On The Hypocrisy of the Christians and Jews

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:

Screen Shot 2018-01-25 at 13.34.45

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.

Screen Shot 2018-01-25 at 13.38.42

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.

Screen Shot 2018-01-25 at 13.42.52

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:

Screen Shot 2018-01-25 at 13.54.52

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.

Holiday Redux

I found this comment over at Spawny’s Space.

Screen Shot 2017-12-31 at 21.38.39

Emily McCombs is a bigwig over at HuffPost, so it should come as no surprise (not to anyone in postal code V5K 2C2, anyway) that she’s a flaming nutter.

Screen Shot 2017-12-31 at 21.53.12

With the exception of Fathers For Justice, there isn’t really any meaningful organized resistance to feminists. If you’re in the UK, and you aren’t supporting these men (at least in an anonymous financial / moral sense) then you aren’t doing your job. They’re out nearly every day, mocking your oppressors. Show them some love.

Their analysis is sound here, as expected. Kooky Emily’s outburst violates the Twitter rules de facto. The second set of books will keep her spewing hate. One will note the shadow-suspension of @herbiemarcuse on twitter – when ya boy Boxer never said anything as remotely actionable as this headcase.

Speaking of headcases, there are few things that make me as thankful to have been born a Mormon, rather than a Christian, than photos like these…


The epidemic of bull-dykes, larping as Mormon bishops and stake presidents, is something that I can see appearing on the horizon, but only after the Catholics are fully assimilated. Who is this bespectacled bitch, anyway, with her gay Star-Wars toy, preaching the gospel of Luke and Leia from the pulpit?

Post Your Lifts!

A bit of motivation from Brother Scott over at American Dad. Unlike the rest of us, he’s not using the holidays to become even more of a fatass. A couple of weeks ago, he decided to get into better shape. I think I had that thought around the same time. Unlike ya boy Boxer, he’s actually doing it.

Motivation (posted 09 Nov.) (here)

When Life Gets In The Way (posted 30 Nov.) (here)

Now, this will cue up the usual suspects (Cane Caldo, SirHamster) to call me a faggot, but Scott’s open about his real life, and he’s posted pics that are interesting. Check out the improvement in his biceps, in the span of about three weeks.

Most of Scott’s blog is now password protected. I think this is wise. Wiser still would be for him to start a separate blog, authored under some sort of pseudonym like “Luigi Montecassino” or some shit, and post his antifeminist stuff there. These posts are not (yet) password protected, so, check them out while you can.

The bottom line is that here is an older bro who (again, unlike me) is self-motivated, with no personal trainer, and who is improving himself with diet and exercise. This is a masculine pursuit which ought to be inspirational.

An Answer to Scott…

…and a message for all the young brothers.

I have sort of a love-hate relationship with American Dad of late. (link) Not that trash tee-vee cartoon, but the blog. The author is a guy who does great work tweaking the tails of feminists and their enablers, though he’s also a guy who is incredibly short-sighted, with a history of telling my brothers to drop the crepe shield of internet pseudonymity, and use their real names. I covered that a couple of days ago, and Scott was gracious enough to respond with good points on his blog.

First Scott wrote:

Yesterday, Boxer posted this commentary on his blog. I am not a part of the meme squad. I am not a subversive.

Then, shortly after a laundry-list of caricatures,  he wrote:

The reason I stopped featuring dads just being dads? Nobody got it. It is a testament to how far fatherhood has fallen in the eyes of the broader culture (and even fathers themselves!) that when asked most men see such a pro-father idea as “anti-woman.” They did not want their fathering to be honored because “my wife is the real hero”and other blue-pill white knighting garbage. Fucking vomit. Honoring fatherhood for its own sake is “anti-woman.” This means masculinity is on the ropes.

GramsciScott first decries my description of him as a subversive, and then goes on to say that he wrote a series of articles that were so subversive that they effectively shattered the apparatus through which even the subjects of his articles were interpreting the world. That is the definition of “critique of ideology” in practice

Honoring fathers, simply for doing what fathers do, is far more subversive than anything that ya boy Boxer does, on or off the internet. Fatherhood has been effectively criminalized by the North American “family court” system for three full generations, and the notion of fatherhood is daily vilified, by both the culture industry, and its supposed critics on the tradcon right.

Scott continues (emphasis his):

I am a little suspicious and annoyed by all the anonymity. 

Obviously I disagree with him on this, and would warn any younger brothers against sharing their real name or other identifying information on any blog, which is in any way associated with antifeminist activity. Even innocuous comments are being used against people by PR hacks and HR drones, and an accusation of being an “abuser” or a “sexist” is enough to end your career.

Scott is somewhat insulated from the fallout of all this, as he is (I believe) retired, and can say what he wants. Most of the rest of us have no such liberty.

To his detriment, he has also been marked by our enemies. The feminist is a vengeful and petty nutcase, the likes of which a normal man finds hard to fathom. Now they have his name. They probably can’t succeed in driving him into the poorhouse, but that doesn’t matter. The minute he becomes too noticeable, I’m sure they’ll start harassing him, his wife, his kids, and his friends. It’s not that I wish him ill, mind you. That’s just what these idiots do.

Scott then went on to write:

Its not that I don’t care about being called a coward–of course I do. I am a man, and “coward” hits any man right where it counts. But in this case, it didn’t bother me at all. Why? Because how can the word “coward” have any meaning in a totally virtual world where no one ever sees each other face to face?

For the record, I’ve never met Scott, and have never made any statement about his courage or moral fitness. My understanding is that he’s a military officer, so an accusation of cowardice is a bit silly (without a documented conviction for running away from his post, or whatever). Even so, I’ll apologize and retract if anything I wrote was taken that way. And, I’ll agree and amplify his main contention, that nothing on the internet should be taken too seriously.

At this stage of our historical development, we should be working alone and in small groups, rather than trying to take political power for ourselves. In time, the tides of history will shift, the weltgeist will take a new shape, and we can come together and reclaim what’s ours. Until then, my boys, you are partisans. Your job is not to show yourselves in the open. Your job is not to do big stuff. Your job is to do small things, which will prepare the way for those who will come later.

In the words of somebody who knew:

18. All warfare is based on deception.

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.

Read The Art of War by Sun Tzu (here)

List of Slut Tells

A truly excellent list of theoretical red flags. Show the author some love at Sigma Frame (soon to be in my sidebar).

Σ Frame

I’m glad to see that sluts are finally coming out of the closet. That is, society is no longer shaming them to the point where they are trying to hide or deny their membership to slutclub international. I’m glad about this, because it becomes all that much easier for men to discern what type of woman they’re dealing with up front, which is very important in deciding which type of relationship to pursue with her, if any at all.

Nevertheless, because of the importance of determining the course of a relationship as early as possible (an unfortunate requirement for one to compete in the modern marketplace), and because all women invariably lie about their N count, it is worth revisiting the observable indicators that a particular woman is a slut.

Women generally have a very complex list of impressionistic slut tells, and although not all of these concepts directly…

View original post 1,134 more words