The New Testament, like any book of practical wisdom, contains a healthy concern for teleology. That’s a fancy word, I suppose. Here’s the definition:

The authors encourage us to judge a process, at least partly, by its results. With this in mind, we can look at Christianity itself, and wonder what good it does the world, what purpose it serves, and thereby answer the question: Why Christianity?

Our first exhibit is the “fruits” of the exemplary Christians over at Warhorn Media. I went to their public twitter feed today, and was greeted by this…

Immediately my readers should note the contradiction: fragility is derided, even as these stalwart Christian soldiers whine and gripe about an anonymous critic on the internet. Setting this aside for a moment, we see the insane hatred of the Christians, directed explicitly against men.

Men: Christians hate you. They hate your families. Their hatred knows no bounds.

Of course, we can go back to sample the hatred of the supposed opponents of Warhorn Media, already documented here. For example:

Dalrock, Cane Caldo, and their asslickers try to ruin the reputation of a U.S. Army veteran, simply for disagreeing with them.

It’s interesting to note that Dalrock et. al. were making up fanciful stories about this man being a sex pervert, while ignoring the actual sex perverts that infest Christian churches.

I used to analogize Christians as a bundle of snakes, tied tightly around the middle, all hissing and striking each other. This latest interaction only bolsters that observation.

In theory, Dalrock and Warhorn disagree on much, and they spend weeks sniping at one another. In practice, Dalrock and Warhorn agree that men should be crushed. They both follow the Christian pattern of paying shallow lip service to real problems, while spreading hatred toward men.

Christians hate healthy masculinity. Christians hate fatherhood.

If you are a young man today, your very worst enemies are people like Dalrock and Warhorn media. They get paid (be it money or ego stroking) by tickling your ears, while stabbing you in the back.

Christians hate you. They hate everything about you. They want you dead. They want your kids raped and brainwashed, and they will laugh while it happens.

Edit: Dalrock, who earlier claimed he was done discussing this matter, has yet another long article about Warhorn Media.

I am beginning to think that this entire exchange may have been staged.

 

Following some link I found at the cryptofeminist Warhorn media page, I ended up back on the no-account social network known as Gab. I realize that a lot of the regs ’round here like that place, and I have to wonder why.

This is representative of what I saw, repeated over, and over, and over. Such people are depressing to the point of nausea.

The day after I became eligible, I went down to my county offices to register to vote. I filled in the DEM box, so I get to go to Democratic party meetings, and vote in their primaries. That means I get to agitate for things in an arena where my presence actually means something. My guess is that among my readers, most don’t even vote, and none of you have actually become politically active (and it doesn’t matter if its DEM, GOP, LIB or GRN). My question is, why haven’t you done this?

People bash my president, and many of them whine because he hasn’t yet circumnavigated America with a 100m wall, and he hasn’t built a domed resort city on Ganymede, with daily spaceship flights, and he hasn’t yet thrown Hillary and Bill into the alligator pen at the D.C. Zoo. If things suck here so badly, I’d gladly send you my old passport, which will entitle you to go spend your life with Monsieur Trudeau.

How we all got to this point is interesting. Some of the self-promoting “thought leaders” of the MGTOW movement are partly responsible for this faggoty state of affairs. I’m thinking of Aaron “Captain Capitalism” Clarey, who wrote a book encouraging men to move back in with their parents, quit working, and go on welfare.

Maybe President Trump hasn’t hired all the people that this guy thinks he should be hiring, because there’s almost no one worth hiring. His response is not to become part of the solution, but rather to cry tears like a bitch, while refusing to do any meaningful work.

For those of you who have yet to receive the memo, here it is:

1. That civil war you’re awaiting isn’t coming.
2. That sweeping law criminalizing feminism will never be here either.
3. In case you haven’t figured it out, Donald Trump doesn’t have the power to solve all of America’s problems by edict.

It’s incumbent upon all men to take a long-term view of historical events. One should ask himself what he’s done to improve or restore the level of sanity in his hometown.

How are you helping?

Have you joined political and community groups, to lend a sane voice to public affairs?

Are you starting a business?

Are you becoming a paralegal or attorney?

Are you running or applying for a position in the local government?

Nearly all of us would agree that the people in power today tend to be the lowest form of human scum imaginable. Young men need to quit taking that black pill, and work on taking the trash out themselves.

The time is now to gather what power and influence you can, and online bitching doesn’t help in that regard.

In spite of being censored under articles one and five, a woman nymmed “sue” remains my most dedicated fan, often posting multiple comments per day – with the knowledge that every entry will be routed directly into the trash pile. It is simply amazing that she devotes so much energy to lambasting me, when she knows that her nutty rants will never be reproduced.

Taking criticism from Derek and Necro to heart, I realize that I may have been simultaneously unfair to Sue, as well as cruel to my regular readers. Today I honor “sue” for never giving up. Her blog is entitled No Wonder People Walk.

Her first couple of comments this week took me to task for my promotion of #thotaudit. Sue would like you all to note my cruelty and lack of compassion for amateur sex-workers, who (she feels) ought to be entitled to live at the expense of the rest of us.

Sue would also like you all to know that one of my current flings is way too good for me (probably true) and that it is only a matter of time before she seeks out some novelty with another swinging dick (an absolute certainty – as any of my readers would intuitively grasp.)

Sue’s selected kook-rants may become a regular feature in this post code. In the interim, show her some appreciation at her blog.

Poast more, sue. Poast more now!

Stefan Molyneux, a self-proclaimed “philosopher” (with no training in that field), whose greatest real-world achievement is an almost unlistenable podcast (that few pay attention to), is currently advising brothers to disown those family members who disagree with them.

Should you do this? I would strongly advise against it. Why, Boxer? I argue you shouldn’t disown someone over politics because you’d be furthering the cycle of atomization that has led to most of the social problems I’ve been railing against on this blog.

I also argue that Molyneux displays the typical complex which afflicts the atomized individual. According to his own bio, he was deracinated early, moved from his home and family (in Ireland) to the most atomized area on Earth (that’d be Toronto). He has lived a life which is, in every respect, uprooted. Hence he may not even realize the gravity of what he suggests.

If your family bonds are not your most important possession, then I’d argue that your priorities are skewed. People can (and should) be disowned, but meaningless political differences don’t approach the threshold of misbehavior that warrants such a severance.

If you want to look at a healthy, non-atomized family, study Susan Rice.

Edit: Roissy / Heartiste also has a post up on Molyneux. He seems to (mostly) agree with me.

Earlier we saw the boys from Warhorn media take apart Cane Caldo. As I subsequently noted: the fact that Cane Caldo is an idiot, doesn’t make his critics worthwhile, nor does it make their arguments against him sound. As promised, the boys from Warhorn have now released their podcast, in which they soundly kick Dalrock’s ass. Before they get ’round to this, however, they made the following specious claims:

• Rollo (author of The Rational Male) is a homosexual, based upon his mannerisms at some public appearance.
• PUA types are also closeted gay homosexuals, based upon Rollo’s supposed queerness, and the fact that he is somehow the global leader of all PUA brothers.
• MGTOW types are divided into incel losers or crass libertines who habitually use prostitutes. (There are no gray areas, apparently.)
• Manosphere readers and authors tend to be into weird paraphilia and degenerate sexual fetish lifestyles, specifically sado-masochism, rough sex, wife-beating, bondage, and other such lunacy.

None of these sweeping indictments are particularly credible. I doubt that Derek beats his wife, for example. Given that I’ve never hired a pro before, and given that I’m typing this from the bed in which I’ve screwed a hot brunette since last Friday (I’m waiting for her to get off work right now) I don’t seem to be the MGTOW brother they’re blathering about. All this aside, the boys do raise some interesting points as they take Dalrock apart. They make the following claims:

• Dalrock is a cowardly loser for using a pseudonym.
• Dalrock cultivates a toxic atmosphere on his blog.
• Dalrock argues dishonestly.

We have argued here over the first point at length. Most of us agree upon the second point. The third is also common knowledge.

Personally, I don’t care about Dalrock’s unscrupulous rhetoric, provided it is directed at my enemies. When Dalrock quits fighting feminists, and starts yapping at decent men (a few of which comment here) he becomes a problem. He has directed his hatred toward my brothers, almost exclusively, for about a year now.

The men at Warhorn then pivot into something which is actually worth talking to: Dalrock’s neverending dishonesty. The podcast is actually worth listening to (protip: skip about halfway through to get to the worthwhile stuff.) If you don’t have time for the podcast, you can get a little tidbit of Dalrock’s cheap rhetorical tricks at:

Sex and the Straw-Man: An Exercise in Logic

Dalrock has lied about Tim Bayly, with the same ease that he lies about a great number of other people. For the first time, a few antifeminists have called him to account for his dishonest behavior. In response, Dalrock doubles down.

Did you listen to the podcast? What do you think? Shout in the comments below…

I am traveling this weekend, so I had time to look at the news today. My verdict: peak clownworld.

Laughably, this filthy wimminz (who, by her own admission, rode at least three ISIS dicks in rapid succession) is now angling to become the poster child for a birthright citizenship “clarification” in the supreme court. Bitch please do. I’m sure Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh haven’t forgotten their treatment by your handlers.

Do any of my Asian brothers want to “take one for the team” and become wage slave to this fat, tattooed, lazy white skank? I certainly hope not.

A few weeks ago, I ran across an amusing youtube video, starring a chap who would wander around on the streets, interviewing random folks. He generally asked something along the lines of:

“Can you name something that women are better at than men?”

If the interrogated was a male, he’d generally make some excuse about being busy, and beat feet out of the frame. The wimminz who were asked would linger, loudly and proudly boasting about the well-known fact that females are simply better than men at everything, bar none.

I ran to google in an attempt to find said video this morning.

Needless to say, our delusional sisters didn’t get to their sad mental state entirely on their own. Mass media conducts false consciousness, creating an amusing, infinite feedback loop between an individual wimminz’ ego and ideology.

Inasmuch as the average wimminz is different from the average man, there must be some collective attributes (aside from giving birth and other obviousness) at which they are markedly superior.

Twenty-five, but will be turning seventeen in August…

The one thing at which wimminz are clearly superior is dishonestly billing themselves as something that they are not. As AfOR often pointed out, any social group that spends as much money on makeup, digital effects, skin bleaching, hair dye, and other assorted trickery as wimminz do, is safely assumed to have cultivated a very sophisticated approach to the truth.

So, we begin here, my brothers, with an axiom that we should simply accept at face-value:

You will never be able to trust anything a wimminz presents as truly representative about herself.

White wimminz lie. Black wimminz lie. Mixed wimminz lie. Latinas lie.

Christian wimminz lie. Atheist wimminz lie. Jewish wimminz lie. Muslim wimminz lie. I’ve never banged a Buddhist wimminz, but I’d bet money that if I did, she’d have lied to me multiple times. Mormon wimminz lie. The stories I could tell, and perhaps I will.

There is nowhere on earth a place you can escape to, where the women are all honest and forthright.

Wimminz understand, seemingly from birth, the arts of trickery, diplomacy, and salesmanship, and they act accordingly.

Given that wimminz understand and use the arts of deception, largely in a subconscious way, it is upon the brothers to make a good-faith attempt at discovering and understanding the means by which they are deceived.

By this, I don’t mean that I can teach any man how to discern the absolute truth from a wimminz persona. I mean that, in most cases, one might be able to grade the level of distortion, and thereby produce some threshold of information, in order to weed out wimminz who deliberately conceal too much of the truth from view.

There is a difference between one wimminz hologram, which may show her very best self, and another wimminz hologram, which has little to do with what she actually is. As men who want the company of wimminz, your best bet is to seek out members of the first set of wimminz, and discard elements of the second set.

Recently I was browsing tinder, and I was swiping on tinder sluts, each with a series of photos, advertising the wares of each individual ho’. I’m at the point now where I realize that I have certain filters in place, which are so deeply embedded that they are almost autonomic. I realized, just barely, that these filters are the result of a collective action by so many wimminz as to suggest that such wimminz are possessed of the fabled “hive mind” which is posited by androsphere theorists.

Here are a few common tricks, as they are employed by wimminz of every age group, of every religious and ethnic group, and of every race.

• Using group photos
• Using unfocused photos
• Using poor lighting
• Excluding everything from the neck down
• Excluding everything from the hips down
• Wildly extreme angles

Some wimminz rely upon such photos exclusively.

Many wimminz will have most photos of these types in their album.

Nearly all wimminz will have one or two photos of these general types in their album.

In the first category: group photos, we can posit that wimminz are trying to attract a mate by forcing him to attempt to identify the advertiser from among her friends. It is a safe bet that the wimminz who has posted such a photo will not be the most attractive wimminz in the photo.

In the second and third categories: lack of focus and proper lighting, such a wimminz is attempting to hide unflattering details about herself from potential suitors.

In the fourth and fifth categories: selective cropping, you can be almost certain that such a wimminz is excluding whatever parts of her body are least attractive.

In the last category: extreme angles, such photos are used by skank-ho wimminz to maximize their perceived bust size, and minimize their wrinkles and bad teeth.

I remember, years ago, being chumped by a skank who used the extreme angle technique to bill herself as something she wasn’t. I showed up at my local Starbucks to find a completely different looking wimminz than what I was expecting, and her saggy a-cup dugs served to make it a very quick rejection. You can be sure that if a wimminz is taking photographs with a camera that appears to be mounted ceilingwise, then it’s safe to subtract at least six inches from her bust, and you should add six inches to her disgusting, flabby belly, also.

It only took a few further meetings with tinder skanks in my history to begin compiling this list that was subsequently internalized, such is the prevalence of wimminz and their false advertisements.

Every normal person attempts to present his best self when meeting someone new. That is a far different matter from creating and impersonating a fictitious individual who does not exist. Since many wimminz do not know the difference between these two scenarios, the onus is entirely on you boys, not to get chumped.

It strikes me that if one’s whole family is complaining about his wife, then his family ought to be listened to… but what do I know? I get to be single, and thus I’m free from such drama.

The re-appearance of our brother Artisanal Toad has me reading some of his original work on polygamy. Toad’s contention, that polygamy is prescribed by religious scriptures, isn’t something I have standing to challenge. Maybe he’s right. Even so, I thought I’d put down some brief attempts to argue that it’s a bad idea anyway.

Where did marital monogamy originate? The smart peeps contend that it was an idea that took hold in classical antiquity.

Meanwhile, what is arguably the single most striking feature of Greco-Roman marriage has failed to raise any curiosity at all – the fact that Greeks (after Homer’s heroes) and Romans were strictly (serially) monogamous regardless of their socio-economic status, just like modern westerners but unlike most other early civilizations. While our own experience might tempt us to take this for granted, we must ask how this principle came to be so firmly established even among (customarily polygynous) elites – the egalitarian ethos of the city-state is a plausible candidate –, how it co-existed with de facto polygyny facilitated by sexual congress with chattel slaves (Scheidel forthcoming c), and how it became entrenched in Christian doctrine that survived the fall of the Roman state and ensured its survival and spread in later European (and subsequently world) history. In this strangely neglected area, ancient history has a vital contribution to make to our understanding of the global evolution of marriage.

(Scheidel 7)

It’s worth noting that matrimonivm – the Roman word for marriage, is coherent with a monogamous standard. The singular mater is the root, rather than a plural or indefinite matres.

In a popular lecture, Gregory Aldrete alludes to the possibility that monogamy became codified in the Roman monarchy, and revived in the late republic, as an attempt to maximize the output of labor (Aldrete). This makes intuitive sense. If the Romans borrowed from the Greeks, as Scheidel implies, it was likely because they had an example of monogamy, and knew that it worked well in this regard.

Consider the case of the soldier, who is asked to leave his wife and children to go on a long ocean voyage, and fight in the Punic wars. Would that man be more or less likely to obey orders, knowing that he might return to find himself responsible for a bunch of children, sired by other men? We can imagine that he would have taken at least a small amount of comfort in an implicit contract.

If your wife fucks Chad while you’re away, the state will kill them both, and we’ll hold Chad’s fortune, which becomes yours upon your return…

In times of peace, the duty to pass and execute sentence was up to the paterfamilias. If a man found his wife or daughter (be the daughter married or simply eligible) banging a playa, then he could choose to kill or pardon. One hitch: he had to apply the law to both parties. (Edwards)

The efficiency argument has a contemporary example. Consider the output of my kin, who live on the collective farm. What has been the relative results of polygamous society in Colorado City, comparable to other, similar communities? Most of them live on welfare, and a large number of the children of polygamous unions are afflicted by terrible, rare genetic diseases.

Colorado City is a dismal failure, for the same reason Rome was an unparalleled success. These are the end results of polygamy and monogamy.

Down below, Derek writes (to Heidi):

I’ll agree that there are pragmatic people who care only about the message/results (Boxer appears to be one of the few), but these are rare.

Part of the mission of this blog is to attempt to get younger men to think strategically. That aside, I was wrong when I wrote the reply you are here replying to.

Originally, Dalrock would annoy and harass feminists. He did a good job at this. I realized, this week, that he has not done this in quite some time (the better part of a year, by my estimation). Instead, Dalrock has recently devoted much of his time and energy to tearing down antifeminist men: Jason, Bnonn, you, the boys at Warhorn, and the list goes on…

When he’s not doing this, he’s pontificating on chivalry and courtly love, which, incidentally, he’s largely plagiarizing from Joseph Campbell.

https://billmoyers.com/content/ep-5-joseph-campbell-and-the-power-of-myth-love-and-the-goddess-audio/

Why is he doing this? I have some ideas, but they’re mere speculation.

If Dalrock were devoting the bulk of his time and energy to writing critical theory about feminism, I’d support him, even if he turned out to be a liberal bulldyke from the big apple. In fact, he’s not. He’s wasting time fighting my friends, and that opens him up to criticism, no matter what his identity might be.

I think I could make an ironically good argument for why this is a bad idea, but that’s a post for another time.

I’d be very interested in discussing that, whenever you get around to writing about it. I think it’d be productive and interesting.