So over on Dalrock, people are agog at the attention paid to the Jordan Peterson interview. Same as here, I suppose. This is a fair example.

I have the impression that BDMG and Novaseeker are very different people; though, they’re both people I respect. They agree on at least one thing, which is their lack of a favorable impression of Peterson’s performance. They join a great number of other people, throughout the sphere, in expressing these opinions.

There are two points I ought to make here.

1. Peterson’s Revelations Aren’t Revelatory

They aren’t revelatory to us, because we’re grown men with developed psychic lives, goals and jobs. In short, they aren’t revelatory to us because they aren’t meant to be.

The people Peterson is trying to reach are young brothers, and he reaches them by symbolically occupying the psychic space that a father or grandfather would occupy in the development of a normal adolescent. People like BDMG and Novaseeker spend a lot of time in the ‘sphere, so I don’t know exactly why they don’t understand the inherent problem. We all seem to talk about young men growing up without fathers. Peterson is applying a solution, with the help of youtube.

If you’re an 18-year old man, whose life consists of internet pr0n, World of Warcraft, and pizza-flavored microwaveable meals, then Peterson’s act is revelatory. Peterson is probably the first person who has consistently told these young brothers to get up off their ass, go out and enjoy living in the world, and make something of themselves. That is a novel position, for a young man who has grown up in a single-mom house, with female public school teachers. The numbers suggest that our younger brothers have a definite need, and he’s filling it.

As Novaseeker cynically points out: He’s making a few bucks while doling out the sort of advice fathers and grandfathers used to give for free. So, what? Sue him.

2. Peterson is Adept at Pushing the Overton Window

He’s doing it at least as well as Donald Trump, in a country with no Trump equivalent.

The Ontario Provincial Government didn’t declare itself the Feminist Republic forty years ago, because it couldn’t. It has been a very long, slow slide into degeneracy, which has been accomplished over a period of decades, through a coordinated action which included both political figures, academia, and the mass-media. Our feminist overlords were very clever and careful to ease Canadians into the national gay bath house slowly, so as not to stir up any uncontrolled or organized opposition.

Peterson is singlehandedly pushing the narrative back toward sanity, and he’s doing it without the screeching or caterwauling that feminists have traditionally used. No normal person, who gives him a fair listen, is able to question his reason or motives. In this regard, he’s changing the way that Canadians, even the most pozzed out feminists among them, think about society and their place in it.

There is little doubt that I am one of the most progressive people in the ‘sphere when it comes to the abortion topic. I have absolutely no problem with a woman choosing to abort her pregnancy, in the first trimester, in a number of different scenarios. For example:

• In the case where carrying the child to term would kill her.
• In the case where carrying the child to term would disable her.
• In the case where carrying the child to term would make her sick for a year or more (e.g. Lupus).
• In the case where the child will not survive outside the womb (e.g. Anencephaly).
• In the case where the child will be born disabled (Down’s Syndrome).
• In the case where conception was due to rape (i.e. violent forcible rape, not “I regret having sex after the fact”).
• In the case where it is reasonably likely the mother will pass a communicable disease to the child in labor, which is incurable or hard to treat (AIDS).

Had you asked me about this topic, only a couple of years ago, I’d have strongly asserted the mother’s right to abort in any circumstance. After all, I naïvely assumed that such a terrible decision would never have been made without a grave reason, after a lot of introspection. How wrong I was! Over at Johnston Archive, the data has been laid out. Here are the reasons that American women actually get abortions:

Summary: This report reviews available statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the United States, including surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah). The official data imply that AGI claims regarding “hard case” abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in “hard cases” are estimated as follows: in cases of rape, 0.3%; in cases of incest, 0.03%; in cases of risk to maternal life, 0.1%; in cases of risk to maternal health, 0.8%; and in cases of fetal health issues, 0.5%. About 98.3% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons and possibly 0.1% each for sex selection and selective reduction of multifetal pregnancies.

In other words, abortions which are justifiable (at least by my standards) are well beneath 5% of the total, and that’s being generous. Over 95% of all abortions in the U.S. are sought by wimminz who had one too many appletinis, and subsequently conceived after unprotected sex with Chad in the nightclub’s public toilet.

Atheists and agnostics need to get their minds right. These are not people who deserve sympathy, and this is not a “women’s health” issue. These are the most irresponsible and reprehensible people imaginable, and they’re all around us, right now.

This weekend we mourn little Zayla Rank, who was found slaughtered in her home on 26 January.

The Riverside County (California) Sheriff’s Department reports that they have arrested thirty-year old Susan Rank, Zayla’s skank-ho single mom.

News reports have followed the usual protocol, omitting any mention of little Zayla’s biological father. I suppose she was yet another virgin birth. Such things seem disturbingly common, these days. In an interview with Zayla’s aunties and grandmother, all manner of excuses were made for the murder. “I blame mental illness,” declared Tracylyn Sharrit, little Zayla’s auntie.

Sharrit doesn’t blame Rank. She says she blames the system.

“When a 3 year-old becomes collateral damage of somebody else’s mental illness, we as a society have to say what is broken in this system?” Sharrit told Eyewitness News. “Zayla couldn’t protect herself. Susan couldn’t protect her either. She was mentally gone.”

Relatives choose to blame “the system,” and I can’t help but agree. Little Zayla certainly needed protection, primarily from her deranged, drug-addled mother, and from relatives like Sharrit, who seem to be totally fine with blaming everyone but the perpetrator for this murder.

What would a better “system” entail? A sane society would have immediately taken Zayla from her unmarried mother at birth, and placed her with a normal family for adoption, and a chance for a healthy upbringing. It also would have probably followed something like the Soviet model, and sentenced her skank-ho single mom to a work camp, so that she could repay the social services money, squandered by her irresponsible behavior. The Chinese custom of forcible sterilization of such people also seems sensible, in context.

There seems little doubt that Mizz Rank will spend only enough time in the clink to get some more trashy tattoos, and she will shortly be released and fêted as a “victim,” empowered to do something like this again. Truly, we in the west have the worst of all possible worlds, in which female dysfunction is rewarded, and the costs for wimminz loathsome behavior offloaded onto innocent people, with their bastard kids often bearing the most violent and immediate abuse.

Three-year old Zayla Rank, photographed with her murderer: Skank-ho single mom Susan Rank, age 30.

My fellow Canadian, Jordan Peterson*, has lately been trending in the sphere. Here he is giving a proper scuzzing to a scroungy British feminist named Cathy Newman, on the state run BBC 4.

The Tranny Republic known as Ontario has passed a series of laws penalizing anyone who might offend weirdos. Dr. Peterson, a tenured professor and licensed clinical psychologist, is one of the few people who felt compelled to speak out against this sort of overreach. Given that the social penalty for this sort of thing, in Canada, is being publicized as “worse than Hitler,” his e-cred immediately shot through the roof, and he now makes 50,000 USD per month on patreon, ostensibly for making youtube videos, which aim to teach young men not to act like complete faggots.

In the aftermath of her dreadful showing, Mizz Newman claimed to have been cyberbullied and harassed by Dr. Peterson and his rabid, hateful, Hitler loving followers. Scott Adams deconstructed this brave feminist heroine in a pretty good video of his own.

Dr. Peterson is usually described as “right wing” or a member of the “alt-right”. In fact, there is no evidence of any such thing. His politics are unknown. What he has proven is that he’s exceptionally good at holding frame in the face of typical feminist topic-shifting and fallacies.

We can make no real assumptions about his private life, other than the fact that he seems to be great at debating lunatics, and probably learned such skills in childhood. It doesn’t hurt that he’s handsome, erudite and able to hammer his points home with a soft voice. I assume that after the destruction of this feminist harpy, he’ll never be invited on a national tee-vee program again.

*Peterson lives in Toronto, but he grew up in Fairview, Alberta

The inability of religious people to live up to their own teachings is a constant source of both mirth and pity; and, nowhere is this clown show more accessible than on Dalrock’s blog. Our latest example is a good religious patriarch named Evan Turner, who showed up to lambaste the social critics and white-knight for skank-ho single moms. Let’s read the Turner Diaries together, and see what he has to say…

Whenever some “new name” begins by identifying himself as a regular, you can be sure that it’s going to get fun quickly. That aside, let’s take a look at Mr. Turner’s argument in some detail.

In the first place, he conflates the bride price, which was paid to a woman’s parents, with child support, which is paid directly to skank-ho princess herself. It seems the misogynists among the ancient Hebrews weren’t as keen on funding female misbehavior as we are, today. Never mind that, though. Mr. Turner doesn’t want to go there.

Mr. Turner then segues into an argument that has lately been used by the same so-called “red pill women” that talk shit on the Two Birds One Stone Blog* on their off hours. Specifically, that child support payments aren’t enough to support skank-ho princess in her aspirations (which generally include bikers, drunkenness, illegal drugs, and thugs). Brother Evan doubles down on this theme repeatedly, to wit:

Since Mr. Turner is claiming to be a religious man, and since the rules for religious Protestants, Catholics and Jews are all pretty much the same, we should probably consult the text to see what the Jewish/Christian God said about meddling with single moms.

From Exodus 22: Thou shalt not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.

The single moms in question are not widows, but they do have fatherless children. Child support is a significant incentive to spread fatherlessness throughout society, normalize bastardy, and reward the perpetrators of this horror with free money.

From Deuteronomy 27: Cursed be he who perverts justice for the stranger, or the fatherless.

Do Christians and Jews like Turner prevent fatherless children from their rightful inheritance? Yes, they do. By supporting the child-support model they deprecate fatherhood. By white-knighting for single-moms, they give moral support to an evil system, which inhibits the ability of that skank-ho’s children to know their natural fathers.

While I have no information, it would not surprise me to learn that Mr. Turner slums around on dating sites with single moms, takes them out to the nightclub, and then uses these bottom-of-the-barrel women for sex. In doing so he both afflicts fatherless children, and he prevents those same children from ever acquiring their birthright. This is a very serious form of misbehavior to his own religious leaders, and he is soundly condemned for his actions in his own holy books.

So what would Mr. Turner do, if he were actually a serious Christian man? I believe that we can find a sensible answer in the epistle of James to the Jewish Christians of the diaspora. In the text we read:

So, the solution is straightforward. If you are religious, and you take these texts seriously, your job is not to exploit the broken family for the purposes of virtue signaling or your own sexual gratification. Decent religious men take up for the children, and they do so by condemning the skanks, and affirming the notion of fatherhood.

Edit: Dalrock has published a response to Turner’s lunacy himself. Read it.

*That’s right, bitch. I know who you are.

Surprise! Wimminz want to abolish the first amendment.

Down below, Deti writes a very good little mini post.

Women don’t want to get caught cheating because they don’t want to lose the benefits that come from being married, namely provision, protection, help around the house, a man around the house, help with the kids, father for the kids, an intact family, avoiding the trauma of splitting up an established family with the house and cars and money and everything else, avoiding the shame and judgment of peer women in a public divorce, and just the status of being married. It is not because they care about who will get hurt if they get caught. And it is not because they care about hurting their husbands if they get caught. They care about staying married for the benefits that come from being married.

180

The status that a female (be she a wimminz or a solid woman) derives from marriage comes almost exclusively from her peer group: that is, other females and possibly a couple of trannies and homos in her circle. The husband is for show.

It’s as though every day is a parade, where she marches down Broadway declaring:

Look what I managed to catch with my superior cunt/mouth/ass, and my skills at applying makeup, lying, and double-talk! My chump is at least as good as any of yours!

So, what differentiates a wimminz from a woman (i.e. a solid female)? In my experience, it is the peer-group in question. If a woman spends lots of time hanging out with other serious-minded women, then she will take on the characteristics of those women. If the same women moves to a new town (i.e. suddenly has her peer-group shorn away) and falls in with skanks, weird trannies, faggots and divorcées, then her behavior will go down the toilet almost immediately.

This is why the virginity fetishists (like social pathologist) have spent years sniping at me on Dalrock. I will take the time to tell the young bros the uncomfortable truth. Number of cocks inside a woman doesn’t really correlate with long-term marital success. A virgin at marriage means little more than princess has been surrounded by other serious women so far. Take that same sweet, virginal woman to some other locale, and watch how quickly those panties drop. Enter Jenny Erikson, Saeed Abeidini’s bitch of an ex-wife, and other examples too numerous to name here.

This is also the reason that many men on Dalrock will cop to the fact that they found a filthy lying slut that they liked, and successfully turned the whore into a housewife. If you ask any of these success-story men how they managed this feat, it always boils down to getting her away from her bitch friends, and re-inserting her into a female peer-group with some standards. Whether this was the man’s mother and sisters, or some women’s auxiliary of the Orthodox Church, it inevitably happened. The decisive factor is that on Tuesday, the bitch was running around with wimminz who didn’t mock her for being a filthy, lying slut; but on Wednesday, she was suddenly in the company of serious women who would shut her the fuck down for uttering an off-color joke. Suddenly, this trashy wimminz is wearing dresses, getting her skank-ho tattoos lasered off, and successfully raising healthy children as she takes care of husband’s needs. The men who tell these stories often credit Jesus or some religious miracle, and maybe in an abstract way perhaps that’s true, but Jesus always has help in reforming a whore, in the guise of a bunch of other women who won’t stand for a slut stinking up their sewing circle.

In another thread, Honeycomb shares a gem of an article written by “The Ambrose Girls.”

The article is quite short and direct, and the syntax/style looks like it had one single author. It’s possible that a group of wimminz wrote this dull self-justification, but I doubt it. I find it more likely that one wimminz wrote it, and pluralized the byline, for fear that she’d look like a slut. Now that she has a mythical peer group, it’s much easier for her to tell the truth about her status. She is a filthy, lying, slut; but, she has a theoretical group of other filthy, lying, sluts to flock around with, so potential judgment of her peers is less damaging to her ego.

It’s all about the flock.

Stats and anecdotes suggest that married wimminz are cheating on their men in ever-increasing numbers. Over on Dalrock, our brother Deti lays down his ideas as to why the increase might be so. He then goes on to speculate as to why wimminz are not more open about their participation in the trend.

Deti opines:

I still have to believe that most women cheat on the downlow because they don’t want to get caught, and that most men would end the marriages as a consequence of her cheating. I still hope that most men are going to draw that line in the sand. I still hope that open polyandry is a Rubicon we can’t cross.

With respect to Deti, this is absolutely wrong. Wimminz do not care what men think or do. This includes married wimminz who are cheating on their husbands.

Married wimminz hide their downlow sex, not because they give a shit about their men, but because of how they are perceived by other wimminz. The opinion of the fem-hive is the only real concern of any wimminz. Wimminz are hard wired this way, and so it shall always be.

I always arrange to meet any wimminz before the possibility of sex, so that I can make an educated guess as to her status. If she is married, I bail. If she is crazy, disrespectful or otherwise unhinged, I ghost. During this initial meet, I may buy her a coffee or a meal (probably not), but that was never promised beforehand, and if it happens, it’s only to keep the clock running so that I can make an accurate assessment.

The woman who meets me knows her purpose. She is a filthy, lying slut, and her purpose is to be used as such. Specifically, it is to allow me to penetrate any/all of her holes, at my discretion, and for as long as such things amuse me.

When I meet a woman, I promise her one thing, and one thing only.

The only promise that I make (and which I always keep) is absolute secrecy and deniability. This is not to protect any other men in her life, because if she cared about the other men she was fucking/exploiting, she wouldn’t have met me in the first place. She cares about the other wimminz (and possibly a couple of male homosexuals and trannies of indeterminate sex) in her immediate social environment.

I know she is a filthy, lying slut, and she knows that I know it. I make the solemn promise that I will not let her bitch friends know that I know she is a filthy, lying slut. That is the only promise I make, and I don’t make any promise that I’m not absolutely committed to keeping, until death.

Given that wimminz don’t care about anyone except other wimminz, my promise is the necessary and sufficient condition to seal the deal.

Deti continues:

But, then again, we also thought SCOTUS wouldn’t go from

“Homosexual conduct is not protected by the constitution (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986)

 

to

 

“Homosexual conduct is protected by the constitution (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003)

 

in 17 years.

And in a few more years we’ll likely go from

married in the anus as constitutional right

to

Boxer jailed for accurately describing wimminz as filthy lying sluts on his blog.

Already married men are prohibited from having sex with their own wives unless there is “enthusiastic consent” which, as we’re all aware, can be revoked retroactively, as soon as skank-ho princess decides her husband needs a prison sentence for rape.

Clown world can’t get much more ridiculous.

Thanks to Billy, over on Dalrock.

This is a contribution from the aptly named “Seventies Jason”

I was born too late, I sweartagawd…