Occasionally, I hear heartwarming stories about real-life antifeminist praxis. So it was a few days ago, when our brother Sharkly talked about his latest interaction with the meddling faggots down at his feminist Christian coven.

Let’s let him tell it…

I went down to confront the elder board at my wife’s church for being worthless pussies who are ashamed of God’s word and refuse to address my wife’s frivolous divorce.

The Christian’s love for divorce, and their meddling into the marriages of normal families, has already been well established. Needless to say, by refusing to address the depressing antics of Sharkly’s immoral wife, the Christians give tacit approval of all her misbehavior.

They called off the meeting, which was to be a part of their elder’s meeting, the day I was to meet them.

Of course they did. How dare a husband show up to this public meeting and speak his mind? The nerve!

Well, I decided I’d go confront those cunt-worshippers anyhow, since I knew they’d be there. They had the building all locked up, and I went around checking all the doors, until I happened to find the window to the room they were meeting in. They saw me and tried to ignore me, however I knocked on the window a few times, until they must have figured out that I wasn’t going to just leave.

This is exactly what a decent man should do. The church grounds are protected under Marsh v. Alabama, and a man has the right to speak his mind there. It should also be noted that the church has been the direct financial recipient of Sharkly’s gifts and offerings, as well as being supported by the rest of us via their 501c3 status.

The Christians live as parasites, on all of our backs. We who pay their bills ought to see them as they are, and treat them accordingly.

Then in what seemed really like something out of a comedy, they came over to one of the glass doors in a glass wall, and they had the strongest one of them pop the door open stick his head out and brace himself in the doorway, as the others all stood cowering inside listening through the partially open doorway. They seemed frightened and had no good answers as I called them all cowards, who didn’t give a shit my son’s were being robbed of their father.

It’s more than cowardice. These men are guilty of furthering the breakup of a marriage. 

The guy in the doorway kept whining because I’d told him “you’re fucking worthless” over the phone when they’d even chickened out of meeting with me. He kept brining it up like I was supposed to apologize. Usually in those types of situations I would just explain more clearly why I believe they’re fucking worthless as a Christians, elders, and false teachers, but I didn’t get the chance to. The dude claimed they’d get back with me, and popped back inside the building.

Sharkly’s only mistake is letting things go. Perhaps this was a strategic move, on his part, but I’d encourage any man in the same situation to force the issue, and keep disrupting the meeting until the Christian faggots are forced to call the sheriff. Provided you’re not armed or indulging in vandalism, the cops are just going to ask you to leave, and take your report. At that point, you can get the media involved.

They still haven’t, but I found our brief meeting satisfying. I asked them in the name of Jesus Christ to quit being ashamed of God’s word and preach submission to my wife, for the sake of my children. I called them all cowards to their faces and watched through the tinted glass wall, they were cowering behind, trying to make eye contact, as they all just stared at their feet, and the guy wedged in the doorway kept watching me like he was ready to shit his pants, if I had lunged towards him.

Sharkly did the right thing by being assertive without being threatening. It’s one thing to disrupt these useless cucks as they gather to plan the dissolving of more marriages, and another to give them an excuse to whine and play the victim, as Christians all love to do.

Anyhow, I left feeling good. I’m not sure how the five of them dusted off their manhoods after I left. I don’t believe I ever got as far down the cunt-worshipping rabbit hole as they are, but it seems somehow that my blue-pill past from a little over a year ago, now seems a lifetime ago.

If some man or group of men conspire to destroy your marriage, that man or group of men has become your deadly enemy. In a healthy patriarchal society, such people would be run out of town. In clown world, they’re celebrated and given positions of authority. Calling attention to their motives and actions is right and just.

After asserting that Christianity is full of hate and that God silently approves, Brother Boxer implored Brother Earl and myself to abandon Christianity.

“You guys should consider converting to something else. You really aren’t Christians, and the Christians don’t deserve you, anyway.”

A few Brothers took issue with Boxer’s categorization of Christianity as a hateful and evil religion with the approval of God. They claimed that many Christians are No True Christians.

While Boxer declined to give us a sensible alternative to Christianity, no alternative is needed.  In truth, Christianity is operating as designed. We most certainly should not abandon Christianity. In order to show and explain this, we have to examine the roots of the religion. Consider the following claims:

1. The Universe had a beginning and a Creator.
2. Life was designed.
3. Jesus really existed.
4. Jesus died and was resurrected.

The first and second are arguments of science, logic, and philosophy. The third and fourth are arguments of history. Together these arguments bypass the majority of the Jewish folk religion as irrelevant†, while showing the authority and significance of Jesus. In doing so Christianity is established as a religion with a concrete, Big Bang-like origin—not an arbitrary folk religion subject to the whims of its adherents or cultural shifts.

In order to answer “Why Christianity?” one must consider the words of Jesus, its founder.

“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

The way is ‘narrow’ in that following Jesus involves trials, suffering, and a strenuous effort to accept. Indeed, this was promised in spades.

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Perhaps suffering is the reason why there will be so few followers of Jesus. Yet, if you find suffering, you will find the followers of Jesus loving.

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

It’s a bitter pill that those who love must suffer. It may sound trite and clichéd, but the reason the followers of Jesus persist is because love is more powerful than suffering. While physics has four fundamental forces, Christianity has one: love.

But what about all of those who have corrupted the teachings? This is expected.

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

and

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

In summary, Jesus taught the following:

• The religion he was founding would never end.
• The religion would be corrupted, especially as time progressed.
• The religious faithful would be few.
• The religious would be characterized by (a) love and (b) suffering and persecution.

By virtue of his resurrection, Jesus had full authority to set the terms of his religion. Why then is anyone surprised that the religion he founded has turned out as expected?

When I look around I see the corruption, same as anyone else who cares to see. I also see the faithful few, characterized by their suffering and their love. Yet I won’t abandon ship—it isn’t sinking. I take the label of Christian because the Christ is my master, not because of what anyone else says or does. For better or worse, our actions—not labels—tell the story of who we are and where our allegiance lies. I’m okay with that.

† For sake of argument

It is unwise for a man or woman to enter marriage without understanding how marriage will impact their happiness. The majority of married life will be relatively unhappy. Most persons will need to be married for nearly 4 decades before they possibly get that spark back that they had at the beginning.

Many women are taught by the feminist society that they can (and should) divorce if they become unhaaaaaaaaaapy!! Accordingly, the highest divorce rates occur during those early years, as marital happiness steadily declines.

Without a doubt, raising children is a stressful, difficult experience.

Merely having a child results in an instantaneous drop in marital happiness. Interrupted sleep, poop, noise, and sickness are not conducive to sanity. It helps to have a stay at home mom, but if she works then finding a babysitter is stressful and costly.

It gets a little easier once the children enter school, although you’ll have a busy schedule with sports and other extra-curricular activities. Unfortunately this is only a temporary improvement. Kids become teenagers. Anyone who has ever met or been a teenager understands the horror of this.

It turns out that children are expensive and wives like spending money. So men work hard to provide their family, working to advance their careers. Husbands and fathers are abnormally driven and successful at this.

You’ll come home at the end of every stressful 10-hour day exhausted to find your wife exhausted from caring for your 3 noisy children. Dinner will need to be made, diapers changed, vacuuming done, laundry folded, lunches packed, and lawn mowed. Guess who has to do most of that so she can rest? Good luck if she’s pregnant.

But then you will get a call from work. Do you like that big pay raise you just got? Duty calls. You can say goodbye to having sex with her tonight. Maybe you can schedule it for next Wednesday.

You’ll find your groove, learning to work on less sleep and limited appreciation even as you get older and your body becomes less capable. Yet everything is okay, right?

Then the roof starts to leak and needs to be replaced. The AC unit just died. The car’s automatic transmission blew out (should have driven manual!). Jimmy needs surgery. The high school quarterback just got Susie pregnant. Now you got laid off and the wife has to go back to work.

The financial burdens will pile up and it will be rough.

When was the last time we even went to bed together, let alone had sex? I can’t even remem….zzzzzzzz.

Marriage is a truly terrible proposition. It consists of tons of work with future prospects that 50% will never make it to. Some have compared it to voluntary slavery. Perhaps that is accurate.

There is only one thing worse than being married…

…and that is being unmarried.

This post is tongue-in-cheek. Marriage can look pretty bad if it is presented that way. Depending on what you read and who you talk to, you might get the impression that marriage offers nothing to a man, that MGTOW is the way to happiness. Perhaps for some it is.

Life is hard but having someone at your side makes things just that much better.

We owe it to men to find a way to make marriage viable, to open up its benefits to more men. Part of that is informing them of the pitfalls, to help them choose more intelligently. This blog does an excellent job of that. Yet just as important is acknowledging the benefits and describing how to achieve them realistically. I will continue to do so.

Over on quora, some stupid, lazy bitch writes:

She doesn’t like working, but needs money to get her through to retirement.

Fortunately, Becca Bankston is here to help…

Becca writes:

You’re 27. Good (not too old). If you’re not in shape, get yourself in shape. Get a boob job and your teeth whitened and some braces if you need them. Get your hair and nails done and a fake tan. Corset train. Learn to be a good conversationalist. (basically ask questions and listen and really listen and make good comments on the answers)

 

Also take a class in finance and managing money.

 

Then, start going to places where you will meet men with money. Go out with whoever asks you out if you are attracted to him. (the better you make yourself look, the more men you will have to pick from).

I like this article, if only for its brute forthrightness. In the first place, it allows the brothers to see the historical inflation of female hotness.

Twenty-seven is certainly past the point of peak attractiveness for a wimminz. In the old days, this bitch would already be old news, and she’d have long ago been shunted aside in favor of the hot girls in the 22-24 range.

Today, she still has an opportunity to exploit a man. What happened? An epidemic of disgusting obesity, combined with a prevailing trend toward body-piercing and tattoos, which makes the average wimminz look like a circus freak or a human-walrus hybrid.

Do not sleep with any of them immediately. Wait at least three months. If some drop off, they were not serious marriage material anyway. You will also have more leverage if you are willing to marry an older man.

My advice, to demand sex on the first date, is something that I stole from Tom Leykis, and it has a practical purpose. By denying you sex, that hot slut is hoping that you’ll get thirsty enough to pop the question she’s dying to hear. Don’t fall for this. Cut ties the minute she starts fronting, because there are hundreds of other skanks who are ready to get it on.

Suppose you do get so thirsty that you’ll consider marriage, simply to get that ass? At that point, as Becca is about to illustrate, the game is over.

Once you get married. Have at least one child as soon as possible. So estimating that you get married at 28, and get pregnant soon after, and even if you get divorced right then, you should be set with alimony and child support and you will have the child support til you are 46 and the alimony til you get married again.

That’s right, kings. That hot woman, who seems so into you, has an ulterior motive. She is playing the long con, and you are the mark.

Only marry again if the next guy has more money than the guy who is paying you alimony. If you can, manage to get a house out of the deal. Also use that financial acumen you acquired from your finance classes to be able to live off of the interest of your capital and maybe rent out rooms in the house you have acquired.

This is what you get for toiling over that expensive, rigorous degree in finance, engineering, English, or mathematics. You worked hard, landed a decent job, and now you have enough income to be exploited by a disgusting skank-ho wimminz.

And as long as you are frugal and manage your money well, you might not have to actually ever work again. Also maybe not have the child, because if you marry high up enough, you will not need the child support, and children are a good bit like a full time job with a 24/7 work week. An older man who might already have children from a previous marriage might not care if you choose to remain childless. In fact, he might welcome it. If you do not have much energy, I highly recommend that you do remain childless. Children take up a lot of energy for as long as you are alive.

It is worth noting that Becca’s scam is very attainable. Unlike child support, which eventually ends, alimony is often a life sentence. In California, for instance, alimony is mandatory, and after only a few years of marriage, the alimony is permanent. There are men in this world who spend a relatively short time as a skank-ho wimminz’ wedded slave, thereafter to be forced to pay her weekly for the rest of their natural lives.

Before you even consider marrying, you should take Becca’s sage advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your area for the finer details.

You should also go sit in on a session of the divorce courts. They’re free and open to the public, in every state and province in North America. Quite a spectacle it is, too.

Becca, who apparently works as a “massage therapist,” has given you boys a far more valuable gift than the standard “sucky sucky” happy ending she gives her usual clients. She has been absolutely candid about the grift that millions of wimminz are running. Take her seriously, and don’t be a chump.

Brother Ballista has made the claim that Marriage Is A Feminist Tool Used Against Men. The underlying (and popular) premise is that All Women Are Like That—feminists to the core. Marriage is their tool and should be avoided. It follows that there are no unicorns, no Not All Women Are Like That.

Recently Brother Jason noted:

“Some men MGTOW until they do meet the unicorn and become like the men out there with prefect marriages.”

Such men avoid marriage until they evaluate the risks, weigh the options, and choose carefully. They select that unicorn* or no one at all. This reflects a common—perhaps even normative—way of thinking in the ‘sphere.

This is a solid plan, but is it realistic? Can or should we expect the majority of men to ignore the biological imperative to pair up and have children? I don’t think so and I am not alone. Considering other options is emphatically not man-shaming, a call to “man up”, or a warrant to enter marriage blindly.

Publicly, I will describe my strengths and weaknesses in marriage and my wife’s strengths, but I don’t specifically discuss her weaknesses. This gives the false appearance that I have a “perfect marriage” to a NAWALT.

The (N)AWALT meme essentially focuses on the negatives without considering the positives. The NAWALT (the perfect woman with no negatives) and the AWALT (the always evil every woman) are caricatures. Real women, just like men, have strengths and weaknesses.

The irony is that it’s trivial to prove—both anecdotally and as a group—that many women make great wives.† It’s also trivial to prove that many women destroy the lives of men. Examples of these, and those in between, are easily found across age, religion, and ethnicity.

There is a place for discussing the negatives, but no relationship can survive a primary focus on negatives. Focusing on the benefits changes your perspective. I don’t have a NAWALT, I have a relationship with many different categories of benefits that far outweigh the downsides. We work through our problems, but we live through our strengths.

My wife has held certain feminist-inspired viewpoints. Do they end our relationship? Of course not. She can have her own opinions and it isn’t the end of the world. Compromise is a vital marital component.‡ She’s not a unicorn because she’s perfect, she’s a unicorn because we don’t toss out those benefits because of a few negatives. We actually like and appreciate each other.

Marriage has always consisted of two imperfect people pairing up and finding a way to make it work. This didn’t begin or end with feminism. You try hard to find the right woman, but the work doesn’t end there. The relationship is dynamic. She’ll change and you’ll change. The latter is hard to accept.

Compromise, trade-offs, and changes cannot safely be avoided. Feminism has taught women that if they are unhappy or do not have perfection, then they should bail out and look for it elsewhere. This cancer is just as bad when men embrace it in their search for women. Goose and gander.

Throwing away the basis for society—marriage and family—because women are not perfect is worse than misguided. Throwing away the basis for society because it is difficult to find a good match is equally mistaken. It’s smart to be selective about who to marry, but avoiding marriage entirely is not a solution. You can’t destroy civilization to save it.

You marry because the benefits you receive will outweigh the negatives you’ll choose to accept. Expecting a marriage without negatives is unrealistic. That unicorn you married will have spots and blemishes. It turns out that this is okay. The unicorn was always a myth anyway.

---

* Or get lucky

† Ballista’s assertions to the contrary are mistaken.

‡ Contrast this with those men and women who advocate and hold absolute, uncompromising, binary positions (e.g. All women this, every women that; no this or that is possible).

Nick Griffin, a well-known British politician and kook, has released a free book in PDF format on the so-called “alt right” movement. Anyone can download the book here.

While Griffin gets a lot of things right, he paints in broad strokes, and he goes out of his way to lambaste those of us in the broader MGTOW community as the source of all sorts of social problems, including homosexual pedophilia and satanism.

Nick Griffin: Alt Right Not Right, p. 39

If you ever wondered where white nationalist kooks and loons like SirHamster and Cane Caldo learned to cook up false allegations, I’d posit guys like this as a first cause.

Griffin writes:

“But while some of the male victims of the liberal feminisation of society have responded with active protests, others have reacted by withdrawing from female company altogether. This is taken to extremes by the largely online ‘community’ known as MGTOW, pronounced ‘mɪɡtaʊ’.

This uses websites and social media to urge young men against romantic relationships with women, especially marriage” (Griffin, 40).

It is, of course, nice that Griffin has his position, with tenure in the parliament of the European Union, and a well paid career as a holocaust-denying kook. I am curious as to what Griffin suggests regular men do, in a world dominated by policemen eager to enforce laws like the Violence Against Women Act, and the Child Support Responsibility Act of 1994.

Since he hasn’t heard, here’s the news: due process has been suspended in most western countries (including his,) and regular men are responding to the (very real) threats of having their kids kidnapped, their property stolen, and their freedoms curtailed, on nothing more than the baseless whining of some wimminz who his “unhappy.”

I use my web page to encourage men to be very careful in all their dealings, (not only with wimminz, but also with scroungy politicians like the author) because our toxic cultural milieu never forgives or forgets men who trip through life’s wires. We are going to keep doing this, whether Griffin likes it or not. Our message is important, and men will continue to respond to it, because it is a very powerful message.

According to columnist Martin Daubney, followers of MGTOW believe that legal and romantic entanglements with women fail a cost–benefit analysis and risk–benefit analysis. Jeremy Nicholson, writing for Psychology Today, similarly described MGTOW as “guys who have been frustrated and punished to the point that they see no further incentive to relate [to dating] […], they focus on making themselves happy” (Griffin).

Nick is here repeating the feminist mantra about how we’re all a bunch of bitter losers who deserved our run through divorce court. Nothing could be further from reality. I’ve sent hundreds of young brothers off with credentials which will enable them to support a family, if they choose to do so. Many of them are intuitive MGTOW men, who have never bothered to visit our web pages. They’ve learned well from their fathers, their uncles, their neighbors and friends, and they won’t be making the same mistakes. If some of these men do marry, it will be after a long process of deliberation, coupled with rigorous scrutiny on any potential wife. That is exactly how it should be, in this world.

…most – if not all – older MGTOW devotees have a very strong personal interest in turning impressionable adolescent boys off girls. They use MGTOW in the way rural Spaniards still use sticky birdlime to catch song thrushes as edible delicacies. (Griffin).

While it is true that homosexuals hate women, (See Reuben, 1982) almost no MGTOW that I’ve run across are openly homosexual. Moreover, most MGTOW brothers who have any sense eschew real-world contact. MGTOW is not a mass movement for furthering gay sex. It’s an individual reaction to material conditions in the real world.

There is more, and it only gets less credible, but I’ll stop here.

What’s your definition of MGTOW? Shout at me in the comments.

The brothers in Canada don’t seem to be buying into the propaganda.

yet another instagram slut… yet another fish-lipped photo…

The ugly skank in the mugshot was just charged with murder in Clark County, Nevada. Who did she ice? How did it happen? Let’s hear it straight from the ever reputable feminist press.

This wall-hitting former hottie iced the old simp who paid her rent. This same scenario plays out so often, it hardly even seems newsworthy. If I have any sympathy (simp-athy?) for this man, it’s only based on the fact that he was an elderly boomer, who was raised on a whole constellation of lies that paint wimminz as inherently sweet, pure, honest and moral.

Dead as dirt: Dr. Thomas Burchard

She wanted to “change the world…” yezzzzz

Note well, little brothers. This man was a psychiatrist. A professional, who spent his entire life devoted to deconstructing and treating society’s neurotics. It’s hard to imagine anyone less likely to be chumped out by a lying instagram prostitute; yet, there he is, dead as dirt.

Burchard is described as “avuncular,” which is a fancy word meaning “uncle-like.” There are men who may have had cause to pay some nasty slut’s rent, but Burchard wasn’t one of them. We must remember that if some bitch can’t get her actual uncle to act all “avuncular,” then it’s a strong tell that she doesn’t deserve such treatment.

Another thing: Burchard has a girlfriend of ~20 years named Earp. Burchard is fucking supporting Turner, with Earp’s full knowledge and apparent consent. One wonders why Ms. Earp didn’t dump this philandering old fool. A few scenarios come to mind, one or more of which may simultaneously be plausible…

• Burchard is also paying Earp’s bills, and Earp didn’t want to upset the apple cart.
• Burchard was one of a great many simps Earp had on her roster, and she didn’t care.
• Earp and Turner were secretly friends, and Earp wanted Burchard dead too.

To me, it’s entirely conceivable that the “string of text messages” sent from Burchard’s phone, to Earp, were coded messages letting one bitch know that the other had snuffed the target. Earp may have pre-emptively turned Turner in to the cops, in order to shield herself from scrutiny.

All of this is idle speculation, of course. I’m just one man who has seen wimminz scheme together before instantly betraying one another, and I’ve seen such things too many times to count.

LOL! This bitch has two children. It seems that we have discussed the perils of dating a skank-ho single mom in the recent past, no?

Incidentally, Earp’s description of Turner as “evil as Manson” is actually just adding to my suspicions that she was part of the deed in the planning stages, and has possibly set up her co-conspirator to take the fall. This is just too transparently theatrical to be believable.

Here’s a tip. If you boys want to exercise some “extreme generosity,” direct that to people in your extended family or perhaps your immediate community. Your own nephews deserve your “avuncular” attention, so help them finance their first cars. There’s probably an old man three doors down who gets meals-on-wheels. Buy him some steak. The old illegal alien who cuts your lawn probably has teenage DACA kids who need tuition paid. Not only would you be more likely to “change the world” in a positive way, but you’d also be devoting your attentions to people who are likely to be worthy of them.

And I can tell you how Turner and Burchard met. She sent him a message on Instagram, on Tinder, or on Plenty of Fish.

There’s more to the story, but I want to stay within fair use guidelines, and we’ve covered all the important stuff. What do you think?

Read more at sfgate dot com

A wimminz named Katie Bouman has been constantly in the news for several days, touted as the groundbreaking genius who brought us the first image of a black hole. CNN reported that Bouman “led the creation of an algorithm,” which makes it sound like it was her personal project.

It turns out that Katie didn’t “lead” anything. She was just a bit player on the team. The individual who did nearly all the development work, on the software which allowed for the imaging, was a man named Andrew Chael.

When people started talking about this strange phenomenon, Chael got on twitter, to white knight for m’lady. He must have typed his denouncement of all us misogynists stream-of-consciousness, because in his defense, he confirmed the fact that he was, in fact, the “primary developer” of the software in question.

Thanks, Andrew, for telling us what we knew already.

Jayzus Christ, there’s more.

I started this blog five years ago. Being the uncreative man that I am, I simply named it after the post code I was in when I hit the ‘submit’ button on the WordPress form. For the first year (or so), I had comments turned off. I didn’t really care if anyone else commented, because the comment sections I had experienced had problems that outweighed their benefits.

I had a blog before that, entitled La Prensa. In those very old days, I translated (with permission) articles written by men like W.F. Price and AfOR into French and Spanish, and tried to spread manosphere memes into minority communities. That blog was taken down after a kook named Rob Fedders attempted to “out” me as a professor at Simon Fraser University. Fedders contacted various feminist organizations, and tried to get this poor fellow fired. This man, who I had never met, and who certainly didn’t author any of my articles, probably got a ton of shit, simply because an insane incel suspected he was me.

I encourage everyone here to remain anonymous for a reason.

There are other threads to those early years. If one looks at my first real article, he can draw a distinct line to all the latest ones, and he’ll find that if anything is consistent here, it is my disdain for mass culture. This could easily be typecast as an anti-celebrity blog… something like the antithesis of People or Entertainment Tonight. In this regard, I’m following in the tradition of Adorno and Horkheimer, who also hated popular culture.

Plato constructed a healthy critique of actors and comedians 2500 years ago, and I hate them for many of the reasons he did. They’re people who make their living pretending to be things that they aren’t. They’re entitled to a living at their trade, but in our society, they’ve assumed positions of unearned respect and authority. Undermining the trend of honoring the unworthy is probably the most valuable thing any of us can do.

Down below, Derek writes:

I write as a counterpoint to your articles. I’m not refuting much; more providing another perspective.

I’m glad Derek is here, and he’s welcome to refute me as much as he likes. If someone doesn’t like Derek (or me), they are welcome to decamp.

From the beginning, I saw my blog as not competing with behemoths like The Spearhead, Dalrock or Roissy. One might assume, at first, that huge communities like these are blessed with a diversity that is impossible on a small blog like mine. Spending some time in those places will disabuse one of that silly notion immediately.

Dalrock’s blog is far too large to function as an effective community of men. Most of us know that intuitively.

Comment sections are strange things. As participation in such a venue increases, the potential for true diversity is rapidly outweighed by a selection toward conformity. As Dalrock becomes more popular, he attracts more angry nutters, more social outcasts, more loony misfits, and more dullwitted parasites. All these people end up as (more-or-less) free riders, simply there to agree and amplify. Thus, a dogmatic ideology starts taking shape, and everyone begins parroting the same buzz-words, and shouting down sensible dissidents.

This is even more evident at Roissy, which is much larger than Dalrock. Roissy has a staggering number of readers who participate in his comment section. Roissy’s commenters are so numerous that they have effectively subdivided themselves into cliquish subgroups. If discussion is difficult on Dalrock, it’s absolutely impossible on Heartiste, where people are petrified into opposing camps, all shouting at one another.

From the beginning, I saw V5K 2C2 as a sort of digital neighborhood: something closer to a mailing list or a ‘zine. I always knew the dangers of getting too big, but I’m especially wary of this now, for a specific reason that I didn’t foresee back in the early days.

A couple of years ago, I noted people like Cane Caldo and SirHamster injecting white nationalism into discussions on Dalrock. The larger any forum becomes, the more prone it is to this sort of idiotic groupthink. I don’t want a petrified comment section, with hundreds of people chanting mantras in unison. If there is a motivator for a comment section to go down to destruction, white nationalism is it.

Since I’m criticizing white nationalists, I’ll quickly lay out my reasons why…

1. White nationalists are depressives. They constantly promote a defeatist attitude and immediately bring the general mood of every discussion down. According to white nationalists, society is run by a small minority of omnipotent super geniuses (known as Jews). Since these Jews control everything, white nationalists will insist that a young brother’s only recourse is to go commit suicide, preferrably immediately after some pathetic display of ultraviolence.

The problem with this thesis is obvious: it’s premises are untrue.

Dispelling the myth of Jewish superintelligence, one YouTube video at a time.

The guy who recently shot up a synagogue was surely groomed by these losers. None of the people he murdered were millionaires, or had high positions in political or social life. None of his victims seem particularly intellectually accomplished. They were just regular Americans, who went to work every day, and who had a different religious background.

2. White nationalists are anti-intellectual. Idiots like David Duke and Paul Nehlen are held up as authorities, despite the fact that they’re transparent grifters who are doing nothing but living off donations given them by their disciples. Points are argued and forwarded not on their merits, but merely on ideological grounds. White nationalists are, in this regard, very similar to feminists, in that they have a set of general grievances, and any proposition needs to fit within the script to be accepted. Any question that deviates from their narrative is rejected, and the questioner is self-righteously shouted down.

3. White nationalists are feminists by another name. I’ve covered this aspect for years, but it bears repeating, because this is a personal annoyance of mine. Go talk to some of these idiots and you’ll get the idea. Their precious white wimminz are to be worshipped as though they were goddesses, despite the fact that these same white wimminz are raising up a generation of white thugs and hoez, who are far more likely to steal my wallet than to get a job. Massive misbehavior like widespread divorce, chronic unemployment and welfare, single mom sluttery and drug abuse is glossed over with the flimsiest of excuses.

White nationalists have a couple of go-to responses to any question. Usually, when I criticize them even mildly, I am called a “race-traitor,” which is a meaningless term, given that my people don’t even consider the average white nationalist to be white. They’ll then admit that some of the things I’m saying are true, but immediately tell me that all their problems are the fault of a Jewish conspiracy. This is a response that is precisely similar to what I get from black nationalists and feminists, who whine about “white privilege” and “patriarchy” respectively.

Occasionally, a white nationalist will talk about a real problem, like ANTIFA. As an aside, ANTIFA is probably the only group that’s goonier and more pathetic than white nationalists, given that they’re pseudoleftists who are “protesting” on behalf of huge corporations.

I don’t want ANTIFA running roughshod through my comment section either. Even so, ANTIFA has no presence on the manosphere, so they’re not really my concern.

Every time Dalrock throws his blog into moderation, I get 10-20 new applicants. The last time this happened was last weekend. I could have approved twenty new commenters, and one of them might have fit in. Four of them would have repeatedly told Earl he’s a faggot for worshipping Mary, and five others would have told Jason he’s a faggot for not fucking random skanks, and the other ten would have started proselytizing for Stormfront, unironically talking about what a great guy Hitler was, and how the south should have won the American civil war.

So, my role here is not only as one of the authors, it’s also editorial. My goal is to maintain focus, and enforce some minimal intellectual standards. Derek will continue writing articles here for as long as it amuses him, and while everyone can read, I’ll continue to be selective about who gets to have a voice.