More than a year of work to finally hold this one in hand. If we want to save the West, we must escape the Longhouse. These will be shipping in a few days—last chance for 10% off and signed copies!

I hear this a lot—and I get it. There's definite truth to the difference between how I communicate in a podcast format like Bright Hearth and here on X. It's a common enough sentiment that I figured I'd take a minute and offer an explanation for the difference, which is not accidental. I'll break it down into two categories to make this as easy to follow as possible: First, a word on rage-baiting. Yes, some of my posts are intentionally calculated to provoke. They are meant, as we often say here in Ogden, to poke the gods of this age in both eyes. They are meant to expose satanic liberalism, egalitarianism, and other errors common to our day—especially those errors that are common in Christians of our day. On social media, I'm writing in such a way as to cut directly to the heart of the issue, with absolutely no nuance, and in a way calculated for maximum reach and rhetorical effectiveness. Yes, I want what I consider to be maximally important issues to be brought to the attention of as many people as possible. Only people who are dishonest will claim otherwise. Why are you posting on a social media platform if not to gain the attention of others with your words? Now, there is such a thing as foolish rage-baiting and click-baiting—but here is the critical difference. While there is such thing as foolish rage-baiting and click-baiting, it is not identical to aiming for maximum rhetorical effectiveness in a given communication medium. As I see it, foolish rage-baiting/click-baiting is marked by a few characteristics. One, it promises what it doesn't deliver. Click-baiting that is annoying does this—promising some claim or premise that, upon clicking, you discover the person has no intention of substantiating. This is genuinely annoying and I try not to do it. Secondly, foolish rage-baiting is provocation for the sake of provocation. It exists for no other purpose. Do I say things knowing they will make people mad? Yes. Intentionally so. But I'm picking things that I believe are of high importance and timeliness to our nation—things that, should they provoke you, reveal something in you that is deficient, foolish, and sinful. For example, women get very angry when you tell them that their abortions make them worthy of the death penalty. Sodomites get very angry when you tell them that their sodomy is disgusting and offensive to God. Liberals get very angry when you tell them that universal suffrage is not a human right delivered to man from Sinai. Feminists become furious when you point out to them the satanic roots of feminism and the civilizationally catastrophic effects of the female vote. I could go on. Notice the throughline. Yes, I know that all of these statements—particularly if they are put in a stark and un-nuanced format designed for maximum rhetorical effectiveness and reach—will provoke furious responses. That is part of the point. I'm trying to show just how far the poison of egalitarianism and the satanic evil of liberalism have gone. If you'd like, you may call it "rage-baiting." I'm fine with that. But it is not provoking rage for no reason. It is provoking rage for a justifiable, and in my opinion, greatly needed, reason. Paul says in Ephesians 5 that we ought to take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. One of the chief means of doing this exposing is to say aloud those things which wicked men are practicing and call them to repentance for them. Second, a word on podcasts vs. poasting. So why do I sound different here on social media than I do on, for example, the Bright Hearth podcast? The answer is simple: because they are completely different mediums requiring completely different manners of communication for maximum effectiveness. The podcast is quite a long-form medium. There, I'm aiming to offer maximum practical instruction, often with many caveats, much nuance, and in anticipation of objections. I'm able to be thorough in my instruction because I'm typically spending upwards of an hour speaking to a single issue. At my normal public speaking voice, that is between 7,000 and 10,000 words. Social media, as I noted above, is a platform where I'm aiming to operate in a much less didactic mode. I am doing much less lengthy instruction on social media and much more political agitation. Think of it as the difference between a political stump speech on the campaign trail and a lengthy conversation with a potential voter on all of the issues he has questions about. Social media is the former, podcasting the latter. The podcast format is the closest to the version of me that you would meet one-on-one if you were to come ask me a question after my Sunday sermon. It's much closer to how I would sound if you were sitting in my office for pastoral counseling. Social media is still authentically me. I believe what I say online, but the message is adapted for maximal success via the medium. This is why it's important to understand that the medium of communication is not neutral. It affects the contents and manner of your communication. Writing a book is not the same as giving a sermon is not the same as posting on X is not the same as giving a conference talk is not the same as calling your grandmother. Duh! My conviction is that social media is massively useful. Its particular mode and manner of communication is particularly suited to certain types of things. One of those things is moving the zeitgeist of the political conversation in a nation. Public sentiment is shaped by public speech, and social media is the public square of our day. Given all of that, I believe my intentionally provocative use of social media is fundamentally both wise and righteous. Obviously, I believe this, or I wouldn't be doing it. One reason is because I believe the hour is late for Western civilization, and unless our nation recovers the will to confront political liberalism and its attendant egalitarianism with clarity and force, our civilization is in danger. Lastly, this is why probably 70% to 80% of the people online who have the most significant problems with my speech are women. I am not speaking to them here primarily. I'm not speaking in modes of communication that are calculated to please women. I am speaking in the mode of political pugilism, verbal combat. It's on purpose. I do not believe women belong in these conversations in any kind of prominent fashion. I believe that when they are involved in these kinds of political conversations in prominent fashion, their very presence makes the conversation less effective. Hope that helps!

Seeing a lone man resist the hysterical insanity of nine female jurors and two male jurors attempting to let a serial killer go free should connect a few dots for us with respect to feminism, the Longhouse, and the dynamics of resistance. When a space becomes demographically feminized (that is, Longhoused), the vast majority of men either leave or submit to the feminine norms. A much smaller percentage of men resist those norms. The vast majority of those men are forced out by various versions of bureaucratic control mechanisms (read, HR departments). This is how you end up with an endless spiral of feminization in a church, a workplace, and even a nation. It is exceedingly difficult to launch a successful counterattack against the Longhouse from within an already Longhoused space. This is why you will see the most effective, the most vocal, and the most open defiance to feminism from pockets of resistance that have successfully escaped the Longhouse and built free institutions outside of its norming control. This is why we spend the last two chapters of the book focusing extensively on first escaping the Longhouse and then subsequently building outside of the Longhouse without replicating or repeating its errors.

Huge thank you to everyone who has preordered the Longhouse book so far! We don't use Amazon for fulfillment or printing on purpose. Instead, we do all we can to create jobs for our own people. One side-effect of this is that we bear enormous costs up front to publish a new book. This will be our most expensive book yet. It will be a while before we even break even. It's totally worth it to be 100% confident of the quality of the book and to put money into our own people. But it means that our preorder campaigns are really important. Thank you for helping us do it like this instead of the normal way.

I have been informed that 10 out of 10 FEMINISTS are declining to pre-order the book, but 10 out of 10 PATRIOTS have already pre-ordered. Which side are you on?

Introducing "The Longhouse: How Feminism Conquered the West and Made Us Miserable," what I consider our most important book yet at New Christendom Press. Pre-orders are open now, with 10% off during the preorder sale. We'll also be signing the first 1,000 copies preordered! The book traces the history of feminism, how it conquered virtually every aspect of Western society, and what to do about it.