Scott from American Dad solicited feedback on Dalrock’s website on his post, https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/how-do-you-organize-your-goals/ . I don’t have anything to say on Scott’s blog; once you pay your dollar and make your choice from the vending machine of life, discussing alternative choices becomes pointless. Me advocating Christ & Country to a guy who rejected Protestantism to build a copy of Orthodox Serbia in the rural Midwest would be like telling this confirmed-bachelor MGTOW that you married a unicorn. I’m happy for you but we just can’t talk about it. Our paths are too divergent, our life choices mutually exclusive.

Nevertheless, he raised a point worth its own discussion. Urban life has gotten an undeservedly terrible reputation in the Manosphere. We kick things off with this quote from Scott:

Two things happened this week that caused a small epiphany for me. The first was this comment from Elspeth in response to yet another one of my rants extolling the virtues of rural versus urban or suburban living:

Not everyone is prepared or equipped to live a rural lifestyle.

Some men have careers which feed their families and are yes, largely dependent on living in larger population centers. It doesn’t make them bad people, bad fathers, or bad Christians.

I don’t wonder that this was an epiphany for him. Many Christians associate family with religion to the point of believing that evangelism and breeding are synonyms. (As if evil was only a genetic condition!) It’s hard to raise kids in the city because of the lack of space so these people naturally assume that willing city-dwellers are bad people.

But if a man does not have a family then living rural is asking for mental illness and loss of purpose.

Humans are social creatures. It’s one thing to move rural with your wife & kids in tow, it’s another to live rural by yourself with no neighbors worth mentioning. You’ll end up either schizoid or a Net addict. Urban life facilitates friendship and social hobbies simply by having many people in proximity and is therefore the better choice for MGTOW.

Urban life is valuable for Christians. More evangelism opportunities, more clashes between good & evil. We are called to be the salt of the Earth. Salt is a preservative, impeding rot. It gets consumed when it fights rot but does no good at all when left in storage. Christians who raise kids in isolation are not doing anything for God but headcount… which per God is not a sin, but neither is it the example Christ set. We Christian MGTOWs can and should pick up the slack here. Having no little hostages to protect allows us to dwell even in modern Sodoms with minimal risk from the Powers That Be.

There’s a second reason urban life is unpopular in the Manosphere. Men are becoming control freaks as the social fabric unravels. Uncertainty has always been a part of life but never as much as today, us being struck between perverted anarcho-tyrants and technological upheaval. The simplest way to ensure nobody bosses you around anymore is to position yourself so that nobody at all is around, and if somebody bosses you anyway then there’s plenty of space to hide a body. A poor attitude to reboot civilization with but one simple enough to occupy a midwit’s attention span.

It won’t work, prepper survivalists. The Russian tyrants had no trouble hunting down the kulaks.

Part of the control freakness is imputing city dwellers with the immoral acts of city leaders. I get this a lot. “How can you justify living in the Gay Area?” “We should build a wall around you.” “People who live in urban areas deserve to die when SHTF.” “California should just secede already!” Yes, because a roomful of pedophiles in Sacramento is a perfect representation of 50 million people and a quarter of the national economy… these are obviously outbursts of insecurity rather than considered beliefs.

Urban life is economically antifragile. If you lose a job for whatever reason, there are many more jobs to find nearby. Getting around is convenient, especially if one structures his life to use a bicycle for daily purposes rather than a car. There’s money to be made with so many markets around. You won’t own much property but if you’re MGTOW then your greatest investment will always be YOU. Cities have the best medicine and skill training to keep you at your best. Life should be enjoyed where possible and cities do much to make it possible.

Urban life is politically antifragile, too, because the neighboring local government is a short distance to relocate to. Or it used to be antifragile; today, every layer of every government is becoming homogeneous to the point that I can no longer believe I’m looking at reality. Still, the option for defensive relocation is available and affordable.

In closing, urban life helps men develop the friends & acquaintances that make life worth living while also presenting opportunities to build wealth and worship God that cannot exist in geographic isolation. Rural life is for men who can’t be happy without a family. Unfortunately, such men are predisposed to believe the worst about the city he left behind in order to justify his chosen lifestyle.

The corruption and feminization of the West began with the Settlement House movement in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Settlement houses were an effort to relieve poverty and living conditions created by the Industrial Revolution. We begin with excerpts from http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/british-and-irish-history/settlement-house :

Between the late 1880s and the end of World War I, the settlement house movement was an influential Progressive-era response to the massive urban social problems of the day, The United States was in a period of rapid growth, economic distress, labor unrest, unemployment, low wages, unfair labor practices, and squalid living conditions. Large numbers of immigrants arrived daily to work in this newly established industrialized society. Ethnic enclaves sheltered immigrants who were experiencing isolation, new customs, and a strange language.

Established in large cities, settlement houses were privately supported institutions that focused on helping the poor and disadvantaged by addressing the environ-mental factors involved in poverty. The basic settlement-house ideal was to have wealthy people move into poor neighborhoods so that both groups could learn from one another. Canon Samuel Barnett, pastor of the poorest parish in London’s notorious East End, established the first settlement house in 1884. In the midst of this neighborhood (settlement), Toynbee Hall housed educated and wealthy people who served as examples, teachers, and providers of basic human services to the poor residents of the settlement. Toynbee Hall was based on the social gospel movement and attracted young theologians and other middle-class people to emulate Jesus in living among the poor. …

Although settlement houses have often been characterized as largely secular in nature, many of them grew from religious roots. Some settlement house workers who came from a faith perspective included moral teachings, at a minimum, in their work with community residents. Probably the best-known example is Chicago Commons, founded in 1894 by the Reverend Graham Taylor, who was the first professor of Christian sociology at the Chicago Theological Seminary. He founded Chicago Commons partially as a social laboratory for his students. As Allen F. Davis has pointed out, of the more than 400 settlements established by 1910, 167 (more than 40 percent) were identified as religious… In 1930, there were approximately 460 settlement houses, and most of these were church supported.

Settlement houses were run in part by client groups. They emphasized social reform rather than relief or assistance. (Residence, research, and reform were the three Rs of the movement.) Early sources of funding were wealthy individuals or clubs such as the Junior League. Settlement house workers were educated poor persons, both children and adults, who often engaged in social action on behalf of the community. In attaining their goals, the settlement house reformers had an enviable record. They had a realistic understanding of the social forces and the political structures of the city and nation. They battled in legislative halls as well as in urban slums, and they became successful initiators and organizers of reform.

Settlement workers tried to improve housing conditions, organized protests, offered job-training and labor searches, supported organized labor, worked against child labor, and fought against corrupt politicians. They provided classes in art and music and offered lectures on topics of interest. They established playgrounds, day care, kindergartens, and classes in English literacy. Settlement workers were also heavily involved in research to identify the factors causing need and in activities intended to eliminate the factors that caused the need.

Settlement houses assumed as their operational base the adequate functioning of the families they served, many of whom were migrants and immigrants whose problems were associated with making the transition from rural to urban living and from a known to an unknown culture. Whatever their problems, clients of settlement houses were viewed as able, normal, working-class families with whom the wealthier classes were joined in mutual dependence. When such families could not cope, settlement leaders assumed that society itself was at fault, and this assumption led quite naturally to a drive for societal reform.

Indeed, hardline Leftists still use the title “community organizer” as they employ identity politics, intimidation and plain human laziness to exploit today’s poor and/or ethnics for political gain.

We can see the good intentions in the originator of the settlement house movement, Samuel Barnett, an Anglican cleric and social reformer who founded Toynbee Hall in London’s notorious East End. From https://infogalactic.com/info/Samuel_Barnett_(reformer) :

The East End area was notorious for its squalor and overcrowded housing conditions, as well as prostitution and other criminal activities. The Barnetts worked hard for the poor of their parish.opening evening schools for adults, providing them with music and entertainment, and serving on the local board of guardians and on the managing committees of schools. Barnett discouraged outdoor relief, because it fostered the pauperisation of the neighbourhood. At the same time, the Barnetts helped improve conditions of indoor relief, and co-ordinate the various charities by co-operation with the Charity Organization Society and the parish board of guardians.

Per infogalactic, outdoor relief was the kind of poor relief where assistance was in the form of money, food, clothing or goods, given to alleviate poverty without the requirement that the recipient enter an institution. In contrast, recipients of indoor relief were required to enter a workhouse or poorhouse. Outdoor relief was also a feature of the Scottish and Irish Poor Law systems. (Ref. Elizabethan Poor Law, 1601)

And then, we can see the evil intentions in the entryist than changed the course of Settlement Houses from relief to “social reform”… Jane Addams, founder of Hull House in Chicago. You, the reader absolutely must read infogalactic’s entire article on her, https://infogalactic.com/info/Jane_Addams , to realize she was the personification of female rebellion. But here are a few choice excerpts.

Addams’s father [GQ: a political crony of Abraham Lincoln] encouraged her to pursue higher education but close to home. She was eager to attend the new college for women, Smith College in Massachusetts; but her father required her to attend nearby Rockford Female Seminary (now Rockford University), in Rockford, Illinois. …

A woman pushed into a career instead of a family. We Manospherians know how that turns out. And a seminary, no less?

Visiting Toynbee Hall, Addams was enchanted. She described it as “a community of University men who live there, have their recreation clubs and society all among the poor people, yet, in the same style in which they would live in their own circle. It is so free of ‘professional doing good,’ so unaffectedly sincere and so productive of good results in its classes and libraries seems perfectly ideal.” Addams’s dream of the classes mingling socially to mutual benefit, as they had in early Christian circles seemed embodied in the new type of institution.

Invading male spaces, female territory marking.

One aspect of the Hull House that was very important to Jane Addams was the Art Program. The art program at Hull house allowed Addams to challenge the system of industrialized education, which “fitted” the individual to a specific job or position. She wanted the house to provide a space, time and tools to encourage people to think independently. She saw art as the key to unlocking the diversity of the city through collective interaction, mutual self-discovery, recreation and the imagination. Art was integral to her vision of community, disrupting fixed ideas and stimulating the diversity and interaction on which a healthy society depends, based on a continual rewriting of cultural identities through variation and interculturalism.

Given the choice, women prefer ponies to math.

The Hull House neighborhood was a mix of European ethnic groups that had immigrated to Chicago around the start of the 20th century. That mix was the ground where Hull House’s inner social and philanthropic elitists tested their theories and challenged the establishment.

If you’re practicing social theories on the poor then you aren’t helping the poor… and you’re probably a Communist organizing proletariats for the uprising.

Addams called on women.especially middle class women with leisure and energy, as well as rich philanthropists.to exercise their civic duty to become involved in municipal affairs as a matter of “civic housekeeping.” Addams thereby enlarged the concept of civic duty to include roles for women beyond motherhood (which involved child rearing). Women’s lives revolved around “responsibility, care, and obligation,” and this area represented the source of women’s power. This notion provided the foundation for the municipal or civil housekeeping role that Addams defined, and gave added weight to the women’s suffrage movement that Addams supported. Addams argued that women, as opposed to men, were trained in the delicate matters of human welfare and needed to build upon their traditional roles of housekeeping to be civic housekeepers.

A perfect picture of a woman who would have made an excellent wife, trying instead to turn government into society’s mother. The purpose of government is not to mother its little boys.

Addams and Starr were the first two occupants of the house, which would later become the residence of about 25 women. …

Throughout her life Addams had significant romantic relationships with women, including Mary Rozet Smith and Ellen Starr. Her relationships with women offered her the time and energy to pursue her social work, while being supported emotionally and romantically. While she was close to many women and was very good at eliciting the involvement of women from different classes in Hull House’s programs, she fell in love with only a few women. From her exclusively romantic relationships with women, she would most likely be described as a lesbian in contemporary terms, similar to most of the leadership of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, as historical evidence shows.

Hull House, the most famous settlement house in the United States, was originally formed as a group home for childless lesbians.

According to Christie and Gauvreau (2001), while the Christian settlement houses sought to Christianize, Jane Addams “had come to epitomize the force of secular humanism.” Her image was, however, “reinvented” by the Christian churches.

According to Joslin (2004), “The new humanism, as [Addams] interprets it comes from a secular, and not a religious, pattern of belief”.

In fact, the co-founders of Toynbee Hall, Samuel and Henrietta Barnett, shared Addams’s desire to bring Christianity back to its roots. Part of what was called the “social Christian” movement, the Barnetts held a great interest in converting others to Christianity, but they believed that Christians should be more engaged with the world, and, in the words of one of the leaders of the movement in England, W.H. Fremantle, “imbue all human relations with the spirit of Christ’s self-renouncing love.” Addams learned about social Christianity from them, soon considered herself one, and soon made friends among the leaders of the “social Christian” movement in the United States. …

While she remained a member of a Presbyterian church, Addams regularly attended a Unitarian Church and Ethical Society in Chicago. At one point, she was appointed “interim lecturer” at the Ethical Society.

Was Samuel Barnett a “social Christian” or a Christian? Given his rejection of outdoor relief, probably Christian. But his willingness to accept a female peer gave legitimacy to a lesbian dyke perverting Christianity into first Communism and later on, modern Churchianity. He should have been much more critical of Addams but probably heard what he wanted to hear and didn’t ask pointed questions about how a woman can be a Christian leader. In fairness to him, Barnett lived on the far side on the Atlantic Ocean before the Internet Age and had limited opportunity to ask.

The Christians of the late 19th Century began settlement houses to improve the lives of those suffering under industrialization. The feminists of the late 19th Century began settlement houses to foment class hatred, educate/liberate women and use the poor as excuses to radicalize government… covering themselves with a thin fig leaf of religious justification.

The former helped the poor in order to worship Christ. The latter worshiped Christ in order to help the poor. These statements are similar yet mutually exclusive.

…

Side note, do you readers prefer the colored quotations to my previous italicization?

The “Reverend” Martin Luther King, Jr. rejected Christianity as fact and twisted it into a tool of social justice.

Starting off at http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Writings-show-King-as-liberal-Christian-2623685.php dated January 15, 2007:

A decade before her death in 2006, King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, flew to San Francisco to ask Stanford Professor Clayborne Carson to examine and write about the box’s contents.A decade before her death in 2006, King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, flew to San Francisco to ask Stanford Professor Clayborne Carson to examine and write about the box’s contents.

The texts, which illuminate the theological foundations that America’s most celebrated social activist would repeatedly return to, are revealed in a book to be released today — Martin Luther King Jr. Day — by Stanford University’s King Papers Project.

The collection includes documents from 1948 to 1963 — the years covered by the book — and “gets us closer to King’s true identity” because they shed new light on how he viewed the Bible, Carson said.

“King used to say, ‘People think of me as a civil rights leader, but fundamentally, I’m a Baptist preacher,’ ” said Carson, editor of “Advocate of the Social Gospel,” which is based on the newly disclosed writings and is the sixth book produced by the King Papers Project.

The texts are triggering a discussion about how much King’s rejection of a literal reading of the Bible shaped his social activism.

King was not a conformist Christian. He not only eschewed literalism, he was a strident critic of how the Christian church perpetuated injustices such as slavery and segregation.
“Too often has the church talked about a future good ‘over yonder,’ totally forgetting the present evil over here,” King wrote in 1952 to Coretta Scott, his future wife.

Within a decade, King would lead the Montgomery Bus Boycott to protest legal segregation and numerous marches for voting rights. He returned repeatedly to the idea that true Christianity is practiced through the work for social justice.

“Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and not concerned about the city government that damns the soul, the economic conditions that corrupt the soul, the slum conditions, the social evils that cripple the soul, is a dry, dead, do-nothing religion in need of new blood,” King preached in 1962 to his congregation at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.

It wasn’t known until these papers were released how consistently King had been developing the social gospel. Nor was the extent to which King rejected a biblical literalism.

King didn’t believe the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale was true, for example, or that John the Baptist actually met Jesus, according to texts detailed in the King papers book. King once referred to the Bible as “mythological” and also doubted whether Jesus was born to a virgin, Carson said.

For some literalists, King’s belief that not every word of the Bible is true would mean he was not a Christian — even though many others would say no other 20th century figure more effectively used Christianity to shape society.

King “wanted to develop an intellectually respectable form of Christianity that did not require people to simply abandon their rational, critical abilities,” Carson said. The essential truth King saw, according to Carson, was the social gospel — “to see the Bible as a message of spiritual redemption and global social justice.”

“What relevance do these scriptures have?” King asked in a document included in “Advocate of the Social Gospel.” “What moral implications do we find growing out of the Bible?”

Carson also said King criticized the other extreme — the belief that the Bible is purely a political text, devoid of faith.

This is consistent with MLK’s earlier beliefs about Christianity. Excepted from https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/humanity-and-divinity-jesus , emphases mine:

As stated above, the conflict that Christians often have over the question of Jesus divinity is not over the validity of the fact of his divinity, but over the question of how and when he became divine. The more orthodox Christians have seen his divinity as an inherent quality metaphysically bestowed. Jesus, they have told us, is the Pre existent Logos. He is the word made flesh. He is the second person of the trinity. He is very God of very God, of one substance with the Father, who for our salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate be the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary.

Certainly this view of the divinity of Christ presents many modern minds with insuperable difficulties. Most of us are not willing to see the union of the human and divine in a metaphysical incarnation. Yet amid all of our difficulty with the pre existent idea and the view of supernatural generation, we must come to some view of the divinity of Jesus. In order to remain in the orbid of the Christian religion we must have a Christology. As Dr. Baille has reminded us, we cannot have a good theology without a Christology. Where then can we in the liberal tradition find the divine dimension in Jesus? We may find the divinity of Christ not in his substantial unity with God, but in his filial consciousness and in his unique dependence upon God. It was his felling of absolute dependence on God, as Schleiermaker would say, that made him divine. Yes it was the warmnest of his devotion to God and the intimatcy of his trust in God that accounts for his being the supreme revelation of God. All of this reveals to us that one man has at last realized his true divine calling: That of becoming a true son of man by becoming a true son of God. It is the achievement of a man who has, as nearly as we can tell, completely opened his life to the influence of the divine spirit.

The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: “Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possible have.” In other words, one could easily use this as a means to hide behind behind his failures. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit og God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers.

The appearance of such a person, more divine and more human than any other, and standing in closest unity at once with God and man, is the most significant and hopeful event in human history. This divine quality or this unity with God was not something thrust upon Jesus from above, but it was a definite achievement through the process of moral struggle and self-abnegation.

We could simply stop at MLK’s rejection of Christ as being God Incarnate. His dismissal of us “more orthodox” believers is quite insulting when it is what Scripture emphatically and repeatedly states. Surely, only lunatics believe that a religion means what it teaches! But then we would miss the connection

As I emphasized in boldface above, King’s view is that Jesus bootstrapped himself into becoming God. This is the defining belief of humanism. Just as women simultaneously envy men for their strengths while seeking to usurp them, men seek to turn themselves into gods while rebelling forcefully against God. “You shall be as God,” hissed the serpent.

Christianity to King was a recipe for apotheosis. Use nonviolent tactics, gather followers, use religious-sounding memes and voila, you’re successful like Jesus! And funny thing, it actually worked for him. The source of that success, however, was not God. It was white sentimentalism & black greed.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that segregation was the only (or at minimum, the most successful) way for blacks to prosperously live inside the first-world United States. Forcing an end to segregation was an act of cultural sabotage comparable to forcing an end to distinctions between male & female today. Human life is sacred but not interchangeable. Blacks should have accepted the place they were given. Whites should not have played Utopia.

King was an ordained minister but never a Christian. He sought to use Christianity as a tool with which to shape the world as he wished. Only years after his death did his widow release the documents that proved “Reverend” King was as much a fraud in his later life as in his earlier life.

I once make a joke aphorism that “if science ever proved the existence of God, humanity would stop believing in science.” Well… guess what’s been in the news.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/24/white-privilege-bolstered-by-teaching-math-university-professor-says.html

A math education professor at the University of Illinois says the ability to solve geometry and algebra problems and teaching such subjects perpetuates so-called white privilege.

Rochelle Gutierrez laid out her views on the subject in an article for a newly published anthology for math educators titled, .Building Support for Scholarly Practices in Mathematics Methods..

.School mathematics curricula emphasizing terms like Pythagorean Theorem and pi perpetuate a perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans,” she says, according to Campus Reform.

She also says that addressing equity in mathematics education will come when teachers can understand and negotiate the politics outside the classroom.

.On many levels, mathematics itself operates as whiteness. Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as white,. she writes.

Further, she says mathematics operates with unearned privilege in society, .just like whiteness.. …

In the book Gutierrez points out that mathematics operates as a proxy for intelligence, but asks, “are we really that smart just because we do mathematics?.

.As researchers, are we more deserving of large grants because we focus on mathematics education and not social studies or English?.

Aside: her bio has the worst case of thousand-cock stare I’ve found so far.

This article was not an isolated example:

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10021 “Feminist prof says ‘traditional science’ is rooted in racism” 24 Oct 2017

Sara Giordano, who left the field of neuroscience to become a Women’s Studies professor at UC-Davis, opened up about her feelings towards the sciences in a recent essay for Catalyst, a journal of feminist theory.

Science, she worries, has “earned its epistemic authority through its co-constitution with colonization and slavery,. and therefore “relies on a colonial and racialized form of power..

Not only is science rooted in racism, she alleges; it has been used to perpetuate racism and colonial practices.

.At the root of the justification for social inequality then is Western science,. she says, claiming that science’s distinction between “humans and non-humans. has allowed “capitalism [to become] justified as a natural economic system..

However, Giordano is hopeful that feminists can work towards creating new approaches that don’t conflate science with truth.

And then there’s

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/29/feminist-phd-candidate-science-sexist-not-subjective/

College science classes are hostile to women and minorities because they use the scientific method, which assumes people can find reliable truths about the natural world through careful and sustained experimentation, concludes a recent dissertationby a doctoral candidate at the University of North Dakota.

Laura Parson, a student in the university’s education department, reviewed eight science class syllabi at a “Midwest public university” and said she discovered in them a hidden hostility to women and minorities…

Throughout her dissertation, Parson assumes and asserts that women and minorities are uniquely challenged by the idea that science can provide objective information about the natural world. This is an unfair assumption, she says, because the concept of objectivity is too hard for women and minorities to understand. .[N]otions of absolute truth and a single reality. are .masculine,. she says, referring to poststructuralist feminist theory.

Have you ever looked back on history and wondered why ancient men were so ignorant? Why it took so long just to invent efficient stoves, why medicine had trouble advancing beyond boiling weeds? There’s a variety of reasons, energy sources being the most dominant one, but it seems that one such reason for humanity’s longstanding ignorance about science & engineering is that Barbie thinks math is hard. Time spent making life efficient and pleasant was always time not spent on wifey’s feelings.

One cannot help but notice the bright exception, the one field of science/engineering that every culture in every era excelled at… making booze to get drunk with. A feature of a feminist society?

Surely the white knights & manginas cannot be so eager to help women feel better about themselves as to dismiss the existence of objective reality. They couldn’t possibly be that stupid… is a statement nobody should make in modern times.

Postscript, my research for this post turned up the most hilarious of hamster blogs: stemfeminist dot com. It’s a blog dedicated to feminists struggling in STEM fields.

An example of how evolutionary psychology has replaced religion in the modern mindset is concern over declining birth rates. Per evolution, this is a cause: if you don’t keep your birth rates up then you/your people are unfit to exist. Per Christianity, this is an effect: women are in open rebellion against their God-given roles of wives and mothers. (And men are encouraging women in that rebellion. The same father hopes for grandkids while sending his daughter to Feminist U so she won’t have to depend on a husband.)

The two views seem related (if you rebel against your biology then you’re an unfit organism) but it doesn’t play out that way when you look at proposed solutions. The evolutionist path is seen when nationalists make a virtue out of breeding even with unfit women and governments paying incentives for larger families. The harm of this is we aren’t birds or reptiles. Human reproduction is not tossing a handful of eggs in a corner and wandering off. There’s no point in bearing children if they’ll end up fatherless, sexually abused or otherwise abandoned.

The Christian path is that low birth rates during hard times is a feature. When life isn’t safe for children, one should not have children, and the parasites will starve for lack of slaves and recruits. The success of one’s race is less important than resisting evil.

Not that I want my people to decline but is the decline a result of moral rebellion or a result of less sex? When white America is being betrayed and destroyed primarily by white Americans, is knocking up the white bar slut if one cannot find a unicorn truly the way to push back?

It begs the question of how God views the races of men. We know how He viewed the Jews: sorting them by tribe and geographic location to the point of social stasis. There are also divine promises of various types attached to the Jews, going as far in the End Times as the 144,000 of Revelation. But there’s no such consideration for Gentiles. Titus 1:12 acknowledges the existence of race-specific tendencies but neither gives special instructions nor condemns the Cretans to be so unpleasant for the rest of time. Neither will any of God’s prophecies fail if the bloodline of Larry dies out.

There is also an image God uses to represent the Gentile world in Revelation 17:15: “And he *said to me, .The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues.” Similar language is used throughout Scripture: “the nations” or “the peoples”. Quite the opposite of the named tribes of Israel.

My conclusion is that Ancient Israel’s locked genealogy is symbolic of Heaven’s permanency rather than a command to non-Jews for racial purity. Our places in Heaven are permanent once we arrive; there’ll be no changes in character or status. Who we become in mortal life will be who we are for eternity.

This changes the focus of mortal life from quantitative success to qualitative success. You can have no children or a thousand without affecting your immortal soul, so the greater importance is upon how you treat the people who already exist. Therefore, as much as I would like white America back I won’t sacrifice justice for the sake of forcing racial purity. That is not a statement race nationalists would ever make. And if I have no opportunity to have kids of my own, the next best thing is to be a mentor or something. Giving a young immortal his first job is an immortal honor whether he carries my DNA or not. This plays into God considering human life to be inherently sacred.

The way I would restore North America: Disempower women completely. Eliminate the welfare swamp. Free rides to the border, one-way, but if any ethnics want to earn their food, learn English and assimilate into American principles such as rule of law, they can stay. Lastly, put the death penalty on most violent crimes as well as women who get pregnant outside marriage.

Would that restore white America? Probably not; race issues would remain, therefore I would be counted a failure by evolutionary principles. But it would be an orderly society that honors its roots and is a land of justice. The clear trend in the New Testament is that God prefers a just society to a uniform society.

Those motivated by evolution would turn people into criminals just for who they are, while declaring themselves to be righteous because of who they are. That is the appeal of tribalism: presumption of righteousness.

It’s official: everybody who is going to spend real fiat money to watch the latest Star Whores abomination already has. There will be no further audiovisual spoiler warnings.

To my surprise, I liked the movie more than expected. Perhaps it reminded me of my childhood misspent on B-movies from the SciFi Channel back when it wasn’t spelled Sy-Stargate-Will-Never-Die-Fy Channel. Perhaps it was the warm feeling I got, knowing that even on the worst days I have a better job than the poor CGI monkeys trying to ward off the justified yet impotent death threats from nerds over the corruption of their childhood memories. But mostly, it was that even unchecked, peak feminism couldn’t hide its need for patriarchy. You will never find a more wretched hive of backhanded compliments!

The plot is a standard love triangle. Kylo Ren is the dark, brooding, billionaire sociopath who has the galaxy at his feet yet can’t get Mary Sue out of his mind. (Literally; the two have unwanted telepathic conversations. In one of them, Mary Sue begs him to cover his bodybuilder torso with a shirt.) Finn is Huckleberry Finn pre-fitted with a dog collar, promising Mary Sue endless freedom, new experiences and puppy-like love. Complete with puppy piddle. It was his introductory scene. Sigh.

Advancing the plot beyond the storyboard of Titanic is Mark Hamil’s performance as an older & wiser Luke Skywalker. This reviewer accepts Mr. Hamil’s apology: he didn’t have a choice in how to portray the character if he wanted to keep that bushel of cash. Anyway, Skywalker trained Kylo Ren in the Jedi arts and screwed up so badly that he exiled himself and refuses to train Mary Sue when she arrives, not wanting to unleash another Ren upon the galaxy. In the first backhanded compliment to masculinity, Mary Sue badgers Skywalker into training her anyway. After one lesson, she goes Kylo Ren on him for the sake of Kylo Ren exactly as he’d feared. Lesson to men: if she won’t take no for an answer then ghost yourself. You were right the first time. Don’t give Pussy a chance to break you.

The most significant character is Poe Dameron, X-Wing squadron leader and ambassador of potentially homosexual Arabs. Dubious origins notwithstanding, he does an amazing job of demonstrating how utterly dependent even purple-haired female admirals are upon the patient endurance of Men Who Don’t Listen to Women. At the movie’s start, the Resistance is cornered by an entire fleet of Star Destroyers. Poe has a daring Trojan horse/bombing run gambit that he executes in defiance of General Leia’s orders to not attack. He succeeds and is promptly demoted for saving the Resistance against heavy odds. Backhanded compliment to men #2: “Don’t save us if it makes female leadership look bad!”

So it’s “General” Leia now? Not Princess? Goodbye fresh, desirable white man’s bikini-clad sex toy whose being chained to an intelligent slug gave hope to millions of nonathletic computer experts. Hello, General “Botox” Organa who is now in charge of the… fleet? One of the most enjoyable scenes of the movie was watching her get sucked into space where nobody could hear her pout.

Later, when said fleet of Star Destroyers has the last four ships of the Resistance on the run in the middle of deep space, Poe discovers the purple-haired admiral succeeding General Botox has not only sacrificed her escorts for no gain but is fueling up unarmed transports to stave off inevitable defeat for just a couple more hours. Frustrated at the female admiral’s uselessness, he mutinies to give his own plan, recruiting and deploying a superhacker, enough time to work.

Turns out that the admiral did have a plan: an invisible planet in the middle of deep space nowhere that had a fully stocked yet unmanned Rebel base. I guess they don’t award the Purple Hair for keeping your subordinates informed. “Don’t worry, Barbie has a spare, secret planet in her purse! That’s why we don’t need men running the show!” Backhanded compliment to men #3.

The movie is, of course, very heavily politicized. In the Expanded Universe, there was a Rebellion because the galactic government was usurped by a politician so evil that he literally shot Evil out of his fingers as lightning. That explained why the Rebellion was funded & supplied well enough to be a credible threat to the Grand Army of the Republic.

In Mickey Mouse’s Universe, however, white men seem to run everything well–if unimaginatively–and there’s a Resistance whose purpose is defined by a refusal to, uh, act white & male, I suppose. This explains why the Resistance’s funding amounts to one cruiser with escorts and a week’s worth of fuel. This seems insufficient to conquer the galaxy but General Leia assures the audience, repeatedly, that if only they “get the signal out there” all the peoples of the galaxy will unite against the benign threat of the First Order. Backhanded compliment to men #4: If we only tell people they don’t have to be ruled by white men then they’ll volunteer to live as unpaid fugitive thugs like us!

Let me stop the humor for a paragraph to cover an openly Satanic message here. The people the Resistance is trying to contact and encourage to revolt are… children. That is not cool. A piece of advice from this Christian to all Social Justice slimeballs: you want to fight me, that’s business. You want to whisper lies to my children behind my back so they fight me, that’s personal and you are fuckwitted parasitic cowards that cannot go to Eternal Hell fast enough. Leave our children alone. This means you, you media Elites that spew out so much feminazi trash that we Christians have to raise our kids off the grid.

Resuming our cheerful assault upon bad taste, the climax of the movie has the most poignant, soul-touching scene of Female Backseat Driver ever offered by cinema. Holed up inside the underground base, the transports’ survivors of the cruiser’s survivors of the fleet’s survivors of the Resistance base’s survivors (are we winning yet?) are protected by a massive blast shield. The First Order deploys a ‘battering ram blaster’ to open the can. The survivors deploy speeders to take it out.

The outnumbered & outgunned frontal assault fails at Internet speed. Finn correctly assesses that the last option for victory is a suicide run into the Doomsday Machine a la Commodore Decker. He lines up for it, gooses his speeder’s throttle and is knocked away at the last second by sidekick Fat Asian Chick’s speeder. They crash, the Doomsday Machine fires, the shield is breached, the base falls and the base’s survivors of the transports’ survivors are able to escape in the Millennium Falcon–at this point, it has enough space for everybody–only because Skywalker jacks into the Matrix at the last second to fight a delaying action.

Fat Asian Chick dies in her self-inflicted wreckage telling Finn “this is how we’ll win”. No, you stupid fat Asian Chick, thanks to you we are still not winning. Backhanded compliment to men #5: saving the one you care about by damning 1,000 is not how men do business.

My favorite scene in the movie was in the hacker subplot. (Sorry I’ve forgotten names; it’s been three days since I’ve seen the movie and most of the characters were not very memorable. What was the protagonist’s name again? Jane?) Hacker has a conversation with Finn:

“These guys get rich off selling weapons to the First Order…”

*Hacker displays various TIE fighter models. Finn looks angry. Then Hacker displays an X-Wing fighter.*

“…and selling weapons to the Resistance.”

Oops. An entire subplot describing Meanie One Percenter Arms Dealers, poof. How dare they sell us weapons! We should have to get them from… uh, from… from the Arms Dealers, but how dare they profit from helping us out! They should sell us bombers out of the goodness in their hearts! I tell ya, there’s a black knight embedded at the highest levels of DisneyCorp. We are not alone. Our signal will be heard!

Who wants to start the New Year with “I will spend 4 hours a day on the treadmill, eat more disgusting vegetables and tolerate my annoying neighbors?” You should be thinking of FUN things you want to do.

I give every year a theme. Last year was adventure parks and a cage fight with medieval knights. Before was demolition derbies, spelunking, Scuba, Yellowstone and Scottish competitions. This year, health problems have made my standard-frame bicycle uncomfortable to ride so I plan to upgrade to a recumbent and explore bike trails around Central California. Maybe try an overnight trip… haven’t done camping since I was a kid.

Also, I’ve been having recurring dreams of hang gliding, which I’ve never done in real life. Well, why not? So I’m budgeting to at least try out the hang gliding sport. It should not be boring.

Live likewise. Of all the things you could do and be, don’t resolve to be miserable!

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is generally considered the second most corrupt and incompetent judicial court in the United States, having a reversal rate of 80%. That’s second only to the Federal Circuit’s rate of 83% per the American Bar Association. (ref: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf)

A couple weeks ago, judge Alex Kozinski resigned from the Ninth Circuit amid the usual accusations of sexual misconduct by no fewer than 15 female coworkers. Ah, the pleasure of watching the social justice criminals fall to their own mobs wielding their own weapons.

Interestingly, Kozinski is the only active Ninth Circuit judge to be appointed by President Reagan. It’s possible that this point-and-shriek is part of an ideological purge. Doesn’t matter. He’s a stereotypical Cuckservative to judge from his apology–you NEVER apologize in response to a false accusation–and that marks him as, at best, dangerously and uselessly ignorant:

“I.ve always had a broad sense of humor and a candid way of speaking to both male and female law clerks alike,. the judge wrote, according to CNN. .In doing so, I may not have been mindful enough of the special challenges and pressures that women face in the workplace. It grieves me to learn that I caused any of my clerks to feel uncomfortable; this was never my intent..

I assure you, Mr. Kozinski, that airing a legitimate grievance was never their intent. Be assured that justice was done, however. You were unfit for your position anyway.

What kind of judge can’t recognize or fend off a false accusation?

For all its self-absorption, the modern Church is wholly incapable of actual introspection. This is because it has rejected its purpose for existence and must fill the void with a proxy purpose. The most obvious way this manifests itself is in the category of apologetics: Why should I follow Christ? A simple question… one that even professional apologists cannot begin to answer.

Which brings me to an article from Christianity Today: “Today.s Evangelists Face a Crisis of Confidence: Why .post-Christian America. hasn’t surpassed the need for straightforward apologetics” by Nathan Betts of the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/december-web-only/todays-evangelists-face-crisis-of-confidence.html

“Even within the church, even among evangelicals, we have begun to diminish the work of evangelism. We emphasize good things like relationships and charity outreach but question the work of traditional apologetics, of speaking the gospel in hopes of convincing another that it is true. (Think of the commonly quoted line: .Preach the gospel at all times. When necessary, use words..)

But when we diminish the work of evangelism and apologetics.as ineffective or as a secondary concern.we cheapen the gospel itself. If we believe the gospel is good news, true for all people, we cannot give up on making the case for our beliefs.

With the rise of secularism, sure, the church faces new challenges. But I’m convinced that what we need is not innovative methods or answers. We need fresh confidence in the gospel.”

He isn’t wrong about the need for fresh confidence. What he isn’t seeing, however, is that the reason the Church lacks that confidence is because the Church no longer believes in Christ and therefore cannot convince unbelievers of why they ought to. Thus, they revert to either preaching Christianity as a collection of facts to be communicated (with appropriate caveats like “male headship is outdated”) or offer the wellness benefits of membership in the church. (Scriptural citations needed for said wellness benefits.)

Nathan Betts demonstrates this total lack of belief in Christ as the article continues:

“After speaking to a group of students on their university campus, one told me she disagreed with most of what I presented that afternoon but had come with a Christian friend. She was baffled at why Christians make such a big deal about truth, specifically around moral issues. She recently experienced her own sort of freedom, without God or religion.

.Last year, I took control of my life,. she told me. .I cut my hair, which used to be really long. I got a tattoo, I got piercings, and I got my heart broken for the first time.” Then she brought up her struggle with anxiety. When she’s out, she’s worried that she’s annoying at parties, and when she is at home by herself, she has this gnawing feeling that her friends hate her.

Even here, she was keen to express how she has taken control of her dilemma. Still, no felt need for God. She told me, .When I wake up in the morning, I write in my journal, Anxiety is not telling the truth.. I listened along with her friend as this student told me her story, and afterward, I assured her that even if she believes her friends don’t value her, the Christian faith tells her that she is loved.”

For God’s sake, man. Why would she need God if the Almighty Chump is already sniveling at her unrepentant feet?

It’s good that he’s actually talking to unbelievers, bad that he couldn’t field “She was baffled at why Christians make such a big deal about truth, specifically around moral issues” and ugly that he’s a credentialed, professional evangelist who apparently couldn’t recognize female rebellion when its tatted, bald carcass announced the fact to his face. I see from the link to RZIM.org that he can at least give popular speeches so he won’t starve from unwillingness to confront evil.

But I don’t think he’ll make much progress in apologetics without confronting evil.

For the record, this is what good apologetics looks like:

Life on Earth did not evolve. We have a Creator. He designed us to behave in certain ways. We instinctively rebel against His ways even though they are beneficial for us. We cannot overcome this fatal flaw on our own efforts. Therefore, we need a Savior who can defeat our flaws… and the surest proof that He can do that is He faced the same flaws and overcame them. Death included.

We need a Savior because we’re evil, twisted and prone to such error as would disgust us if we saw it in anybody else. If we turn against the evil inside us and learn to hate it, then Christ will redeem us from our well-deserved punishment. Otherwise, we will stand or fall on our own merit, and please note that a generally well-lived life is insufficient merit to dismiss so much as a parking ticket. The price must be paid, the punishment must be served, and that is why Christ’s undeserved death is our redemption.

Liberals are horrified that police bodycams primarily benefit police, not liberals. As Yahoo News reports, “The benefits of police body cams are a myth” http://www.yahoo.com/tech/benefits-police-body-cams-myth-203046914.html

“In the three years since Michael Brown’s fatal shooting in Ferguson, police body-worn cameras have been sold to the public as a tool that would primarily deter police misconduct. One of the main selling points is the claim that the devices would have a “civilizing effect” on officers.

Officers would behave better, the argument goes, if they knew their actions were being recorded. Camera vendors have told departments that their devices would reduce excessive uses of force and complaints against officers.

But as it turns out, in one of America’s largest police departments, body-worn cameras did not produce any of these benefits.

A landmark study recently released by the D.C. Metropolitan Police found that officers who wore cameras behaved in essentially the same ways as officers who did not. The presence of cameras had no statistically significant impact on how often officers used force or on how many misconduct complaints the city received.

The results raise an important question: If these benefits have not emerged, could the other claimed benefits of body-worn cameras — increased transparency, accountability and trust — also be false promises?

So far, there’s little evidence to suggest that department-owned, officer-operated cameras will lead to any meaningful improvements. To the contrary, a tool that’s viewed by some as one that can protect black lives is actually one that mainly helps those in blue.”

Ahhh, the melodic shrieking of liberals who get what they demanded. Guess what, libturds, YOU CAN’T GET AWAY WITH LIES WHEN IT’S ALL ON CAMERA! Now that you’ve noticed, we can drop the mask and laugh at you demanding police adopt the most powerful anti-YOU tool that can possibly exist: a completely impartial witness with perfect memory.

Female territory-marking is well in progress at the Federalist. Let’s fisk its latest offering: thefederalist.com/2017/12/13/metoo-movement-destroying-trust-men-women/

Title: “The #MeToo Movement Is Destroying Trust Between Men And Women”

I’ve been following this and actually, it’s destroying trust between Chads and Whores. I approve. As we Christians say, the wicked man falls into the pit he digs for the innocent.

“How do people from different walks of life, diverse experiences, and varied points of view live together peacefully within a civil society? What is the main ingredient necessary for democracy to thrive? It can be boiled down to one word: trust. Civil society is built on relationships, friendships, and associations that foster confidence in one’s fellow man or woman.”

No. Civil society is built on institutions and uniform standards. It’s called infrastructure and it applies to the social world as well as the physical world. Even though Marriage is a dead institution today, it is still about trust:

Him: “I trust you won’t totally screw me over just because I hereby give you means, motive and opportunity to do it.”

Her: “I will. I mean, I do. Trust you, I mean.”

“After all, we don’t think the distrust being bred “out there” in politics and social media affects us in our daily lives. “

No man who works around women would say this. *checks* Article is not written by a man. I’d say the author is a woman but it’s sexist (and therefore illegal) to assume that kind of thing.

“While women’s willingness to hold men accountable for criminal sexual behavior is to be applauded, the scorched-earth approach we are seeing today is destructive because it undermines trust.”

The trust that you’ll get your own turn on Harvey Weinstein’s casting couch? The trust that enables Beta Chump to believe he won’t suffer the fate of the last guy to sign a marriage license? Is there a reason men should trust women while women are spitting out unprecedented numbers of accusations?

“Whether it’s in the workplace, church, or home, the interaction between a man and a woman is unique and primary to all other relationships.”

The purpose of the workplace is work. The purpose of church is organized religion. These purposes and attendant duties supersede sexual relationships.

Women bringing relationships, and relationship drama, into the workplace and church has poisoned those institutions. Men do not like working with women even if he finds her pleasant to <del>stare at</del> talk to and Almighty God finds women unfit for church duty.

Don’t whine. God said that, not me.

“The Opposite of Fear Is Faith

“We must have faith in one another if we want to be free and happy. Faith means we don’t always know everything about the other person. Faith means we might be fooled, hurt, or abused. Faith is beyond reason, though not unreasonable. It is the essence of trust, as our knowledge of others is limited. We have to live by faith in our fellow man, or we will be isolated from one another.”

The Opposite of Fear Is Certainty. Marriage worked for millennia when it was defined in very clear language with very clear and enforced obligations. It inexplicably stopped working the moment it was redefined as relationships and “trust me”. You don’t know for sure if your wife loves you but you do know for sure that when you inform her it’s playtime, she’s legally required to play. That’s good enough for most men.

What matters is that the marriage works. Not whether the marriage has a relationship built on trust or faith.

Denise C. McAllister is a journalist based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a senior contributor to The Federalist. Also a contributor to NPR, BBC and CNN among others, which aren’t places a conservative journalist would be welcome at. Let’s be honest, the only reason a female journalist was so much as allowed in the door of a purportedly conservative media site is because the Cuckservative leadership made the conscious decision to burn it all before telling a known feminist “No”. You can trust a Cuckservative to do that.

There’s just been a schism between Vox Day and Dalrock in the Manosphere. You can read about it on dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/12/14/no-respect/. To recap, Vox Day made a post calling MGTOWs worse than feminists because we don’t have kids at all and demanding frivorced men go on murder-suicide sprees. Dalrock disagreed with the explicit lack of respect for men and things proceeded from there.

I blame evolution for this Voxian, and generally alt-Right, attitude towards human life. As we know, evolution teaches that the only purpose of life is to reproduce. There is no other measure of an organism’s worthiness. No morality. He who has the Moar Babeez, wins.

The disproven theory of evolution has been advocated with so much success that many Christians no longer accept that God is the Creator of Life. They believe instead that He directed evolution. In addition to violating the concept of creation (and why would an omniscient God use trial and error?), the belief lets in the demonic lie that a man’s worth is measured in headcount instead of Imago Dei. If you’re childless then you’re a waste of flesh; if you’re a father that won’t protect your children from predators at all costs, including morality, then you’re a failure of a human being.

When you hear an alt-Righter talk about tribalism, this is what he’s talking about: the evolutionary concepts of survival of the fittest and defining morality only as “what is good for me and mine”.

By contrast, Christ recommends men not get married, and by extension not have children, particularly in times of crisis. He Himself did not have kids and none of the Apostles evangelized via breeding. Christianity is very friendly towards childless men.

In the alt-Right’s defense, they didn’t start this. The Elites of the Western World have been soft-genociding white people via weaponized immigration for decades by now. Playing the same game is naturally more appealing than patient endurance of the destruction of not only you but your people and culture.

But the alt-Right’s effort is doomed because evolution is a lie. Everybody who bases their morality and ideals upon evolution are therefore children of the Liar regardless of whether they’re on the side of Team White, Team Brown or Team Mud Hut. The parting of ways between longtime allies Dalrock and Vox Day is only the beginning of the split between Christ and Evo Psych.

White America is being destroyed primarily by White Americans. The solution is obviously not “more White Americans”.

There’s an incorrect image of patriarchy in the Manosphere that it consists of dominant, aggressive men who keep their harems in order while facing the outside world as a target to be conquered. In other words, Islam. This is, however, the endgame of matriarchy.

1. Islam practices polygamy. This improves female access to Alphas while marginalizing Betas to the point of slavery or cannon fodder.

2. Islam is violent. It divides the world into “us” and “them” and does not allow for noncombatants. Violence between men has always been a favorite sorter of women because losers are, by definition, killed off. Let’s you and him fight.

3. Islam mandates a welfare state. Alms-giving is one of its Five Pillars. We all know who benefits most from the social safety net.

4. Islam calls for a class-based society. From slaves and dhimmis to warlords and imams, women have an easy time identifying Alphas.

The ideal Patriarchal society, as defined by God, is one in which every man is the leader of his own woman and is a peer of his fellow man, whatever his station. Christ called upon kings to serve the people in the Last Supper while advising the people to be grateful and humble in the Sermon on the Mount. We pay our taxes to gov’t yet expect gov’t to perform its God-mandated duties. Slavery may be practiced but the slave has Christ’s freedom and his owner is Christ’s slave.

Women instinctively hate Christianity. Any Alpha that gets married is off the market and Alphas are not allowed to play the field beforehand. Paul rejects the concept of welfare with “If you do not work then you do not eat”. And with nobody being born with special status, women can’t easily identify her “King David”. She must devote herself to an unsexy, unproven husband for years before discovering his true worth.

Female hatred of Christianity is why the Church died when it began to care about pleasing women.

Islam appears strong today only because the globalists are feeding Islam its every victory. They’re successfully invading the West because the West’s leaders threw the doors open and pay their rent. They manage to impose Sharia because police are ordered to allow it. Their marriages appear to be strong because treacherous journalists cover up both the maltreatment of Muslim Betas and the atrocities of Muslim Alphas. Why do the globalists spread such a violent, unstable religion? Because Islam is the endgame of feminism, not the antidote to feminism. The true antidote is Christ and we can already see what the Powers That Be, and feral women, think of Him.

Why are suicide bombers a thing in Islam? Because that’s the only hope many young male Muslims have of getting laid.

Do not look to Islam for a success story. Islam is what transformed the Middle East from the cultured center of Christendom into grossly inbred tribes of rock-throwing thugs.

The latest offering from Crypto.Fashion:

Makes you want to wife her up right away, I bet!

This is a shocking move from no less than Vox Day, a pillar of the Manosphere and the very inventor of modern sociosexual taxonomy. How could such a man not only not understand how most men will react to this shirt, but not understand even after it’s spelled out for him? h/t Rollory.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/12/mailvox-throwing-girls-to-wolves.html

The answer, of course, is that Alphas are Alphas. When Sexy Daddy considers his of-age daughter’s romantic behavior, he remembers all the women he deflowered who practically jumped into his lap every time he sat down and thinks about how he’s going to prevent today’s horny Chads from doing to his daughter what he himself did at that age. Credible death threats are, apparently, well in order and even necessary. As Vox Day said to Rollory:

“I have no doubt that you don’t [understand how people can convince themselves this is positive in any way at all]. And that speaks volumes about you. Not your motivations, which I believe are pure. It speaks to your inability to understand either female or paternal psychology. Based on what you’ve said, and what you’ve said about your sisters, I conclude you had a weak or seldom-present father.” Comment #62 in linked article.

Unfortunately, what is (possibly) appropriate for warding off Chad is open malice towards the vast majority of young men. As matters continued in Comment #73:

“[Rollory:]If one is certain that one’s daughter can land the top 1% of spine-endowed men, fine, go for it. Most of the time it’s a bad bet. Better to work with a guy in the 40th percentile and help him discover his own spine – but that means not scaring him off by making exaggerated faces at him first.

Just asking for a “friend”, right?

Who gives a quantum of a damn about some weak, spineless guy? I certainly don’t and no self-respecting woman will either. Rollory, if this shirt is too much for you, actually dealing with a woman on a day-to-day basis for the rest of your life is going to be well beyond your psychological capabilities.”

Rollory is absolutely correct here. No sane man is going to marry a girl whose father was making death threats against him before even meeting him. A FIL like that is not going to step back after the marriage; he’s going to second-guess your every marital decision, monitor “his daughter”s happiness hourly and ramp the fitness tests up to eleven thousand, every chance and every day, because his daughter deserves the absolute best of male humanity… and you, sir, are not named Donald Trump, Junior.

This is the FODANS attitude I posted about earlier. Christian fathers must understand that their duty as fathers of daughters is to get them married as young as possible for the benefit of the son-in-law, not the daughter. Get over yourself, Daddy. Your Princess is only ‘special’ because she’s eighteen with a vagina just like every other eighteen-year-old female in society. If you want her to marry well (by definition, to a billionaire celebrity Alpha) then you are willfully, and immorally, denying sex to ordinary young men.

Maybe you shouldn’t give those unwanted young men homicidal ideas.

Meanwhile, go MGTOW, young man. Even Red-Pill Christian fathers of the Manosphere would rather vent your skull than give you a chance.

I once came across a “survivalist fiction” book in the local library. Early interest gave way to tedium when it read like a outdoors handbook written from a third-person perspective. Instead of saying, “You can build a deer trap by doing X, Y and Z,” this book said “Bob told Jerry he could trap a deer by doing X, Y and Z. Jerry went into the forest and did it, then came back later and found a deer in the trap.”

Informative? Yes, as much as the textbook it was obviously cribbed from. A work of fiction? Not at all. No conflict, no character development, and a villain as non-threateningly nebulous as “The evil US Army sent an Abrams tank to force the survivalists off their homestead. Bob made a Molotov Cocktail by doing X, Y and Z, waited for the tank to drive by, hit the tank in the correct spot and disabled it.”

Unfortunately, The Heretics of St. Possenti is the Manosphere equivalent of that miserable survivalist book. The first chapter opened promisingly with ordinary Bishop Cranberry having a life-threatening and -altering encounter with a mugger but then bogged down in Manosphere talking points. Most of the first half of the book consist of Thompson sitting in a pub being taught masculinity by the regulars in the form of so many, many talking points that the reader’s eyes glaze over.

The rule of entertainment is “Show, Don’t Tell.” Heretics completely violates this rule.

The point at which I stopped reading was when protagonist Cranberry reported his findings on masculinity to his very male-negligent authorities in the Catholic Church. Finally, I thought, those Cuck-priests are going to freak at the idea of encouraging manliness among the ‘little people’ of the Church, conflict will ignite and we’ll get this story on the rails. But instead, the clergy decided after off-screen debate to create a fully funded, militant monastic movement for society’s unwanted men who, primarily, are homeless military veterans with PTSD (a favorite talking point of the author’s).

This was the last straw for my suspension of disbelief. The reason masculinity is not welcome in the modern Church is because its leaders are incompetent, know they’re incompetent and therefore fear competition from laymen. There’s no way, in no reality, that such leaders would voluntarily fund an effort to foster potential male competitors, leas of all one that basically considers firearm practice a new sacrament.

Despondent, I skimmed the second half of the book, looking for any elements of a real story. There was one scene where a “gun nut but not a believer” was quietly asked to leave for his unbelief. He did, just as quietly. No conflict. Another scene was dedicated to the new Abbey setting up an ammunition reloading workshop. Did not advance the plot. Not that I’d found a serious plot yet.

The Heretics of St. Possenti is not a story. It’s a handbook written from a third-person perspective describing an idealized Catholic monastic movement that would be relevant for today’s unwanted men of the Christian West. I understand the author wrote Heretics primarily to give background information on his popular The Stars Came Back series, which I haven’t read, so the fact it isn’t a story might be forgivable to fans of that. As a standalone book, however, it is only a “How to Man Up and What An Ideal Future Looks Like” guide.

Disappointing. I was all set to read about how one priest’s concern for laymen and society led him to expose a few centuries’ worth of institutional rot while fighting off Vatican assassins and a corrupt world fearing the righteous wrath of innocent men with big guns a la Larry Correia.

A closing thought, what is it with the Manosphere’s association of masculinity with firearms? I realize the latter are essential for lethal-force situations but being a gun owner myself, there’s nothing magical about guns. A day at the range is not good exercise. Firearm maintenance is as character-building as toilet-scrubbing. Martial arts, even archery are better choices to hone the mind and body for exerting violence.