Glenn Lawrence

Success is seldom the result of a single opportunity, fortunate circumstance, or moment of inspiration. Rather, it is the culmination of disciplined habits, deliberate decision-making, and an unwavering commitment to personal excellence. Throughout history, civiliza…

Read more

A strong society does not begin with government institutions, courts, universities, or political parties. It begins in the home. The family is the first institution of civilization, and the order of the family determines the order of the culture. When families are strong, nations have a foundation. When families collapse, nations eventually follow.

At th…

Read more

Modern men are becoming more afraid of marriage, and many people pretend they do not understand why. Men today have watched countless husbands lose their homes, businesses, finances, retirement savings, children, and peace of mind through divorce. They have watched courts heavily impact men financially while society mocks them for wanting to protect the…

Read more

Read more

Red pill gurus often claim that the red pill is not an ideology, not a belief system, and not a prescription for how men should live. Instead, they say it is only a “praxology,” which means a practical way to study behavior, choices, and results.

Rollo Tomassi has often explained it this way:

“Red pill isn’t a prescription or ideology, it’s a praxology.”

A…

Read more

We are living in the era of the algorithm of nihilism.

That is not just some dramatic phrase. That is what this thing is.

We are living in a time where machines study what makes people angry, scared, bitter, jealous, hopeless, lustful, and distracted, and then they feed it to them over and over again. Not because it is true. Not because it is wise. Not be…

Read more

We are living in the era of the algorithm of nihilism.

That is not just some dramatic phrase. That is what this thing is.

We are living in a time where machines study what makes people angry, scared, bitter, jealous, hopeless, lustful, and distracted, and then they feed it to them over and over again. Not because it is true. Not because it is wise. Not be…

Read more

There comes a point when vision must become action. It is not enough to speak about what could be built or what might be possible someday. A serious idea requires planning, discipline, and movement. That is the position I am in now as I work to build Relentless Network Studio in Orlando, Florida.

This project is not intended to be a hobby, a vanity proje…

Read more

Modern dating is full of extremes.

One side says sexual history means nothing. The other side treats it like it explains everything. Neither position is serious. Neither position is balanced. And neither one helps men make wise decisions about who they should trust, pursue, or build a life with.

The more honest answer is this: body count does matter, but …

Read more

The red pill creators built a whole brand by taking pieces of evolutionary psychology, cutting out the nuance, and feeding hurt men a message that sounds like hard truth but often goes way past what the facts can really support.

That is the real problem.

The issue is not that they started with nothing. The issue is that they took partial truths and stretc…

Read more

Modern discourse around marriage, dating, and masculinity keeps pushing this idea that “pragmatism over morality” is the superior operating system for men. You hear it everywhere now. The laws are stacked against you. Divorce incentives favor women. The sexual marketplace has shifted permanently. Marriage is a bad contract. Adapt or lose. And then they …

Read more

And that right there is the trap.

Christian men are bleeding out—quietly—because they’re being fed a Disney-Christian model of relationships, then told “just trust God” when it collapses. Meanwhile, divorce rates in the Christian world still aren’t impressive, and the label “Christian” now means about as much as a bumper sticker.

So here’s what we unpacked—and why it matters.

1) Christian Men Are Getting Alienated for Seeing Reality

In church, if you admit you’re learning from data, patterns, and human nature—aka how men and women actually operate—you get hit with the sacred modern Christian spell:

“That’s not God. Just trust God.”

As if God is allergic to information.

Let me say this clearly: God can use science, observation, and yes—even secular frameworks—as tools for wisdom. If all truth is God’s truth, then truth doesn’t stop being true because the guy who said it isn’t leading a Bible study.

You don’t worship the tool. You use it.

The Red Pill (at its best) is descriptive: what is.
Christianity is prescriptive: what should be.

The problem is: the church keeps pretending what is doesn’t exist—and then acts shocked when marriages blow up.

2) “I’m a Christian” Doesn’t Mean Anything Anymore

Mike said it clean: the Christian label is wishy-washy now. People say “I’m a Christian” the way they say “I’m a Lakers fan.”

• “My mom went to church.”

• “I go on Easter.”

• “I saw The Passion of the Christ.”

• “I know who Jesus is.”

Cool. That’s not discipleship. That’s cultural cosplay.

So if you’re a man seeking a wife, here’s the brutal reality:

You still have to vet. Hard.
Because “Christian” doesn’t automatically mean:

• emotionally mature

• sexually disciplined

• loyal

• accountable

• submissive to Scripture

• capable of a stable marriage

It just means they know the vocabulary.

Read more

Let’s just say what everybody doesn't want to say out loud, but knows it's true.
”Same-sex marriage” is not in the Constitution. It’s not in the text, it’s not in the history, and it sure as hell wasn’t in the minds of the men who wrote and ratified it.

What we’re dealing with isn’t “civil rights.”
It’s a late-stage cultural experiment that got rubber-stamped by judges who decided their feelings outrank the Founders.

The World the Founders Actually Lived In

Start with the obvious: at the founding, marriage meant man + woman. Full stop.

Not “marriage is whatever two (or more) adults in love define it as.”
Not “a flexible social contract that can be rewritten every election cycle.”

In the entire Western legal tradition they inherited—English common law, colonial statutes, early state constitutions—marriage was assumed to be male–female. You don’t see debates about “same-sex marriage” in 1776 or 1787 for the same reason you don’t see debates about “marrying your dog.” It wasn’t on the table. It wasn’t a category. It was outside the moral universe they operated in.

On top of that, nearly every state had sodomy laws on the books—laws criminalizing homosexual acts. You can think those laws were wise, harsh, outdated, or whatever, but that’s not the point. The point is: they tell you what the culture believed about sex, family, and moral order.

If the same generation that criminalized homosexual acts had been told, “By the way, the Constitution you just ratified secretly guarantees two men a right to marry each other,” they would’ve laughed in your face. Or assumed you were mentally ill.

What the Fourteenth Amendment Was Actually For

Fast-forward to 1868 and the Fourteenth Amendment.

That amendment was drafted in the blood-soaked aftermath of the Civil War to secure civil rights for freed slaves—to make sure states couldn’t deny basic legal protections and equal treatment under the law to Black Americans.

Nobody in those congressional debates was talking about:

• “Gay marriage,”

• “Sexual orientation,”

• Or redefining the male–female structure of marriage.

They were talking about Black men being lynched, Black families being terrorized, Black citizens being denied contracts, property, and legal standing. They were trying to slam the door on race-based tyranny, not rewrite 3,000 years of moral and marital norms.

So when someone says, “The Fourteenth Amendment obviously protects same-sex marriage,” no—it doesn’t. Not under originalism. That’s a modern import, read back into a text that never meant that, never said that, and was never understood that way by the people who wrote and ratified it.

What Originalism Actually Says About Marriage

Originalism is simple:

• You ask what the words meant to the people who ratified them.

• You look at the public meaning, the legal backdrop, and the assumptions in place at the time.

• You don’t turn the Constitution into a mood ring for whatever the current elite class feels this decade.

When the Fourteenth Amendment says no state shall deprive any person of “liberty… without due process of law,” that word liberty is not a blank credit card for modern sexual politics.

It did not mean:

• A right to redefine institutions older than the Constitution,

• A right to force the state to call your relationship “marriage” because you feel strongly about it,

• A right to bulldoze every previous legal and cultural norm in the name of “progress.”

“Equal protection” did not mean:

• Every new arrangement that demands the label “marriage” must be treated identically,

• Or that if the state recognizes male–female marriage, it is forced to recognize any combination of adults who shout “discrimination” loud enough.

It meant this:
The laws on the books must be applied equally to the people they cover.

If the law says “marriage is a union between a man and a woman,” then under equal protection, that rule applies equally to all men and all women. Every man is equally free to marry a woman. Every woman is equally free to marry a man. That’s equal application of the law.

What activists want is not equal protection; they want a different law—a new definition of marriage—and they want judges to impose it when they can’t win it honestly.

Read more

Let’s stop lying to ourselves.

We live in a country where people will chant “my truth,” wave a rainbow flag over a government building, and then tell you with a straight face that hardcore pornography and prostitution are “free speech,” “empowerment,” and “sexual rights.”

And if you push back, you’re the Puritan. You’re the problem. You’re the “theocrat.”

But if you go back and read the men who actually built this country with the same honesty you claim to use on the Bible, the picture is not fuzzy at all:

• They did not believe in a constitutional right to peddle smut.

• They did not believe prostitution was some morally neutral “job.”

• They absolutely did not design the First Amendment to be a force field around industrialized sexual exploitation.

So here’s the question this whole essay is going to answer head-on:

Would the Founders — the guys who wrote the Declaration and the Constitution — view modern pornography and prostitution (online and in person) as “constitutional rights”… or as violations of the very order they were trying to build?

Short answer:
They would see our current regime — where porn is protected and normalized, and attempts to restrict it are attacked in the name of the Constitution — as completely backwards. Anti-constitutional in spirit, even when technically hiding under modern case law.

Let’s walk through why.

1. Start Where the Founders Started: God, Sin, and Ordered Liberty

If you’ve been through real hermeneutics training — the way I had to at Liberty when studying Scripture — you learn one basic rule:

You don’t get to pour your modern feelings into old words.
You have to ask: “What did this text mean to the people who actually wrote and ratified it?”

Mike Farris lays this out on the constitutional side:

• The Founders believed rights come from God — the Creator of Genesis 1, the God who made man in His image.

• The Declaration explicitly says we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

• Government exists to secure those rights, not invent them, sell them, or redefine them based on the sexual fashions of the moment.Constitution Center+1

They also understood another basic biblical truth:

• All people are sinners.

• Because of that, you never give unchecked power to any man or institution.

• So they built: enumerated powers, checks and balances, and federalism — to keep sinful men from turning into tyrants.

In other words, the whole system is built around two pillars:

1. Imago Dei – Human beings have God-given dignity and rights.

2. Human Depravity – Human beings will abuse power and appetites if you don’t restrain them.

Now ask yourself:
Does a culture that floods the internet with infinite, on-demand sex acts…
and builds a multibillion-dollar industry around selling human bodies…

…look like a culture that takes the image of God and the reality of sin seriously?

Not even close.

2. What “Freedom of Speech and Press” Originally Meant — And What It Didn’t

One of the laziest modern lies is this:

“Porn is just speech. You can’t ban speech. Therefore porn is protected by the First Amendment. Checkmate, Puritans.”

That’s not originalism. That’s TikTok logic.

The Founders didn’t invent their free speech doctrine from scratch. They inherited English common law, and especially Blackstone’s Commentaries, which were basically the legal textbook of the founding generation.

Here’s how Blackstone defined liberty of the press:

Liberty of the press means no prior restraint — no government licenser stopping you from publishing —
but if you publish “blasphemous, immoral, treasonable, schismatical, seditious, or scandalous” material, the state can punish you after the fact without violating liberty of the press.University of Chicago Press

He literally says:

• The press is free from licensing,

• Not free from “censure for criminal matter when published.”

• And punishing “dangerous or offensive writings” is necessary for “peace and good order, of government and religion” — which he calls “the only solid foundations of civil liberty.”University of Chicago Press

The Founders read this. They cited this. They agreed with this logic when they wrote and ratified the First Amendment.

And we know this wasn’t just theory:

• States that wrote “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” into their own constitutions still criminalized blasphemy and obscene material in the founding era.Harvard Law Review

In other words:

At the time of the Founding, “freedom of speech/press” never meant a blank check to publish whatever sexual filth you want for money.
It meant: no government licenser, but yes, government can punish obscene, corrupting material after the fact.

Read more

If “Patriarchy vs. Feminism” is the war over who holds authority, then false accusations are the nukes.

In the last essay, we talked about what the Founders actually built:

• A father-led order with guardrails,

• Rights flowing from God, not the state,

• Law as a shield, not a weapon.

Modern feminism and the divorce-industrial complex grabbed that shield, flipped it around, and started beating men with it.

Now we’re going to talk about the sharpest weapon in that arsenal:

False accusations.
The socially approved way to destroy a man without evidence, without consequences, and without guilt.

The New Religion: Accusation Is Truth

Can we cut the bullshit and talk about false accusations like adults?

Because right now, America is running on a new religion:

“Accusation is truth.”

If you’re the right kind of “victim,” the right sex, the right political tribe—your words are treated as sacred.

That is the complete opposite of what both Scripture and the Founders built this country on.

Before there was the Constitution…
Before there was due process…
Before there were courts and committees and HR offices…

There was a simple command from God:

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

That wasn’t a suggestion.
That wasn’t “unless you were emotional,” or “unless you’re part of a protected class.”

God tied lying about someone directly to:

• Injustice

• Oppression

• And bloodshed

False witness was not some minor “oops.” It was a moral crime that could get someone killed.

The Founders actually believed that.

Reputation as Property – What We Forgot

The Founders understood something we’ve completely abandoned:

A man’s reputation is part of his property.

His name.
His honor.
His good standing in the community.

Those aren’t just “feelings.” Those are assets.

• They affect whether he can work.

• Whether he can provide.

• Whether anyone will partner with him, hire him, or trust him.

You strip that away with a lie, you’ve robbed him just as surely as if you emptied his bank account or stole his land.

So at the founding:

• Defamation was a recognized tort and often a crime.

• You could be punished for slander and libel.

• You didn’t get to vomit lies into the public square, wreck a man’s life, and hide behind “my truth.”

They plugged God’s commandment directly into the bones of the justice system.

That’s why:

• Due Process exists.

• The 5th and 14th Amendments weren’t technicalities; they were moral reinforcement:

The state cannot punish you without proof and procedure.
Accusation ≠ guilt.

Evidence.
Witnesses.
Cross-examination.

Those weren’t paperwork games. They were guardrails against mob rule and false witness.

Now look at us.

“Believe All” = Worship the Mob

Read more

Everyone loves to scream “patriarchy” like it’s a slur.

Feminists spit it like venom.
Blue-pilled pastors apologize for it.
Soft men roll their eyes at it while hiding behind their wives’ emotions.

But nobody actually stops and asks a basic question:

What kind of order did this country actually inherit from the Bible and the Founders?

Because here’s the uncomfortable truth:

If you go back to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and read them with the same honesty a theologian is supposed to use on Scripture, you don’t find feminism.

You find patriarchy with guardrails.

Not male supremacy.
Not feminist supremacy.

A father-led order where:

• Men carry the weight,

• Women are protected and honored,

• Children are formed inside a stable household,

• And the state’s job is to secure God-given rights — not to play marriage counselor with guns and gavels.

We didn’t inherit a gender studies utopia.
We inherited ordered liberty built on responsible male headship.

And this culture has been at war with that reality ever since.

“All Men Are Created Equal” ≠ “Everyone Is the Same”

The Declaration says:

“All men are created equal… endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Modern people read that and hear:

“Everyone is identical and interchangeable, and if you notice differences you’re an oppressor.”

That’s stupid.

At the founding, “men” = human beings.

• Equal in worth.

• Equal in being made in God’s image.

• Equal in God-given rights.

Not equal in design, role, or calling.

The Founders lived in reality:

• Men and women are both made in God’s image.

• Men and women are not the same.

They didn’t need a “Women’s Studies” department to figure out that a father and a mother play different roles. They had:

• Common sense,

• Scripture,

• And a functioning society full of intact families to look at.

They built a system where everyone has rights as persons, but the assumed structure was patriarchal:

Fathers lead.
Husbands provide and protect.
Men bear the civic and military load.

Women are honored and guarded, not turned into knockoff men with HR badges and OnlyFans accounts.

The Constitution Is Neutral on Sex – Not Neutral on Order

The Constitution deliberately uses terms like:

• “Persons”

• “Citizens”

• “The people”

It’s legally neutral, because rights come from being human, not from your genitals.

That doesn’t mean the Framers were imagining some androgynous, non-binary blob society.

The social order they assumed was obvious:

• Fathers lead households.

• Husbands provide and protect.

• Men are the ones expected to fight, build, and die if necessary.

• Women are protected, secured, and legally respected — not drafted into pretending they’re men.

So let’s be clear:

• The language of the founding documents is neutral.

• The worldview under them is unapologetically patriarchal.

They didn’t write a gender manifesto because they didn’t need to.
They just lived it.

Would the Founders See Feminism as “Un-American”?

Take that founding picture and hold it up next to modern feminism as it actually operates:

• Father authority treated as suspect by default.

• Masculinity rebranded as “toxic,” constantly policed, constantly shamed.

• Law turned into a weapon so one sex can leverage the state against the other:

  • Biased family courts

  • “Believe all women” kangaroo culture

  • Title IX witch hunts

  • HR departments acting as morality police for feelings

To the Framers, that wouldn’t look like “progress.”
It would look like a direct assault on the load-bearing structure of the Republic.

Their logic was simple:

• Strong fathers → stable families.

• Stable families → virtuous citizens.

• Virtuous citizens → durable Republic.

You destroy the father, you destroy the family.
You destroy the family, you destroy the nation.

Read more

Can we wake up and stop living in fantasyland?

Our immigration system isn’t “complicated.” It’s broken on purpose by cowards, liars, and power-hungry politicians who figured out they can import future voters and cheap labor while calling anybody who objects a racist.

That’s the game.

They open the back door, wave people in, then scream “bigot” at the homeowner who says, “Hey… that’s my house.”

The Founders Weren’t Confused About Borders

The Founders didn’t fight a war, draft a Constitution, and form a nation so people could crawl under a fence, chant slogans in a language they don’t even bother to translate, and then demand free benefits.

They weren’t building a feelings-based commune.
They were building a nation.

They gave Congress the power to:

• “Establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Art. I, §8)

• Regulate foreign commerce and relations

And they charged the federal government with protecting every state against “invasion” (Art. IV, §4).

That’s the word: invasion.
Not “unaccompanied migration.”
Not “undocumented neighbors.”
Invasion.

At the founding, sovereign borders and controlled admission were assumed like gravity. There is no “right” in the text to sneak into a country and demand the blessings of citizenship and welfare because you crossed a line at 3 a.m.

Originalism: Immigration Is Not Therapy

Under originalism, immigration is not a therapy topic. It’s not a TikTok debate about “lived experience.” It’s a legislative question.

The people, through Congress, decide:

• Who gets in

• On what terms

• How many

• And what happens if you spit on that process and sneak in anyway

That’s it. That’s the job.

Everything we’ve slapped on top of that:

• Sanctuary cities

• “Catch and release”

• Executive amnesty

• Non-enforcement memos

• Border Patrol used as Uber with badges

…is emotional diarrhea smeared over a clear constitutional structure.

The Presidents Who Abused Executive Power

Let’s name names.

Barack Obama spent years saying, “I’m not a king, I can’t just change immigration law.”
Then he turned around and did exactly that with DACA and attempted DAPA—creating de facto legal status and work authorization for millions because Congress told him “no.”

That’s not compassion.
That’s an executive middle finger to the separation of powers.

Then Joe Biden came in and said, “Hold my beer.”

• Wide-open “parole” programs

• Mass catch-and-release

• Border Patrol turned into a glorified travel agency

• ICE told to stand down unless someone basically live-streams a felony

That’s not governance.
That’s managed collapse.

You don’t get to scream “democracy” and “rule of law” out of one side of your mouth while cheering presidents who rewrite legislation with a marker and a teleprompter because it feels nice on CNN.

The Fake Christianity Cover Story

And spare me the “Jesus was a refugee” Hallmark theology.

Jesus didn’t break into Egypt, demand a translator, a court date in 2032, free housing, and enrollment in a benefits program. His family fled a specific threat and then returned when it was over.

The biblical principle is this:

If rights are grounded in the imago Dei—the image of God—
then government’s first duty is to the people under its actual covenant: citizens and lawful residents.

Read more

When I was getting my theology degree at Liberty University, one of the most important skills I learned was proper hermeneutics—reading the text honestly, in context, by the author’s original intent. No cherry-picking. No emotional edits. No rewriting scripture to make it nicer for modern sensitivities.

I’ve taken that same discipline and applied it to America’s founding documents.

If you want to understand this nation, you don’t start with activist judges or modern politicians. You go back to the Declaration of Independence, then you move to the Constitution, and you read them through the lens of originalism—what the founders actually meant when they wrote them.

When you do that, one thing becomes brutally clear:

The Second Amendment isn’t about sport.

It’s about sovereignty.

Can we cut the bullshit?

The Second Amendment isn’t about duck hunting.

It’s not about clay pigeons.

It’s not about what some fragile suburban politician thinks you “need” to feel safe.

It’s about power.

Who has it.

Who keeps it.

Who checks it.

And whether the government fears the people—or the people grovel before their government like obedient pets.

Right now, the entire national conversation around guns is built on a patronizing lie:

The state is the adult, and you are the child.

No.

I reject that.

The founders rejected that.

And Scripture rejects that.

Every modern gun-control fantasy is just soft tyranny wrapped in a safety slogan.

What the Founders Actually Wrote (Not What CNN Dreams They Wrote)

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Key phrase: the people.

Read more

As far as I’m aware, there is no irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence that proves Martae Ruelas engaged in homosexuality as the Bible defines it. None. Until someone brings actual biblical receipts instead of Twitter gossip, I’m not moving the goalposts. So I’m sticking to God’s categories, not the internet’s. Whatever his past sins were—even…

Read more

America isn’t at risk because of Democrats or Republicans. America is at risk because we’re flirting with something far more suicidal: erasing the very foundation that gives this country the right to exist.

If either political party ever h…

Read more