Why I Am Not A Christian

One of Brazil’s most popular porn stars caused an uproar with her fellow Evangelical Christians when she said God is totally cool with her job: fucking hundreds of men, and selling the films of this degeneracy to thirsty simps.

The New York Post reports that devoutly religious porn actress Kamilla Werneck caused the furor on the racy TV show Pornolondia, in which she explained why God won’t judge her for her trashy, immoral lifestyle.
Screen Shot 2017-04-28 at 07.45.40

Alex Jones: Male Feminist

Over on the Black Pill, Brother Leeduva writes that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is in the midst of an entertaining custody battle. A bit of casual digging reveals the details, and it’s even better than I expected.

As the Austin American-Statesman reports, Jones has somehow managed to gain custody of his children after past divorce hearings. Naturally, Jones’ wife doesn’t find this convenient or profitable. So, she’s filing motions and pleadings in the Texas divorce courts to kidnap the children away from him, and pad her pockets at the same time.

Her legal strategy seems to be an attempt to paint Jones as unhinged, which has forced him, through his legal team, to confess the obvious.

At a recent pretrial hearing, attorney Randall Wilhite told state District Judge Orlinda Naranjo that using his client Alex Jones’ on-air Infowars persona to evaluate Alex Jones as a father would be like judging Jack Nicholson in a custody dispute based on his performance as the Joker in “Batman.”

“He’s playing a character,” Wilhite said of Jones. “He is a performance artist.”

Alex Jones is, of course, an entertainer. He makes his living as a showman in the modern socio-political carnival, titillating the masses with horrorshow stories about wild conspiracies. Brother Boxer finds it difficult to listen to him, because Jones’ act is thoroughly histrionic, and his arguments full of looney appeals to emotion. Be that as it may, I trust he must have some appeal, as the fans I am acquainted with seem to love him.

alexjonesJones also has a significant audience. Roger Stone, a bigwig in the Trump campaign, cited Jones as “having more viewers than CNN or Fox News.” This is (for better and for worse) probably true.

With such pull, Jones could be a powerful force against the feminist excesses that exist in the divorce court system. Now that Jones is personally suffering from the excesses of the dictates of the family courts, one would expect that he would start talking about how men are routinely railroaded in such venues.

Why isn’t Jones filling the airwaves and his youtube channels full of antifeminist ranting? Why is he not investigating the family-destroying divorce courts?

It clearly isn’t because he has some ethical qualms about exposing the family law racket. This is a man who helped fabricate nonsensical stories about Satanic sex cults, rather than do a minimal bit of research on Hillary Clinton (an idiot who spouts so many bad ideas that taking her down would be a fish-barrell scenario). He’s no stranger to taking on all comers, and as The Man in The Orbital Castle reports, Jones admits that he plays fast and loose with the stories he tells.

The sad fact is that Alex Jones is a male feminist. He won’t buck the divorce racket, because he is beholden to the very system he pretends to rail against. Jones is proving himself, even now, to be the ultimate conformist. Even the threat of losing contact with his own children isn’t enough to compel him to lead some demonstrations against the divorce vultures.

Alex Jones has every opportunity to do something meaningful for America’s families and children — and yet he’s not doing it. I find this very interesting, and you should, too.


Melanie Phillips, a politically conservative, religious (Jewish) woman from the UK has begun crying tears about the fruits of feminism.

These so-called “antifeminist” religious women are a new phenomenon, erupting spontaneously after decades of feminist abuses. Their whiny antics are too little, too late. There are countless thousands of men (including Jewish men in the UK) who have already been raised by skank-ho single moms, and who have been run through the divorce-court meatgrinder.

We should never forget that wimminz, like this old Phillips broad, did not care a bit about the problems of feminism, before the natural consequences of their poisonous ideology became painful to women. Men have no positive duty to care about their plight now.

The Negative Dialectic (MGTOW)


As we have already seen, men are born with a complex series of conflicting drives. On one hand, a healthy man will naturally be drawn to women. Freud called this the life instinct. A healthy man will also have the impulse to compete, excel and assert himself on his environment. We’re calling this the renunciation instinct. Social forces in contemporary North America conspire to crush a man, once he enters into the socially constituted institution of marriage, which means that modern man is faced with a dilemma. This conflict is, by adolescence, largely constellated in the unconscious, due to the fact that any young man who even thinks about the reality of his situation is labeled a dangerous misogynist.

In short, if a man marries, he finds his freedom curtailed. If he seeks out his freedom, he must abandon his drive to marry and raise a family. There seems to be no middle ground without leaving North America. Moreover, while many men seek out foreign women in more traditional cultures (Communist Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America) local forces of global capital have steadily meddled to inject feminism into these once-sane societies.


Thus there seems to be no place that is secure for men to fulfill all their masculine desires.

Why is this, Boxer? Why have women become so evil and psychopathic? The answer is probably as simple as money. Global capital and corporate power has found that by reducing men to a neurotic and somewhat helpless state, they can paralyze his rational functions, make him more docile, and increase consumption.

That expensive Polo t-shirt you bought last weekend was purchased, at least partly, because it would make you look good to the ladies. Likewise your overpriced car. Women, too, buy things for women’s approval. The possession of expensive consumer goods suggest to a woman’s peers that she has a man who is willing to invest heavily in her. The female herd is hierarchal and centers around grotesque displays of wealth.


The MGTOW man finds one avenue of resistance in the theoretical framework that is colloquially called ‘ghosting.’ Despite the inherent ambiguities, this is a good term. Because he desires the benefits of modern society, without incurring the penalties, The MGTOW seeks to become a ghost.

“The revolutionary,” declared Chinese revolutionary Mao Zedong, “swims in the seas of the people.” This seems to be a solution to the dilemma of the competing masculine drives of renunciation and family. By ghosting, the MGTOW man aspires to enjoy the benefits of contemporary society (medical and dental care, technology, etc.) without entering into any of the suicidal institutions which necessarily curtail his freedom.

If the telos of MGTOW is the ghosting life, then the telos of ghosting is the resolution of the psychological conflicts aroused by social and cultural demands. One would think that this resolution would bring peace, but it rarely seems to. There are several reasons for this, and we should enumerate a couple of the most obvious.

  • In the beginning, the young man who realizes the totality of the fraud that is perpetrated against men like him is often very angry. He gives himself over to conspiracy theorizing, often imagining that women are inherently evil. This is often a temporary phase, as no one can be upset for very long. This initial anger is rarely resolved without sublimation into the second obstacle…
  • After he settles down, the young man convinces himself that he can overturn the present social order and liberate other men if only he can reach them ideologically. He subsequently imagines MGTOW to be a potential mass movement which will eventually achieve political power.

In the first place, the young man must realize that women are not inherently evil. They’re just women. The differences between men and women (whether biological or social in origin) are real. Women and men are endowed with different strengths, and have different aims. A woman’s aim is to have children of her own, and this is probably just as strong an impulse as the masculine desire for autonomy.

In the second place, the young man must accept the fact that the present social order is not the result of some bizarre conspiracy. Feminism is not a new ideological creation of the Freemasons, (((Jews))), illuminati, etc. As Black Pill has pointed out many times, This is a particularly damaging misconception in itself, as it shifts the ultimate blame of female bad behavior onto men (Jewish men, Freemasons who are by definition not female, etc.)

In the third place, the young man should recognize that the desire to re-order society is a function of his own feelings of inadequacy. Carl Jung used to point out that neurotics often projected their own helplessness onto the world, and the desire to “fix” or “cure” others is often an ego-defensive excuse for one’s lack of concern about himself. This is why one sees certain people (both women and men) in an endless series of bad relationships.

Of course, the MGTOW man might take some socially beneficial role, but he won’t do it at his own expense. The first order of business in ghosting is to take care of oneself. Solving other people’s problems is a convenient excuse for not confronting one’s own issues.

Note: This is the second in a series of three articles about the social movement: MGTOW. It might help to read the first (here) before asking questions.


Angst (MGTOW)


Years ago, MGTOW was being promoted as a quasi-political movement, promising to “instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and limited government” (source here). We shall open by briefly dispelling the inherently contradictory nature of these grandiose manifestoes.

Isn’t the point of going your own way to make your own decisions? How do such men all get together and agree on political libertarianism? The idea of “go your own way” types self-organizing to garner the mass appeal that would result in political power is transparently ridiculous.

The manifesto was purportedly written by an eccentric netkook from the ‘couve, pseudonymed Rob Fedders – which explains the logical feebleness of all this.

In any case, it might be useful to examine MGTOW, some ten years after it was first declared to exist, to examine what it actually is, and to figure out what might have kept it from catching on.


When the popular media or our feminist critics describe MGTOW, it is always in terms of what might be called “the marriage strike.” The dramatic transgenerational change (source) in statistics reflects the cheapening of the institution of marriage and is a source of amusingly hysterical articles, written by women, who pretend not to understand the writing on the wall they’re hitting.

Screen Shot 2017-04-11 at 08.44.40.png(source)

When we talk about Men Going Their Own Way, we necessarily include all those men who self-identify as MGTOW. Many of these men have never been interested in marrying a woman. Some of these guys are playboys who get their sexual needs met without marriage, some are asexual, some are gay. None of these men here described made some sort of conscious decision not to marry a woman because marriage is a bad bargain. They simply had other inclinations.

This is not a new phenomenon. Lifelong bachelors include some of the greatest men in history, from Isaac Newton to Ludwig Wittgenstein.

It is a collective evolutionary strategy to convince every man that marriage and family is the norm, and this is accomplished by social and fiscal sanction on bachelors. In newspapers as recently pressed as the early 1960s, one can find advertisements in the “help wanted” section declaring that management and professional jobs were available for married men only. Lines of credit, mortgages and business loans were generally declined to bachelors. Membership in civic organizations like the Free Masons, Elks, Kiwanis, etc. were also unavailable to unmarried men.

While women had little to do with any of these incentives to marry, they collectively became used to their benefits specific to women. When women embraced feminism, en masse, beginning in the late 1950s, they surely assumed those benefits would remain intact, despite the radical social restructuring proposed by their leaders. (Whether the leaders of the feminist movement knew about the eventual and potential consequences of their proposed policies is another post entirely). As TFW liked to remind us, women are unaccustomed to pondering cause-and-effect scenarios.

Now that we have all enjoyed a couple of generations of social “progress,” and the fruits of feminism are coming into view, women are naturally concerned. Popular media and MGTOW blogs both (almost unanimously) declare the collapse of marriage to be the result of a conspiracy by men to deny women the benefits of marriage. What motivates this? Women find this conspiracy theorizing to be preferable to the truth: that the lack of “good men” who are ready to “commit” is an organic result of the lack of marriagable women. Few men want to be financially and legally responsible for a banged out ho’. That is the painful truth that far too many women can’t handle.

This presents a dilemma to men who self-identify as MGTOW. Either they can indulge in a bit of satisfactory schadenfreude, and claim to have been part of this illusory marriage strike, or they can admit that there is no such thing as the marriage strike, and be faced with explaining to some unstable woman that she’s not marriage material based on her lack of merit. As many have noted, criticizing women doesn’t feel very good. The average dude feels like he’s kicking a puppy when he approaches the topic. In context, it’s easier for most men to play along.


So, if MGTOW isn’t equivalent to “the marriage strike,” then what is MGTOW?

We say that MGTOW is the set of all men who aspire to the Socratic ideal of the examined life. These men consciously and actively participate in life. They deliberate at length, before acting decisively to ensure their own happiness.

To live an examined life is the necessary and sufficient condition for MGTOW. Moreover, there are no other conditions for being an MGTOW.

One does not need to be a political libertarian to be an MGTOW. One can identify with MGTOW and be a conservative, liberal, socialist/communist, anarchist, libertarian, or political agnostic. In fact, a plurality of political views is expected, given that every man’s ‘way’ is essentially his own, and doesn’t need to conform to any other man’s.

One does not need to shun women to be an MGTOW. One doesn’t even need to shun marriage. Admittedly, the married MGTOW I’ve known of have usually been men who emigrated to some foreign country with more amenable marriage laws, and married a traditional local.

Occasionally a married man will find MGTOW late in life, after he’s already married. It’s unreasonable to expect such a man to divorce his wife, simply because he found he was a member and identified with the general aims. The idea of protesting frivolous divorce, by getting a divorce, is a contradiction in itself.

Part of the function of living as an active participant in life is the sober consideration of social constructs — like marriage — on their merits, rather than blindly accepting institutional obligations because some ruler or “guru” says that such things are necessary, good for you, or are otherwise in your own best interests. Different men have different goals


While different men have different goals, the overall telos of MGTOW is popularly known as “ghosting.” I would argue that this is an inborn, low-level aspiration of every healthy man, though in the MGTOW phenotype, it seems specifically pronounced. Where the average man is often overwhelmed with other inborn tendencies (specifically, the drive to mate, marry and raise a family) and with cultural conditioning driven by peers and mass culture, men of the MGTOW type seek freedom above conformity.

This renunciation instinct (my term, but I think it fits) often arises in adolescents. You probably knew a teenage boy who dreamed of building a cabin in the woods, or fantasized about catching a rocket-ship to a distant planet where he could start over, and carve out a completely autonomous space for himself as a colonist. This psychological state, punctuated by absolute narcissism, in which the individual’s ego subsumes the world, eventually collapses. The deflation occurs when the MGTOW realizes that he will never be able to provide himself the life he wants on his own merits, or with his own strength. Ever tried to design and build a refrigerator in a remote cabin in the woods? How about synthesizing antibiotics?

The recognition of one’s reliance on others necessarily constitutes the world in opposition to oneself. This is the source of the (real or perceived) angst which accompanies the general MGTOW discourse, particularly among people who just found the philosophy on a web page. Men are faced constantly with choices, driven by conflicting and ambiguous impulse. The world — that is, the social order — is experienced as a limiting and negative experience for the young man, and illustrates daily the impossibility of satisfaction, the limitation of freedom, and the disruption of pleasure. It is seen, rightly or wrongly, as a threat, as something to rebel against. Ones needs must be fulfilled from the other, which is untamable and uncontrollable by the individual ego.

Note: This is the first in a three-part series about the social movement MGTOW. When the second part presses, a link will be here.