In another victory for feminism, an empowered American wimminz decided to “exercise her right to choose,” and abort her two children, by decapitating them as they slept. Thus we mourn little Tyler and Charlee Worley, who look like nice kids, and who were snuffed far before their time.

Tyler, age 7, was slaughtered first, when his skank-ho mommy sawed his head off with a kitchen knife. Charlee, age 3, was dispatched in the same gruesome fashion, immediately afterward.

Their father, who is named by CBS News at the end of the article, is naturally portrayed as the villain in all this. He apparently decided to divorce his murderous skank of a wife, and indications were that the judge was going to grant him custody of the two little kids. This, as we all know, is a travesty, and thus the poor victim was forced to abort her children so as to evade child support enforcement.

Skank-ho mommy, Brandi Worley, phoned her first-responders at 4:33 a.m. on Nov. 17, 2016, and very calmly reported that: “I just stabbed myself and I killed my two children.” Skank-ho Brandi was found by police and medical personnel a short time later, with superficial scrapes. She also overdosed on the over-the-counter medication “Benadryl,” which is neither dangerous nor noteworthy, except as a way to garner attention through such fake suicide attempts.

What is most interesting is that Brandi’s mother, a wimminz who has never been named, was apparently in the house when the little kids were butchered. When asked some tough questions by the 911 operator, skank-ho Brandi handed the phone to mom, who was apparently ready with a cover story.

I find it an incredible coincidence that skank-ho granny “just happened to show up” at 04:30 in the morning, right after skank-ho mommy sliced and diced her babies, and further, that she just happened to have an explanation handy. Skank-ho granny has never been charged with a crime, so we must assume that this was all an incredible stroke of fortune for Brandi.

The father of the two children, one Jason Worley, was asleep in the basement of his home. The fact that the man who paid for the home was forced to sleep in the basement after filing for divorce is another benefit of feminism. It makes these sorts of empowered abortions much easier, when the children’s father isn’t around to unreasonably object to a wimminz exercising her constitutional rights to murder her kids.

In a shameful moment of patriarchal oppression, the skank-ho murderess, Brandi Worley, has plead guilty to the murder of her two kids, and on March 19, she was sentenced to 120 years in prison for exercising her rights as an empowered feminist wimminz. Like all good feminists, we hope that she can get all charges reversed on appeal, and until then, we honor her as the trailblazing hero that she is.

Jason Worley, husband to a typical American feminist wimminz, and father to two murdered children. R.I.P. little ones.

Source: Fox 59 News

Source: CBS News

The notion of ad hominem is a borrowed phrase from Latin. It basically means “against the man.” One of the specifics that philosophers and rhetoricians seem to miss is the accusative subjugation of the word in context. The specificity of hominem has a certain semantic import that would be absent in a phrase like ad homo.

The ad hominem fallacy is one which is pervasive in our society, and this is unfortunate. I could probably make a fair case that it is used most often by feminists and other moral degenerates; but, it didn’t spring from their camp. (Feminists aren’t generally smart enough to create new, effective, rhetorical devices.) It denotes the fallacy of attacking the proponent of a proposition, rather than subjecting the proposition forwarded to analysis. It is almost always a fallacious device, inasmuch as painting your ideological opponent as a moral degenerate is simply irrelevant to their ideas. As an irrelevant device, ad hominem is particularly destructive. In terms analogous to those used by Kripke’s Skeptical Wittgenstein, this fallacy has the potential to turn every proposition into a private language, inasmuch as it collapses the cooperative project of inquiry and peer-review, and replaces it with an immoral combat zone, in which every participant must necessarily self-censor.

Over on Dalrock, we can see these tactics at work quite often. Whoever the author is, he is quite skilled at rhetoric; and he’s something of a quick study, but he doesn’t seem too concerned with fallacious reasoning. For example, here he is creating a caricature of a participant named Skyler Wurden.

In the first place, Skyler Wurden may be wrong in his analysis of the St. George story. Unfortunately, Dalrock doesn’t address his underlying concerns, so we shall never know. Dalrock finds it more effective to imply that Skyler is either an idiot or an apostate, and alludes to the possibility that he pedestalizes women over taking his holy book at face value.

Despite my criticism, I actually like whoever writes Dalrock. He’s a very skillful writer, and he has a sense of humor. I find this method of attacking one’s critics to be ultimately unproductive, as it makes rational communication among antifeminist men impossible, while it diverts attention from interesting issues that such men ought to explore. In this regard, I question Dalrock’s motives. He seems to want people to agree with him, and he prioritizes an ideological unity over fighting our feminist enemies. Garnering ass-licking sycophants at the expense of long-term goals is an important strategic error.

This is, incidentally, not the first time Dalrock has done this. He did it to me, not too long ago, when I cornered one of his asslicking sycophants in a looney screed against any author who wrote a book featuring “female warrior heroes.” I had several counterexamples readily available, one of which was Ernest Hemingway’s For Whom The Bell Tolls. Let’s see Dalrock at work:

If you go to that thread, make sure you take some time to read the entire conversation. It’s a pretty interesting case study in bad reasoning.

In any case, Cane Caldo’s proposition, that “anyone who writes female warrior heroes is either a satirist, a fool or a degenerate,” can be taken to deprecate the author of the Bible, inasmuch as Cane’s God is credited with authoring a book featuring women like Deborah and Esther. I didn’t want to be disrespectful at the time, but this was the first thing that popped into my head.

Given that Cane Caldo could never excuse or explain away his looney claim, Dalrock had to step in to set me straight. In the process, he never addressed the original contention (though he handwaved it away contemptuously). He merely alluded to the fact that I must be a communist for liking the book, and called the book’s author a degenerate. He also set up a straw-man, in that he suddenly reframed Cane’s expansive condemnation as only applicable to those authors who “wrote from a feminine POV.”

Cane’s original allusion was that any author who wrote about women doing brave stuff must be a feminist. Hemingway was not a feminist. For the record, Hemingway was probably a drunk and a womanizer; but, there is no evidence that either of those concerns had anything to do with his underlying motivations for writing the book, and this is what makes Dalrock’s claim fallacious. Hemingway’s character flaws are logically independent of the content of his work, and of the propositions he puts forward. Nor were either of those character flaws predominant in his life. Moreover, there is no “Stalinism” in the title in question, so Dalrock has either never read the book (almost impossible to believe) or he’s simply being dishonest, in a lame attempt to cover for his suck-up. Likewise, even if I were some sort of communist (newsflash: there are no communists any more…) it would be irrelevant to why I’m laughing at the true-believers on Dalrock’s blog.

By the same token, Skyler Wurden’s interpretation of the St. George story has nothing to do with whether or not he is a phony, fake-christian, a crypto-feminist, or a pedestalizer of pagan women. I actually thought his interpretation was interesting, but we’ll never get to explore it over there, since he’s now being dogpiled into submission. Incidentally, Skyler alludes to the fact that he has seen this sort of dishonesty play out on Dalrock before, and he’s wise to the scam.

The ad hominem fallacy… it’s cheap fun, but also an unproductive waste of time. That’s why I don’t do it here.

I begin this article by expecting that I’m going to hurt someone’s feelings. This blog is, primarily, a survival guide. In that respect I don’t teach game. I merely pass on wisdom that I learned from better men (AfOR is one, Chuck Ross is another) who have since moved on. Some of these men may have been afficionados of game theory, and some may not have. So, if you take anything I’m about to say in a personal way, then in the words of Luke Skyywalker, I don’t give a damn, because what I’m about to say is going to be very, so, true, I mean like very true… So if you don’t like it… Fuck you.

What bloggers like Heartiste, Roosh and Dalrock call “game” is often a few useful bits of socially-based wisdom, and I have no strong feelings about it. However, I do think, at this point, that most of the purveyors of “game” have raised their constellation of propositions into something closer to a religious movement, than a school of thought. In that regard, I think they are often doing as much harm as good. I often go into religious blogs noting that I’m not a member of any religious organization, and the game gurus will kindly note that I’ll have as much fun picking apart their religious theories, as I do questioning the true-believers of Christianity or Judaism.

Down below, seekr writes…

Wimminz will generally chase the leader, but men do this too. Human beings are social animals, and most of them enjoy being led by someone competent. The main difference between men and wimminz is that a man will know competence by judging core skill, and wimminz will simply assume competence by social position. Jack Donovan explains it well. Men test themselves by competing with other men. Wimminz simply look around and pick out whoever seems to be leading the men. It’s amazing how shortsighted these peanut-brained wimminz are, too. Nearly everyone has been thrust into a situation where he is one of a very few men in a large crowd of females, and he will note that suddenly he’s getting strange tokens of sexual interest from a great many of them. When a wimminz is at home or work, she idolizes her husband or boss, but once she’s with you, you become the object of desire.

What game gurus will say is that wimminz are hard-wired to fuck alpha males. The alpha-beta-gamma heuristic is one which is incredibly useful, for new guys who had no father or older brother to teach them the leadership qualities they needed to learn in adolescence. Even so, it breaks down rapidly under analysis, for exactly the reasons that seekr illustrates. The “alpha” in one scenario is the “gamma” in the next. Faggots like Theodore Beale (a/k/a “Vox Day”) and their religious disciples, like White Nationalist Cane Caldo, and False Child-Rape Accuser Sir Hamster, will tack on a plentitude of greek letters in a lame attempt to repair the unrepairable, and insist that the distinction still means something.

If “being an alpha” means something, then the nearest I can ever get to a definition is that an “alpha” is a man who gets his sexual needs met with women. This is an inconsistent definition at best. The wino who spends most of his life at the edge of the train tracks can get his needs met as well as I can. The fact that he has to get his cock washed by a toothless meth-head prostitute doesn’t disqualify him. Likewise, the married father of four gets his needs met too, with his wife. Vox Day and Heartiste will tell me that the first man is a “gamma” and the second is a “beta,” but will never go into detail as to why.

I generally do not find arguments with game gurus productive, because (like promoters of other religious movements) they have a variety of sophistic techniques ready to pull you back into their collective delusions. In the old days, I used to point out the concern I expressed above, and I’d generally get handwaved away with explanations that I was “a natural alpha,” and that I was born with a constellation of unique traits that let me get jiggy with women. This is, of course, bullshit. Other than the fact that I am tall (I’m 6 feet 3 inches) I have almost no qualities which wimminz find attractive. I was, before my present job, a research mathematician. Before that I worked in a bank. Before that I worked on various construction sites, getting dirty for very little money. None of these professions are seen as exciting or desirable by women. Compared to a scumbag spree-shooter, I ought to be invisible.

The reality is that I learned, early on, to simply ask for sex. Wimminz enjoy fucking, and if a wimminz is spending any amount of time with you, she probably wants you to fuck her anyway. If she doesn’t, then she wants to take advantage of you for money, so asking for sex and hearing a flat “no” gives you the opportunity not to get ripped off.

Today in clownworld, we mourn Markis, (19) Jeremiah, (14) Abigail, (14) and Ciera, (12), who are dead. Two other unfortunates, going by the names of Devonte (15) and Hannah (16) are missing, but presumed to be dead. All the children were given the legal surname “Hart,” after two bull dykes were allowed to anally marry one another and adopt them.

From the New York Times:

After Jennifer Hart drunkenly drove a sport utility vehicle straight off a 100-foot cliff on the Northern California coast late last month, taking her life and those of her wife and their adopted children, at least two searches began.

One was for the missing bodies; another was for answers. How, those who knew the Harts wondered, could a family that looked so happy and normal in photos have hidden such a dark life from public view?

The word “normal” is the least appropriate term for these two hateful, murderous bulldykes. Jesus Christ. Look at this shit…

We understand the NYT has an agenda, though; so, we expect such shenanigans.

Here’s a more likely scenario than the “tragic accident” or “irresponsible one-time-drunk-driver” narratives, through which this story is being excused away:

Suppose you were a filthy bulldyke yourself, and you decided that you wanted (out of boredom or spite) to ruin some vulnerable children’s lives. Liberal white wimminz like these are always permeated by hateful racism, and an incredible self-regard. If you were thinking their thoughts, you would naturally pick out some little negroes, as (at least in your dim wimminz peanut brain) you think that blacks are less likely to be believed, when they complain about your rape nights or vindictive beatings. You’d adopt those little niglets, and then the fun would start.

The problem comes when the babies grow up. You can terrorize little kids into submission for a while, and these two filthy bulldykes, filled with virulent white racism, insane feminism, and perverse sexual dysfunction did.

In a telephone interview on Wednesday, a woman who lived across the street from the Harts in Alexandria, Minn., described the parents as “real friendly girls.”

Still, the neighbor, Lorraine Fealy, 71, said she did not know their children well because the parents “didn’t let them out of the house very often.” When they did, the children were “very highly disciplined,” Ms. Fealy said.

“They’d all come down the steps single file and walk out in the yard single file,” she said.

The children’s behavior bothered her, she added, because “it wasn’t like normal kids.”

Eventually, though, little kids grow up into big kids. I think it’s entirely possible that one of the older children grew tired of hearing the younger children crying as their “two mommies” were acting out some sadean scene of sexual torture on her.

After having enough, perhaps Markis approached the two dykes with an ultimatum.

“Look cunts, either you leave little Ciera alone, or I complain to the cops.”

The cops, of course, had already been aware of these two filthy bulldykes and their family horrorshow, for quite a while…

Dozens of pages of reports released this week by child-welfare officials offer some clues. Taken together they paint a portrait of a pair of mothers — one dictatorial and eccentric, the other constantly working and seldom home — who doled out cruel punishments and perennially withheld food from their six children.

In the Hart household, any act of insubordination could be severely punished. The children knew this all too well.

“They are like trained robots,” one worried caller told the authorities, according to the newly released documents, which describe the family’s dynamics.

…even so, this might have been the motivation for the group murder they inflicted upon their children.

In any case, it ought to fill any sensible man with hatred, that our society has become so depraved as to allow two filthy, perverted dykes to marry-in-anus, and then pretend to be parents to children they torture, and end up murdering.

It almost makes me wish that I were a Christian. Then I could hope that Jesus would arrive, at some point, and burn it all down for me. Unfortunately, I’m not, and if we’re going to survive this, it will because we do the heavy lifting ourselves.

Today we profile a gentleman named Fred Zaspel, who looks to be about as big around as he is tall. Freddy here wrote up ten of “Daddy’s Rules for Dating His Daughters,” which was edited by some faggot named Thabiti Anyabwile, and hosted at The Gospel Coalition. One really ought to check out the (source) before continuing, as it’s difficult to believe this neurotic, erotic trash is written by Christian fathers about their daughters.

As a bit of groundwork, we ought to review some old literature from classical antiquity. Electra was the protagonist of a play by Sophocles. In the narrative, Electra was the daughter of a man named Agamemnon, and his skank-ho wife, Clytemnestra. Skank-ho mommy had Electra’s pops murdered, so that she could finally shack up with one of the badboys that she was fucking down at the local nightclub on her “girls-nights out.” This made Electra upset, so she goaded her brother, Orestes, into helping her plot and execute the revenge-slaughter of skank-ho mommy and her playa boyfriend.

The play is a tragedy, but there is an undercurrent of celebration of killing this whore and the man she cheated on her husband with. This is consistent with a healthy civilization, and generally shocks contemporary students, who think it’s horribly unfair that a scumbag wimminz should ever receive appropriate payback, even for the most disgusting misbehavior imaginable.

Fast forward a couple of thousand years, and we come to Sigmund Freud. Freud came up with a neurosis which he identified and named the Oedipus complex. He wrote about it in his 1898 monograph On The Interpretation of Dreams. A general definition of the Oedipus complex posits that a part of a young man’s development is a stage in which he feels he is in competition with his father for the affection of his mother. If the boy doesn’t have a same-sex role model to identify with, he can get stuck in this phase, and end up becoming a basement-dwelling incel, a flaming homosexual, or just a pathetic loser.

As an aside, Freud was probably the most ardent modern proponent of patriarchy, and he ought to be celebrated for this fact alone. Unfortunately, many people in the androsphere join with their feminist sisters in hating him. Closet-gay white nationalists like Cane Caldo hate him because he was (at least nominally) Jewish, while weird incels like Tamerlame hate him because he correctly identified many incel traits as defective. Feminists hate him because he was the ultimate deconstructor of all the specific neuroses that drive their ideology. No one in any of these various groups of looneys can ever make an argument against anything he wrote, of course; which is one of the primary motivations for me to cite him so often in their presence.

Freud’s favorite student was a man named Carl Jung. Jung’s contribution (at least for our purposes) was extending the Oedipus complex to girls. It develops along similar lines, and it’s called the Electra complex. Jung wrote about this in his Theory of Psychoanalysis (1913). It is not coincidental that he named it after Electra. We just went over the Electra story, so I’ll give you a quick synopsis as to how it relates to the psychoanalytic tradition.

A little girl comes into the world with a mix of inborn drives and tabula rasa opportunity to interpret and apply her instinctual drives in the intentional direction she’s taught. Suppose baby girl is born to two typical Cruxtoid dysfunctionals, who make a huge issue about church attendance, and who pretend to be devout and holy, but otherwise ignore all the good advice about being competent spouses and parents that St. Paul gave them in the New Testament. In that case, she’s likely to be born to a henpecked father, and a domineering bitch of a mother.

The temptation in such a case is for the father to transfer his libidinal feelings toward his little girl. He initially does this to spite his wife, who refuses him sex, affection, and respect. The wife gets a payoff too, as she no longer feels pressure to show husband affection.

As the girl enters her own phallic stage, she naturally reciprocates with daddy, by entering into protected, intimate, emotional space with him. It’s impossible to blame a little girl for this, however her mother and father are, by encouraging this form of displacement, completely fucking her up psychologically.

A bit of disambiguation: The Electra Complex never entails physical sex between father and daughter. In fact, if father and daughter are actually banging each other, it’s an entirely different form of neurotic dysfunction. The sexual impulse becomes completely sublimated on both ends. Even so, while the Electra Complex might be socially acceptable, it is no less damaging to the psychological state of the child than renting her out as a prostitute, or locking her in a box for years on end, or beating her nightly with a horsewhip. The father who is in the beginning stages of falling into this trap ought to seek out a priest or a therapist (probably both) quickly.

By encouraging her to remain in an arrested state, the father of Electra takes on the emotional role of husband to his little girl, and the mother finds herself newly free to fuck other men on the side, and waste money, and play the jackass, without the level of performance that would be expected of a decent wife. As the daughter grows up, she begins to accrue short-term benefits (all to her eventual detriment) – like access to daddy’s wallet, and gratuitous displays of affection and attention.

The end result is a weirdo like Fred Zaspel, who rents out his little wives to neighborhood boys on dates, with exaggerated threats to show his ultimate authority of pseudohusband. Symbolically, he is something between a polygamist with a bunch of child-brides, and a pimp, running a stable of underage hookers. This is the natural consequence of ignoring both religious advice (like that in the New Testament) and psychoanalytic wisdom (like that you get from Freud, Jung and Adler).

Of course, when this poor girl finally comes to adulthood, she will be doomed (without intervention, either by a priest or a psychoanalyst) to never having a fully functional relationship herself. Symbolically, daddy is her husband, and no mortal man can compete with his father-in-law.

Note: Such a woman might end up a “devout Christian woman” who runs her husband face-first through the divorce court, after a three-year long attempt at being a wife, and subsequently gets down on her knees to beg to suck my cock, two hours after I met her.  The redhead in question was constantly talking about how her “dad has to meet” anyone she likes (what’s “like” mean? fucks more than three times?), and how much daddy’s approval means to her. (Surprise surprise, she told me that her dad was himself divorced multiple times.) Daddy also pays her a monthly allowance.

Getting back to the topic, let’s go through Zaspel’s rules for renting one of his hoez.

Rule Six is especially intriguing. Apparently, if you rent one of this pimp’s daughters, you have a positive duty to be exclusive with her, until she’s done using you as her own personal source of money, dick and attention.

I chuckle to think of this roly-poly geezer, who probably can’t walk 100m at a stretch, trying to enforce these silly rules, but let’s continue.

Rule Nine is likewise hilarious. Sorry, Fat Freddy, you do not “appear” to be a potbellied old faggot. You are a morbidly obese caricature of a man, who sets yourself up as “god” while pretending (poorly) to be a Christian. No one is afraid of a Cruxtoid like you. Your daughter has already likely been run through by every cat in the ‘hood, and you know it, or your public protests to the contrary wouldn’t be so overblown.

There we have it, gentlemen. The Electra Complex. If you ever decide to marry a woman, do yourselves and your daughters a favor, and don’t fall into this trap.

Edit:

Dalrock has an excellent take on Zaspel which just appeared.

Welmer wrote, ten years ago, about Jung. Credit to “imnobody00” for this link.

Down below, I told the story of the redhead, a self-described “devout born-again Christian woman,” who is both the recipient of a generous divorce settlement, and who fucks random men on the first date. When a woman starts making demands, as she did, almost immediately, I convert myself into needy whiner, what game gurus call “beta male.” This allows her to eject (and the nastier the rejection, the better, from our point of view) and feel like she has had control the entire time.

If a man decides to treat a skank-ho wimminz decently, and is honest about his lack of interest, then this is the likely result. The following message was sent by a crazy little brunette that I banged a couple of times in the last month. Note that I dumped this particular piece of lackluster tail just to see what she’d do. She even managed to impress me. I thank her for providing my younger brothers of an(other) example of wimminz insanity.

Now, the chances that a wimminz will make a false complaint of sexual harassment, assault, stalking, etc. against a brother are minuscule, but those chances are greater than zero, and moreover, they are much more likely to come from the wimminz who is motivated to send you angry text messages, than one who thinks she dumped a needy whiner. This is true simply because the Christian redhead is now embarrassed to have let me fuck her, while the crazy brunette feels cheated out of her chance at romance and a relationship by a cad, who had sex with her and bounced. If she decided to make a false complaint, she would feel as though she were complain-bragging, whereas the first woman would feel like she’d be admitting to stooping to sleeping with someone who will always be beneath her.

Down in the comments, Gunner Q writes:

Reading your conversation makes me realize that whatever “it” is, I never had it with women.

I don’t think I and Gunner have any qualitative differences between us. If we do, then I would bet that he is the superior man, by a number of different metrics.

I often meet and fuck wimminz who will mockingly berate past suitors. They will laugh derisively at the guy who brings them flowers, buys them dinner, and treats them “like a lady.” Of course those guys don’t usually get a taste of the ass that I’ve just crushed, as she’s recounting her exploitation of these poor schlubs; whereas, I treat them exactly like the filthy, lying whores that they are, and I get everything that I want.

My guess is that, despite being a much better man, better potential husband/father, and more decent human being than I, Gunner gets passed over because:

1. He has too much dignity to play the thug/trash role,
2. He treats women with too much respect, and/or,
3. He assumes women will respond to the signals his feminist Christian priest taught him to give.

Now, imagine that I had met the good Christian lady, mentioned above, and played into her frame. Suppose that I had taken her out to dinner, lavished her with attention, bought her flowers and other such stuff. Ask yourself if I had been more or less likely to take that cunt, as I did, only a couple of hours after meeting her.

Now, for a real mindfuck, ask yourself if her ex-husband, who she (only months ago) ran headfirst through the divorce courts, ever had the sort of sex I had with her. Do you suppose she begged to suck his cock? Because she begged me.

That was a man who committed his whole life to this woman, who pledged half of his property, and all future earnings to her. She thought nothing of betraying him. It’s hard to believe she cared much about pleasing him sexually. Certainly she was willing to do pretty much everything for and with ya boy Boxer, and she did it with what I imagine to be the skill of a professional prostitute, so I’m sure I’m neither the first nor the last recipient of her educated attentions, and I’m equally confident that her husband got little to no sex, in contrast.

Treating women well is both unproductive and potentially dangerous. This is one of the only things the game gurus get right.

1. And it’s stories like this that remind me of the wisdom that came from the OT men of old.
2. ‘And I discovered more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, whose hands are chains. One who is pleasing to God will escape from her, but the sinner will be captured by her.’ (Ecc 7:26)
3. ‘The mouth of an adulteress is a deep pit; He who is cursed of the LORD will fall into it.’ (Proverbs 22:14)
4. Can a man take fire in his bosom And his clothes not be burned? Or can a man walk on hot coals And his feet not be scorched? So is the one who goes in to his neighbor’s wife; Whoever touches her will not go unpunished. Men do not despise a thief if he steals To satisfy himself when he is hungry; But when he is found, he must repay sevenfold; He must give all the substance of his house. The one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense; He who would destroy himself does it. (Proverbs 6:27-32)
5. For the lips of an adulteress drip honey And smoother than oil is her speech; But in the end she is bitter as wormwood, Sharp as a two-edged sword. (Proverbs 5: 3-4)
6. ‘This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, And says, “I have done no wrong.”‘ (Proverbs 30:20)
7. For as much as we loathe the branch swinging divorcing wimminz and the cash and prizes they get from the state….in a sense justice always seems to come in some form to them when they split up their marriage.
8. This will sound like man bashing…but the thing we men never seem to learn (at least in the blue pill idiocy) is that worshiping women or our wives feelz is the downfall of man. There’s a reason idolatry creates a lot of jealousy in God.
9. The whole ‘just because I dress that way doesn’t mean I want to’ lament from women is protesting too much from their own choices IMO. They can dress modestly if they want to.

So, I met Jane Doe at a party, given by one of my co-workers. The first thing she told me was that she was “a devout Christian woman.” I took this to mean that she’d be easy to fuck on the first date. I fucked her within two hours of meeting her.

Jane is recently divorced (I thought devout Christian wimminz weren’t allowed that indulgence?) The reason she gave for wandering off was that her husband was “mentally abusive.”

In my defense, Mizz Doe is incredibly attractive. I put her at 8.5, and I just couldn’t resist. I also thought, before our first run-through the jungle, that she’d stop my advances. Most of you Christian brothers are always telling me what whores Christian women are, and I suppose I didn’t believe y’all. Well, you were right, and ya boy Boxer was wrong.

Just for fun, after the fucking concluded, I played the Christian too. Almost immediately, the demands were handed down. Her devout, Christian husband “wasn’t romantic enough” (I guess that’s what “mental abuse” equates to.) She wants not a boyfriend or a husband, but a worshipper of her cunt and ass.

I won’t lie, I would probably fuck her again. She’s mighty fine. I just don’t beg and grovel for the pussy like a simp.

Read along as she schools me, and rate my negs. Thanks to Dalrock and all you boys for helping me with the narrative. I’d have never known how to do this without your help.

Basically I’m telling her that she’s full of beans. There’s nothing Christian about “romance,” as Dalrock has amply proven.

Note that this bitch is talking about “the last half of her life,” when she hasn’t even approached thirty. Either she knows as much about arithmetic as she does about the religion she professes, or she’s planning some high-risk maneuvers that will snuff her early. Either way, she’s probably correct about being “dumb” – despite being a redhead.

My guess is that she’ll dump me, within 24 hours, and find a replacement. I’m sure she can find some schlub who will worship her, in return for the chance to lick her stank cunt; but that schlub won’t be me.

Credit to our brother Oscar for finding this gem of a wimminz. Let’s see what her story is…

Bitch grows up in a nice family in Indiana, then decides to join ISIS and wage war on Americans. We all know that women are more moral and ethical than men are, so I’m sure her bad decision is all some man’s fault.

Yes, of course. It’s her husband’s fault. (It’s always the husband’s fault, isn’t it?) Her husband took her to Morocco, and somehow they ended up on the Syrian border. This happens to me all the time. I start out with one destination, and then end up in an entirely different one, thousands of kilometres away from where I should be.

She has a son, an ex-husband (apparently a loyal American veteran) who is her son’s father, and a family in America. Betraying her people and nation was “the only way to protect her daughter…” We all believe that. Poor dear.

And this is as close to the story of her little boy’s father gets. Her son, who was beaten into compliance, and made to perform in ISIS propaganda videos, does not get to see his father, even after all this time.

Read the rest of the story of this disgusting traitor here.

(source)

In this episode of Father Knows Best, we meet skank-ho wimminz Brodie Bond. Bond is becoming famous, at least in Australia, for behaving even worse than the average wimminz.

Death comes for us all. Some years ago (we don’t know exactly when), Brodie’s father kacked it. Dad’s will directed his estate to be divided between his heirs. Brodie’s father knew, better than anyone else, that she was a useless cunt, and as such he specifically left her nothing, in hopes that she would clean herself up, and quit playing the jackass.

As an empowered feminist wimminz, Brodie had no plans to take advice from the patriarchy. She secured a pro bono lawyer, and tied the estate up for years, until the rest of the family were finally so sick of her that they gave her a payout, in the amount of 220,000 AUD.

How did Brodie Bond spend her inheritance? We’ll let her tell you, herself…

When she finally received the money in June 2016, Ms Bond says she celebrated with a slab of Jack Daniel’s and vodka shots during a drug-fuelled night with a friend. She said: ‘Why not? It’s not everyday you get that much money.’

(source)

Mizz Bond went on to squander every last dime of her inheritance, and is now back on the dole. She is, of course, a real stunner, so it’ll be easy for her to find a man to foot the bill for her frivolities, for the rest of her life.

Admit it, boys: You’d love the opportunity to curl up to this looker.