presides over this developement
So if the assertion is that Christianity fails in the same way every civilization-animating religion fails in the face of modernity, that's true, but it's not a failure specific to Christianity
We are heading towards a civilizational bottle neck where those who are capable of rejecting modernity and continuing to have children will be selected for, and almost all of those people will be religious fanatics, in America they will be largely Christian
This is how Christianity failed.
Believers see Christianity as revealed truth, but whether you believe or not, religion serves an earthly purpose, and that purpose is to hold civilization and the family together.
Understand this — we can argue all day about whether a creator god exists. You think yes, I think no, we debate.
But that debate is inconsequential. It's just the high-IQ equivalent of a pick-up game of basketball. Because it's not important what you believe... it's important what your beliefs make you do.
For over a thousand years, Christianity held the family together by tying sex to family responsibility, through marriage.
And for over a thousand years, Christianity held civilization together by tying marriage to male productivity and prosocial behavior.
These two links forged a chain that ran directly from "building civilization" to "getting laid".
Men who helped civilization along got laid. Men who didn't, didn't. This supported civilization in two ways. First, in the individual lives of men, it was motivational. Men worked hard and did useful things because that was how you got a pretty wife who was nice to you. Second, across generations, it was eugenic. Anti-civilizational men didn't get to have as many children.
That's how Christianity helped build civilization in the West.
Now, any religion could have done this, so long as it had certain traits. And in other places and times, other religions did do this. But in the West, it was Christianity in particular that did this job.
So why is the non-believer praising Christianity? Because I'm a non-believer, not an angry reddit church-hater. I'm interested in what's actually going on. If Christianity does a good thing, I'm going to say so.
Unfortunately, the praise stops here, because the reverse is also true. We have to fearlessly look at where Christianity failed, and why it no longer serves the civilization and family preserving functions that it once did.
Having created these two causal links:
"If you get married, you can have all the sex you want."
and
"If you work hard and do the right thing, you can marry a desirable woman."
... Christianity's responsibility was to preserve them.
The driving force behind civilization wasn't religious zeal. It was always the male libido.
(And yes, later, also love for your children. But that's a different topic for another day.)
So long as these two things remained true, the powerful engine of male libido would continue to pull the train of civilization.
The responsibility of Christianity, as an earthly institution, was to make sure these two things remained true forever, regardless of what changes technology wrought.
It failed.
Christianity failed to preserve the second link in its chain. Here's how and why.
In any agrarian society, from the neolithic era to early America, a teenage boy is functionally a man. He can do farm labor, he can fight wars, he can serve an apprenticeship and become a craftsman.
So if he wants sex, and what teenager doesn't, he can get married. Because he is a productive, respected member of the community, and all the women are socialized to want exactly that.
This is no longer true.
Christianity failed to defend marriage, because it thought "defending marriage" meant lecturing young people about getting married, instead of making sure they could.
Christianity sat by while women entered the workforce and earned as much as men. It sat by while women amassed more political power, social status, and respect than men.
When this happens, men can't marry, because women are genetically programmed to marry up.
Not down.
Not across.
Up.
If the average woman regards the average man as her equal, weddings are going to become increasingly rare. And the average Western woman does not regard the average man as her equal. She regards him as her inferior. She is egged on in this by every Hollywood movie, every show on television, every book in the bookstore, every story in the newspaper, every speech by every politician, on both sides of the aisle.
Christianity failed to stop this.
Worse yet, Christianity allowed the age where a man could even afford to marry to increase from 15 to 20 to 25 to 30.
With enough lectures and social pressure, you can stop teenagers from having sex until they are 15. In strict religious communities full of zeal, you might even hold some of them back until 18 or 20.
But if dudes can't afford a home or a wife until 30 or 35, what the hell do you expect them to do? Of course they're going to fornicate.
But Christianity did nothing about this either, because that would have meant taking on people with serious economic and institutional power, the scribes and Pharisees of our day.
It was much easier to lecture young people, because young people don't have any power.
So the Christians fought a culture war with the left, a war of condom-based sex education versus abstinence-only sex education, over who was better at preventing "teen pregnancy".
And no one stood up and shouted the obvious truth, like this:
"Teenage girls are supposed to get pregnant, you fucking noodle! What the hell do you think they get horny for?"
Nature, or god if you like, programmed teenagers to be horny so that you can have more humans. The command is right there in the bible "Be fruitful and multiply."
But somehow Christianity, the earthly institution, twisted this into "keep it in your pants".
No religion can fight human genetic programming and win.
It's not supposed to. It's supposed to work with that programming, not fight it. It's supposed to channel those instincts into healthy ways of life, not suppress them.
But lectures were easier.
Christianity forgot that traffic laws are not a highway. You cannot drive on a lecture about traffic safety and get to where you are going. You have to actually maintain a fucking road.
The path forward for young men's sexual urges no longer runs through work, marriage, and children. It runs though pickup artistry and looksmaxxing and hookup culture.
Christianity is perfectly willing to take on all of these things, but it is unwilling to pick a fight with the real political, economic, and institutional powers that gave rise to them.
This is why young people abandoned the church in droves, generations ago. Churches simply no longer had answers to the problems that they really had, and the needs they really felt.
Now they're all on reddit making edgy posts about how god is a monster, but that's only what they think they mean.
What they actually mean is that the church failed them.
Paul Rydecki retweeted
I’m open to Flock, just not in an environment where government-approved minorities can firebomb police stations with impunity for months on end while random rural whites get tracked down for walking into a public building during business hours through a door held open for them by police.
Feral hoodrats can film themselves looting stores and never get arrested, while the almighty power of the government surveillance state will focus all its energies to determine who talked to whom after getting the sniffles but refusing to become a guinea pig for a government shot that doesn’t even work for a cold you already had. You will be debanked if you make a social media comment disliked by a blue-haired freak, but if a left-wing nutjob hopped up on troonshine threatens on Bluesky to violently attack Republicans, magically nothing happens.
Everyone knows who the criminals are. Everyone knows where the crimes are being committed. Everyone knows who is in charge of these cities. Everyone knows who is letting criminals roam the streets and who is refusing to jail them and why. This is not exactly a splitting-the-atom level of unsolvable problem here.
Let’s do common sense stuff like locking up repeat criminals forever, and if there’s more crime after we’ve locked up the people who everyone with a brain knows are responsible for 99% of crime, then we can discuss 24/7 surveillance and tracking of the 99% of people with no criminal records whose worst transgression in any given day is rolling through a stop sign.
This is the most obvious and widely held objection to Flock right now, and yet not a single one of the scores of paid influencers or Flock flacks will even try to address it.
Paul Rydecki retweeted
A lot of conservative commentators and pastors attempt to carve out a safe path through the gender discourse by claiming that any bad behavior from women is ultimately a failure of male leadership
The power of this argument is that it's true, in healthy patriarchal societies the male head of the house was responsible for the behavior of his wife and daughters, but the reason is they were not considered to have full agency so the male head was granted authority over them
If a women defied her husband, society sided against her, if a daughter spurned her father she was looked down upon as disgraceful, the man had the responsibility to lead but the women had the responsibility to follow
The modern conservative solution has been to assign all the responsibility to men without granting them any authority, they are just supposed to lead without any social reinforcement or lawful authority
Men are taught that they should lead, but women are not taught that they should follow
Men are taught they're responsible for everything, even things they can't control because society stripped them of that authority, but women are told that they're never responsible for anything even when society has given them all the authority
We can see this reflected in the Lindsay Clancy case, but honestly we can see it reflected in most pulpits and conservative podcasts just as clearly
The two sexes must get along, no one should be stoking gender wars for clicks or attention, the future of our society depends on this
But it also depends on conservatives deciding what they really believe about gender diffrences
Are women the same as men from the neck up, with the same level of agency and responsibility?
Or are men and women different beyond their sex organs? Are men really responsible for the behavior of women?
We have to choose one or the other, because this idea that women are independent and capable of full agency, but also men are responsible for all bad female behavior can't survivie
Young men will just listen to the Andrew Tates of the world because you have nothing to offer them
I've seen people complaining that Muslims and Marxists and progressives (and, I would add, several wealthy Israel-backed lobbies) have a plan to take over the country, while Christians don't seem to have a plan.
If you think Christianity is about taking over the reins of power in this world, in any nation, you have completely misunderstood Christianity. Unlike Mohammed, and unlike the atheists and secularists, Jesus is the One who said, "My kingdom is not of this world." The Church does the bidding of Christ when Christians walk in His footsteps, when we proclaim boldly and unapologetically the Word of God, both Law and Gospel, when we pray for the world, when we bear the cross with patience, and when we reflect the kindness and mercy of Christ in our daily lives.
Paul Rydecki retweeted
This will be an unpopular opinion on the Right but I think this is kind of dumb, even as a troll. Lake Ontario was given that name on maps by European explorers long before the Canadian province of Ontario was named. There are several cities in America called Ontario -- at least one of them predating the Canadian province by like 100 years -- because the word originates with native tribes in North America. It's not a Canadian invention. Canadians never uniquely owned the lake or the name. So in effect all you're doing here is actually giving them credit for a thing that wasn't theirs to begin with. Yeah it's funny when Canadians are upset I guess or whatever, but Lake Ontario, the name itself, is *American* history dating back many centuries. Not sure how you own Canada by deleting your own history.
