Nicholas cage is getting married. Again.

Nicholas Cage has been divorced three times. The last marriage was to a wimminz named Alice Kim, who surprised him by dumping his ass and chasing some new dick… but not before petitioning the divorce courts for a huge payday.

Nicolas Cage has said he was ”shocked” by the end of his marriage to Alice Kim but admits he has no hard feelings towards his estranged wife.

The 54-year-old actor parted ways from his third spouse, who is the mother of his 13-year-old son Kal-El , in 2016, and the Ghost Rider star says he wasn’t expecting their relationship to end.

Like many manosphere dullards, Cage has a serious case of “yellow fever.” Many’s the day I’ve wandered through the Heartiste and Dalrock comment sections to hear some dolt praise the orient, for producing humanity’s finest specimens of submissive, feminine wives.

Not wishing any of those brothers ill, mind you. I’m glad people enjoy their fetishes. Just pointing out the obvious, which is sufficiently illustrated here. Your Thai or Chinese bride is first a wimminz, and she’s really no different than the white and black chicks that the rest of us run with.

Speaking to The Guardian, Cage said: ”It was a shocker for me – I definitely didn’t see it coming, and those feelings had to go somewhere, so they went into the performance.”

Asked if he and Alice are still in contact, he added: ”Oh yes, I want to. She was quite young when I married her and I don’t really have any ill will towards what happened. That’s all I’ll say.

I can see this simp standing tall in the divorce courts now, groveling and scraping before the judge, promising to give his unfaithful slut of an ex-wife an endless river of money for the rest of his life.

Cage divorced Mizz Kim at the end of 2016. Eighteen months later, guess what he was accused of?

Vickie Park, Cage’s rebound fling, accused him of beating her ass. True or not, a normal man would have taken this as a wake-up call. Some men just never learn.

I suppose after three divorces and one restraining order, Cage has finally figured out the recipe for transforming a wimminz into a loving and faithful wife. It’s a shame he doesn’t get on this blog and share his wisdom.

These stories are funny, but you boys should remember that you’re not in Nicholas Cage’s position. He has a long string of million-dollar acting deals, and he’s the nephew of Francis Ford Coppola. He has the money and resources to support multiple lying whores for the rest of his life. Most men don’t have his connections and resources.

Earlier we learned the sad story surrounding Johnny Depp’s failed marriage to Amber Heard.

Depp, widely regarded as one of the most eligible and attractive men alive, got cucked and falsely accused of all sorts of horrible shit by his skank-ho wife, the minute she got tired of pretending to be married.

Folks in this post code may have assumed that Depp was going to follow the lead of weak simps like Neil Degrasse Tyson, who apologized to the (hideously ugly) women that falsely accused him of sexual assault.

In fact, Johnny is not the sort of weak cuck that Tyson is. Johnny is going to teach Dr. Tyson, and the rest of us, the correct response to a lying wimminz who tries to ruin a man’s life for sport.

Not only is Johnny suing this whore, he is actively lobbying with industry execs for the cancellation of her contracts, and that is exactly as it should be.

Before I ever fuck any wimminz, and often before I meet her in person, I let her know that every interaction is being recorded and stored in the cloud, and will be used if the need ever arises. Johnny had the same policy, and it is serving him well.

Every wimminz you meet should be keenly aware of the fact that you are prepared to spend the rest of your life fighting her. That’s the only way to mitigate the existential threat of #MeToo.

I pulled the full text of the Depp v. Heard lawsuit. Read it in pdf format here: Depp v Heard.

The wall is real, and it’s often too much for a wimminz to bear…

This song is supposed to be about a cat. In reality, it’s about women…

More of the same… Compare the answers…

As a loud-and-proud faggot, Jussie Smollett gained fame when he dramatically hoaxed up a police report. At the time, he claimed that two white supporters of Donald Trump beat his ass. That all this supposedly happened in his Chicago ‘hood, where there are very few people fitting that description, was the first clue that he was making shit up for attention. Cops subsequently debunked his story in short order. Smollett has been charged with several counts of maliciously lying to the cops.

Obviously, I support the prosecution of people who waste social services money and the time of the police this way. Smollett is currently being processed through the legal system, and that’s exactly as it should be.

Unfortunately, there is a whole class of people who lie to the cops on a regular basis. Like Smollett, these people commit their crimes for drama, for attention, and to bask in the perception that they are some sort of “victim.”

Unlike Smollett, members of this particular class are rarely prosecuted. In fact, they are more likely to be rewarded — and not merely with sympathy and attention.

When feminists make themselves such a nuisance that their crimes can not be ignored, they will occasionally be called to account for their dishonesty. Even in these rare outlier cases, the criminals almost never suffer any substantial penalty. This bitch right here knows the score. She laughs and rolls her eyes at her sentence, knowing that she’ll actually be released in a matter of weeks…

Jussie Smollett is likely to get a much more serious sentence than this ho’. He has been charged with perjury and making false police reports, but his actual crime is that of lèse-majesté.

Smollett thought, foolishly, that as a faggot he could act in the typical way that our ruling class acts. He assumed that male homosexuals had been elevated to the status of skank-ho feminists, and for that, he will be punished.

Note: Thanks to Brother Pedat for originally sharing this video. It’s excellent. If Pedat has an active blog, please post it in the comments and I’ll list it in the sidebar.

Thanks to Gunner Q, I attempted to read the latest maniac’s delusional ranting. I got about a third of the way through, before wandering off, all glassy-eyed, in search of porn.

From the beginning, I envisioned this blog as a place where all men would be welcome. That includes Muslim men, all of whom are just as henpecked and hobbled as any of the rest of us. Clearly, I don’t endorse or support a violent looney, who wanders into a place of worship, and murders men who are just doing their thing, bothering no one.

I also question this guy’s commitment to his self-described cause. I assume if someone really hated Arabs, he’d go join ISIS, where he could kill as many as he wanted, rather than icing religious men at a Friday afternoon prayer service.

All that aside, the censors have seized upon this act of extreme violence, as they are always wont to do, and are currently moving to clamp down on political speech. The censors are, in their own way, far more dangerous than the average spree shooter, and thus we hate them at least as much.

Censorship, aside from being tyrannical, doesn’t work. I would never have read this lunatic’s blathering myself, had there not been an official decree with penalties attached. While I was trying to keep myself interested, a novel idea struck me.

All the employees of New Zealand’s ministry of censorship are regular people. They have parents and cousins and nephews and nieces and kids.

Wouldn’t it suck if some enterprising first amendment activist started mailing copies of the manifesto to these people?

It would also be terrible if that same person ratted his marks out to the office of the censor, as people who were distributing the manifesto covertly.

I’m sure New Zealand is infested with radical feminist bulldykes. It’d be unfortunate if some of them had their computers confiscated during a lengthy investigation. I can think of many other classes of people, all of whom are packed with other deserving targets.

Naturally, I wouldn’t ever suggest any of you boys do something like this. I’m just thinking out loud…

So, I’m over in the cesspool which is twitter, when suddenly someone shares a video of Alex Jones, squabbling with a bunch of college students in some bar someplace in Austin. Jones, behind the camera, runs from table to table, getting into people’s faces, telling them they’re assholes, and generally doing what everyone who knows Jones is familiar with.

Long time participants in this post code will remember, back in 2017, when Alex Jones went into family court. A Texas divorce court judge subsequently stripped him of his children. When I wrote those old articles, two years ago, I held out some hope that Jones would turn some attention to the faggots in the divorce courts.

Did Jones lead protests against the family courts in Texas? Did he mobilize his thousands of supporters to raise awareness about the abuses of the feminist divorce courts? No, he did not. He kept his mouth shut, and took his punishment like a bitch. For two full years, Jones has been completely silent about the matter.

Jones put an edited video of his latest squabble up on his web page. I’m linking to it (link does not imply an endorsement) here.

The most interesting part of my visit to infowars is highlighted in the screenshot above. Alex Jones was at the aforementioned tavern with his wife. It caused me to wonder, this afternoon, if he had reconciled with the kidnapper. Did Jones roll over and kiss the ass of his ex-wife, in order to continue to see his children? Did he give her a lavish second marriage? What’s the story? I had to google around to get the info.

Jones’ three kids, who once lived under his roof, are now limited to going on vacations with their father. Furthermore, Jones has played the simp, by marrying a new woman, and giving the new bitch a subsequent hostage to kidnap away from him.

This whole article (at the Austin American-Statesman) is humorous. Jones, who bends over to take it in the ass from his first wife, met Bernie Sanders in an airport. He subsequently chased the old geezer around with a camera, exactly as he did with the college students in the bar.

Jones chases and squabbles publicly with random college students, presidential candidates, and almost everyone else. This must be a terrible embarrassment to Jones’ ex-wife, his current wife, and his four kids by these two wimminz.

There is one notable exception. While Jones has no problem screeching at almost anyone else, he sits down, shuts up, and does what he is told, when the orders come down from the feminists at the divorce courts.

If anyone deserves to be harassed and abused by Alex Jones, it is the faggots and dykes at the divorce courts, who have taken his three eldest children from him. Moreover, if there were anything Jones could do, which would have a meaningful impact on the life and health of his average listener, it would be criticizing the family courts publicly. Jones is not doing this. He has never done this. I don’t believe he ever will. When examining Jones’ behavior, it is impossible not to conclude that he is a feminist and an enemy of men everywhere.

Alex Jones is the controlled opposition that he pretends to rail against. Don’t buy his overpriced vitamins, and don’t give him any of your money.

From National Public Radio (no link, because they’re assholes):

In February, Pope Francis acknowledged a longstanding dirty secret in the Roman Catholic Church — the sexual abuse of nuns by priests.

 

It’s an issue that had long been kept under wraps, but in the #MeToo era, a #NunsToo movement has emerged, and now sexual abuse is more widely discussed.

 

The Vatican’s wall of silence was first broken in Women Church World, a supplement of the official Vatican daily, L’Osservatore Romano. An article in the February issue by editor Lucetta Scaraffia — a history professor, mother and feminist — blamed abuse of women and minors on the clerical culture of the all-powerful priesthood. The piece was based on hundreds of stories she heard from nuns.

 

It’s very hard for a nun to report she has been raped by a priest, says Scaraffia, because of the mindset that, in sex, women can always say no.

 

“These nuns believe they’re the guilty ones for having seduced that holy man into committing sin,” she says, “because that’s what they’ve always been taught.”

 

Adding to the trauma, she says, raped nuns who get pregnant become outcasts from their orders.

I’m sure this happens occasionally, and I’m also sure that the Catholic Church attempts to cover it up when it does; but, does anyone really think this is some sort of epidemic? Are churches and missions run like Bosnian rape camps?

Incidentally, in case any of my readers are wondering as to what these hot nuns look like, here’s another specimen that tells lots of stories about her own irresistibility to the average priest.

Would you sexually assault this wimminz?

I didn’t think so.

I am not a Catholic, but I did my undergrad at a Jesuit school, and I went to mass regularly for about four years, when I lived in a heavily Catholic town. I have known a fair number of priests and nuns, and have some personal observations…

Priests join the priesthood either because they are idealistic strivers, who think they can do some good in the world, or because they are flaming faggots, who think that they can meet other gay men this way. Sadly, the split is about fifty-fifty, and anyone who cares to venture into a few services will rapidly get a clue as to which end of the bell-curve his own local fadda sits.

Nuns join their orders largely because they don’t have other options. A girl becomes a nun because she’s not attractive enough to find and keep a man, and because she’s not ambitious enough to get a degree in chemistry or English, and become a schoolteacher. Again, venture into your local Catholic church and tell me how many hot, bright, smily nuns you meet… All the ones I’ve crossed paths with look like the two wimminz pictured above.

“The Vatican is a world of men,” she says. “Some truly are men of God. Others have been ruined by power. The key to these secrets and silence is … abuse of power. They climb up a career staircase toward evil.”

 

Aubin, who also works on Women Church World, describes women’s treatment inside the male Vatican world this way: “We are unobserved, invisible, ignored and not respected.”

 

The first extensive report on abuse of women in the church was in 1994 by an Irish nun, Sister Maura O’Donohue. Her report covered more than 20 countries — mostly in Africa, but also Ireland, Italy, the Philippines and the United States.

 

In the report, O’Donohue, who died in 2015, linked sexual abuse of nuns in Africa to the AIDS epidemic: Religious sisters were considered less likely to carry the virus.

 

She cited a 1988 case from Malawi, where a bishop dismissed the leaders of a women’s religious order because they complained that 29 nuns had been made pregnant by local priests. She also reported that a priest arranged for a nun to have an abortion; the nun died during the abortion, and the priest then officiated at her funeral.

The nuns in this report are painted as a gaggle of poor victims, but we don’t know the circumstances. While I don’t know what happened, I find it perfectly plausible to imagine that:

1. Sister Skanky flirted with, groped, made eyes at, and eventually spread her legs for any man-of-the-loin-cloth who would give her some dick and attention.

2. Sister Skanky returned to brag to other nuns about how she was fucking every swinging dick in the local parish.

3. Wimminz, competitive creatures that they are, took note, and all the other nuns started competing for sexy time with all the male clergy they had access to.

4. Twenty-nine of the nuns became pregnant. Most begged for abortions, because while they knew they were sluts, they would be horrified to have their sluttery confirmed in the collective consciousness of the community.

5. One nun died because of the voluntary, elective abortion she begged for.

O’Donohue briefed Vatican officials on her findings, but the document was shelved. Its contents were made public only in 2001 by the National Catholic Reporter, which also publicized another report, from 1998, titled “The Problem of the Sexual Abuse of African Religious in Africa and in Rome.”

Again, if this was “sexual abuse,” at least one of the twenty-nine poor victims would have approached the civil authorities in Malawi with a complaint. Forcible rape is a crime there. The fact that this story only got told when some butch dyke talked to the press makes it hard to take at face-value.

Consider the set of all elements that actually exist (as opposed to possibilia and impossibilia) in our particular spatiotemporal reality. According to the axiom of choice, we should be able to order our set, according to whatever well-defined criteria we choose. Let’s choose, for the sake of argument, godliness. It’s not necessary for us to be able to pick out God specifically, using this process, any more than it’s necessary for us to be able to pick the largest natural number in the set: ℕ. We can be certain that there is a largest natural number, and we can name it x, even if we can’t know what it is. Let’s call the most godly element of our set of all actualia: God.

This looks like an informalized math proof with lots of technical nonsense, and maybe it approaches that, but the basic idea was laid down by a geezer named Anselm of Canterbury, long before Georg Cantor was ever conceived. It was part of this argument here. I think it’s a good argument. It’s certainly an interesting one, because people are still talking about it, a thousand years after it was first written.

Down below, Brother Jason wrote:

The Lord said Himself Boxer that “I am the truth, the light, and the way….no one comes to the Father except through me”

I can accept that Jesus said that… Jesus being a literary character, who was talking to a specific group of people (i.e. Christians). Jesus didn’t write it or say it to me.

Some time later, Sharkly wrote:

I have frequently been pointing out that the answer to many questions is the foundational truth, that the Bible never tells us that women are in God’s image, while it repeatedly tells us that men are in his image, using more than one word for man, and in two different languages. Also, the Bible basically tells us women are not the image and glory of God, but the glory of man, in 1 Corinthians 11:7 and surrounding verses.

Women and men are not equal. Men were created first in the image and glory of God, and women were then created from the man as a second class of humans.

What does “made in the image of God” mean? No one knows. When people use it in common parlance, it makes me imagine God as a man, or at least as male. We are tempted to anthropomorphize everything, from Disney’s mice to consumer goods. I think this is a terrible mistake when applied to God.

Nature and simple observation reminds us that both men and women are incomplete alone. Men and women were designed to pair up and mate for life. The individual is not the sum total of our existence. We are social creatures, and the dyad is the basic unit.

MGTOW bros can mock me for telling this basic truth, but really, this whole blog is designed to circumvent the natural order of things, given that survival trumps completion. None of this would be necessary without the prior innovation of divorce courts and violence against women act and child support and cheap abortions.

If God were male, then he would be incomplete, as human men are incomplete. Envisioning God as a male begs the question as to where his female consort is. If he doesn’t have one, then what’s wrong with him? If he does have one, then shouldn’t we be praying to her? If there are two, then neither is the greatest element in our set. There should be something that’s whole in one.

There is a greatest element in our set, and Jesus isn’t it, for the simple matter that Jesus was male.

God is not male. God is far beyond any of our human imperfections.

Not only do we know he’s not a man, we know he’s nothing we can describe or categorize, because every attempt at description limits him in our ontology. Saying that something is x is to say that something is not (not x). The New Testament gives us some descriptions of Jesus. God? Not really.

I have argued strongly and convincingly for the Bible only ever telling us that men are in the image of God, and that 1 Corinthians 11:7 and surrounding passage make it clear to all but the most resistant reader that women are not.

To say that “men are in the image of God” is only meaningful if ‘the image of God’ is well defined, and it’s not. Sharkly seems to be recursively defining this phrase by analogizing it to male hominids. Is that a sound attempt? I suspect not.

The Bible, like all other religious texts, doesn’t strike me as the communication of God to men, anyway. It’s much more likely that it was written by men who were trying their best to ask the big questions about their creator. That doesn’t make it less valuable, but it does make it much more accessible.

If there is a God (and Anselm’s proof suggests there is), then he’s probably as unapproachable to us as ‘the greatest natural number’ or ‘the furthest contiguous clump of matter from the Earth.’ Not only do we not have knowledge of such stuff, we know for a certainty that we never will have knowledge of these things, and we just have to accept our limitations. You are the border collie, sitting on the hill, who will never understand quantum field theory, no matter how studious you might be.

Every MGTOW man reaches a well-defined point when he realizes that he no longer cares enough to trade his dignity for a skank’s diseased cunt.

In the following video, our MGTOW brother finds a super hot black chick on tinder, with perfect hourglass figure. She flakes, fronts, and generally behaves so badly that he loses all attraction.