Tuesday, May 22, 2018


     Vox Day has been taking a few short intervals from releasing his jealous rage against Jordan Peterson and Jonah Goldberg to shore up his failing foray into comics. So with great fanfare this week, the publishing-front Arkhaven released its first issue The Crackdown.

      Right off the bat, you notice something familiar about RINO-Girl's arm:

     Lest we suppose this was unintentional, the promotional on Amazon reads in part: "How is a group of superhumans based in Europe going to establish global justice?"

     Maybe with pseudoscience:

     At any rate, Vox got to appear on The Alex Jones Show ---a media outlet which promotes the Sandy Hook Massacre as a hoax--- and got their endorsement for the new series. And Vox tells his disciples: "Alex is right: the Left is panicking over Arkhaven's flagship series." Actually, nobody is panicking over it. Mostly, outside of Vox' cult, it's mostly being ignored. The website Comic Book Round-Up, which tracks all of the bestselling new releases, doesn't even mention it.

     Looking at the work itself, it suffers from a number of problems. There is very little dialogue and the comic itself seems much shorter than most produced by other publishers. The artwork ranges from mediocre to terrible:

     And it's actually not all that clear what the title has to do with the plot. This is another one that you'll get to pick up in the 'clearance section' of your local retailer's in about a week.

     While there's plenty of need for better comics, this stuff out of the Game/Red Pill Cult isn't going to provide it. In fact, if the Whacko Left was going to produce a comic that was a parody of the Right, it would look just like this Arkhaven material. Even down to giving the hero a Vox Day haircut. 



Sunday, May 20, 2018


   It's been awhile since we lasted checked in on the misadventures of Andrew Anglin, a Red Pill cultist who edited the now-defunct The Daily Stormer. Attorneys on behalf of the Gersch Family and Jewish residents of Whitefish, Montana sued Anglin after a Christmas-time orgy of internet terror was unleashed against them at Anglin's instigation. Like most of these self-appointed manly Alpha leaders do when threatened with the consequences of their behavior,  Anglin ran away and went into hiding.

     After a year of running, the Plaintiffs' attorneys filed a motion demanding that Anglin present himself for trial or accept a Summary Judgment. Anglin's attorney finally appeared and argued a few technical points that were thrown out. However, the judge did not dismiss one objection---the most important one involved in this case---that suing Anglin was an unconstitutional violation of his 1st Amendment rights. 

     Anglin's attorney Marc Randazza summed it up this way: "It is distasteful, but the 1st Amendment tolerates distasteful content. He has a right to express himself politically, to express himself socially, and to call people to action. If we are to reject free speech because it comes from an unorthodox group, we do violence to the very underpinnings of our liberty. Nazis are unorthodox in America; yet the rule of law must govern."

     But earlier this week, Montana Attorney-General Tim Fox filed a Motion of Intervention in the case, arguing that Montana's Anti-Intimidation Law is not prohibited by the 1st Amendment. Judge Jeremiah Lynch agreed, and Anglin's Objection was dismissed. Formal trial is now set for some time around the New Year; although Anglin retains a right to appeal. 

      The Free Speech aspect of this case has generated considerable controversy. However, Randazza's argument has a major flaw in it. His argument would make sense if a governmental agency prohibited Anglin from speaking. But that isn't what this case is about. In this case, Anglin's words inflicted intentional harm on a specific family; and that family is seeking monetary damages for what Anglin organized and encouraged. 

       If a husband is accompanying his wife on a public sidewalk and some human sewer-rat accosts her with insulting language and lewd comments, the husband is well within his rights to close his opponent's mouth with his fist. The cad has a 'right to free speech' but he also has to accept the consequences of such speech. It's an old maxim in America that 'with rights come responsibilities.' This is why we have laws against libel, defamation, slander, etc. 

      In our egocentric and narcissistic era, many Americans do not realize that Rights are not unilateral. One person's exercise of his rights doesn't negate the rights of others. This is one of the most important---but most often overlooked---differences between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals fully believe, for example, that we all must forfeit our right to privacy in public restrooms because some tiny fringe demands the right to use whichever gender's facilities it pleases. Alt-RINOs like Anglin believe that no one has the right to personal privacy and security at the expense of his right to attack them at will. 

      It will be interesting to follow and see how this case develops. Anglin is also facing two other unrelated federal lawsuits. 



Friday, May 18, 2018


     Once again, America is going into a weekend followed by a massacre committed by an alienated, radicalized male. Actually, there were three such incidents this week; but the intervention of police officers thwarted two of them. In Santa Fe, Texas today, sadly, a local scumbag managed to kill 10 people and seriously wound dozens of others before being captured. 

     As also per usual, we know very little about the victims, but the shooter is the subject of non-stop media attention. The hypocrites in the media always ask 'why?' after these incidents and then act as though their sensationalism of such crimes has absolutely nothing to do with it. 

     Herein lies part of the reason and part of the solution to this ongoing problem. Men are by nature afraid of insignificance and we live in a culture that demeans men. Most men can compensate for this in some way---usually by becoming proficient and socially useful at something and ignoring the anti-male booing chorus in the media. 

     A good example of this is police officer Mark Dallas of Dixon, Illinois. Yesterday, when a punk who'd been expelled from Dixon High School (incidentally, the alma mater of former President Reagan); Officer Dallas intervened and stopped another potential shooting rampage at the risk of his own life. In articles about him, some of the Media Jackals put the word heroic in scare-quotes. Of course this is the same media that encourages riots every time a police-involved shooting happens, and which supports anti-police gangs like Antifa and 'Black Lives Matter.'  

     Some men, however, internalize this constant negativity, and decide to go down fighting and take as many as what they see as 'oppressors' with them. This is a man's heroic instinct perverted. Such an attitude makes sense to a soldier at the Alamo, but makes no sense at all in gunning down a group of teenage girls in an art class. The difference here being that the soldiers' motives are altruistic and patriotic; as Christ taught us, "There is no greater love than one who lays down his life for his friends." The shooters' motives are always selfish: to make a name for themselves and feel significant. 

     There is where the Media's culpability in these tragedies lie. Every horrific mass-murder brings in high ratings and high ratings translate to advertising dollars. It's like Realty-TV; a diversion for degenerates who also have little or no meaning in their lives. And out on the fringes are a few alienated, isolated, and angry men who watch and think of how they can be the next Dimitrios Pagourtzis and be part of the grand LARPing adventure too; or be a hero to the INCELs; or strike a blow against Trump; or whatever. 

      After the Beslan School Massacre in 2004, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law certain press restrictions prohibiting the Russian Media from publishing the killers' photos, names, manifestoes, or motives---thus depriving these types of killers of the notoriety they seek. He also, by Executive Order, instituted a take-no-prisoners policy to deprive them of the kinds of courtroom dramas we see in the West. And it's worked: mass-killings in Russia have almost ceased since Putin's policies were enacted. If Santa Fe had happened in Russia, for example, we'd have heard in the news that a gunman attacked and killed 10 people at the Santa Fe High School, and that the killer was captured, tried by court-martial, and shot by a firing squad. Not much incentive in that for other unbalanced individuals to want to follow such examples. 

       Even though the Corporate Media screams for repealing the 2nd Amendment after each of these incidents; they would fly into a rage at any suggestion of curtailing the 1st Amendment. It's probably a moot point, since it is highly doubtful that anything like Putin's policy could be enacted here. Which means that the Media needs to restrain itself. 

      The Media, however, isn't likely to do that; so they need to be restrained by public opinion. 

      Recently, it was reported how the parties affected by the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 formed a group to combat the Conspiracy Theories and subsequent online harassment they've endured. Among other things, they've boycotted sponsors and initiated lawsuits against such fake news. Wouldn't it be a good thing if some similar group of survivors stood up to the Corporate Media in this way? It's just a suggestion, but one that activists may want to consider.     

Monday, May 14, 2018


      Today was 'Mother's Day' a holiday first proclaimed by President Wilson in 1914 although it had been informally observed for some time. President Trump issued a public panegyric on his own mother's virtues; but the media hyenas immediately launched a smear campaign because he didn't mention Melania. Maybe that's because Melania is his wife and not his mother; but considering how many in the MSM suffer from Gender Identity Disorder, it's understandable that a normal relationship of any kind should confuse them. 

      It's also noteworthy that the Alt-RINOs in the Manosphere had little or no mention of Mother's Day. This is because they have a universal contempt for women in general and generally believe that mothers' only social utility are as incubators. Dalrock---one of the ringleaders of the Red Pill Cult---took Conservative columnist Kevin Williamson to task for daring to suggest that husbands ever abandon their families. He says:

     "The fiction that what we are witnessing is men abandoning their families---and not women ejecting fathers from the home---is the very foundation of Conservative support for the destruction of traditional marriage. Lost in all of this are the millions of innocent children who grow up without their fathers because Mom wanted freedom to bang other men; and cowardly men like Kevin Williamson couldn't bear to speak of, or even think about the truth of the matter."

       As usual, Dalrock misunderstood Williamson's point: blinded as he typically is by Red Pill fanaticism. Conservatives believe that fathers/husbands have some responsibility for protecting women and supporting children. Williamson is obviously not talking about Feminist women who don't think they need a man; he's talking about men who bring life into the world with a girl and yet want to shirk the responsibility. 

      And then there's Dalrock's bizarre assertion that it's Conservatives who are undermining traditional marriage. It's still amazing to us that nobody seems to see that the Red Pills are the natural confederates of the political Left; and therefore are the foes of freedom and civilization. Indeed, his commenters spent most of Mother's Day unleashing their bile on the Family, Church, and the Country. Some 'representatives of the Right'....

       The other striking thing about these hypocrites is that they all endorse Game/PUA tactics when dealing with women; and yet they throw up their hands in pious horror at Williamson's criticism of the so-called Sexual Revolution. Their whole philosophy is built around male sexual libertinism---which they try and pretend was socially normative in the past. It's a parallel with Feminist 'herstory' revisionism. 

       This Mother's Day coincided with the anniversary of the first apparition at Fatima. It should remind us---whether Catholic or not---that Mary has long been the spiritual archetype of Motherhood. The Gamers in Dalrock's comment section actually tried arguing that the Church promotes Feminism: showing that they are anti-Christian as well as anti-Conservative. They rarely ever talk about Mary at all; because if they tried applying their pseudo-philosophies to Mary, the blasphemy and heresy intrinsic in their doctrines would be completely transparent. Try applying their 'ironclad rules' that all women are hypergamous, incapable of love, and need to be 'gamed' into submission to the Incarnation story and the appalling impiousness of their cult is self-evident. 

      The Whacko Left believes that fathers are irrelevant and the Whacko Right believes that mothers are irrelevant. The Conservatives believe that both are necessary for the family; and that the family is the bedrock of Civilization. And that's why both political extremes want to tear the family apart. 




Saturday, May 12, 2018


    The Republican Party of California held it's annual convention last weekend. One of the top races is choosing a candidate to challenge incumbent Democrat Diane Feinstein for US Senate this year. But the Republican candidate leading the polls was not in attendance. Why? Because the Party leadership barred him from participating. 

     Patrick Little is not a Conservative. He is a Right-Wing extremist running as a Republican as cover for his far-out views. 

     Little is 33 years old, another Red Pill radicalized during military service for Obama's Pentagon. He works as an IT engineer: a profession filled with the Far-Right (Andrew Anglin used to boast that 1/3 of his donations were from Silicon Valley). Little's campaign slogan is "Liberate the US from the Jewish Oligarchy." Little favors a quota system against hiring Jews and is a Holocaust denier. 

     The polls show Little's support at 18% which is troubling enough, but especially so since it puts him ahead with a plurality in a crowded field of candidates. Then, the California GOP took a step---rare for politicians---of acting on principle and disavowing support for Little.

      "Mr. Little has never been an active member of our party." GOP spokesman Matt Fleming told The Los Angeles Times, "But in the strongest terms possible, we condemn anti-Semitism and any other form of religious bigotry."

      Little responded by calling the State GOP a bunch of 'Zionist stooges'. Red Pill and Alt-RINO blogs predictably exploded with outrage. And just as predictably, the Media outside of Southern California swept the story under the rug.

      But this action was significant. Conservatism is a policy of principle, and the California Republicans acted on principle. The William F. Buckley approach is the correct one: if we can't win without candidates as bad as the Left, then we don't deserve to win at all. A Feinstein victory can't hurt our cause as badly as a Little victory can. 

       However, there is no reason to concede to Feinstein. California has a number of exceptional candidates for Senate. It's a matter of unifying behind one of these and defeating Little in the primary. Then it's on to defeating Feinstein who currently has only a 39% poll rating. That's about Hillary Clinton's numbers in the 2016 presidential race. 

      Let's put California back in play for our side. If you're active in GOP politics, get behind a candidate who can knock out Little first and Feinstein second. It's doable and the California GOP deserves our support.

Thursday, May 10, 2018


    There's been a lot of arm-flapping from the Whacko Left and the RINOs over President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal, or the JCPOA as it's official called. Former President Obama has been leading the dissenting voices and predicting dire consequences. 

      What will really be the consequences of withdrawing from JCPOA? Probably not much. It was really no surprise, since Trump's 2016 Campaign Platform had doing this as one of his objectives. The main thing that Iran gained from America under JCPOA was unfreezing of their assets in the US. The Ayatollahs have already collected the money. As for the sanctions---they won't have much effect on either the US or Iranian economy. We never had nearly the level of trade with Iran that they have with Europe. 

       In fact, aside from a rather picturesque US-flag burning in the Iranian Congress, Iran has expressed less outrage over this than the American Left has. Certainly there have been the perfunctory remarks about the Great Satan, but Iranian officials in Europe have been saying that they're glad that the US is gone---calling us an obstruction. 

       The Iranians actually have a good point. While the other members of JCPOA have implemented all their conditions, US-Iranian relations haven't changed much. The US has argued---without proof---that Iran is secretly building atomic weapons. Iran has argued---with a lot of proof---that the majority of concessions that former Secretary of State John Kerry agreed to have never been fulfilled. 

       Obama forgets to tell us that. He also forgets that he was against JCPOA until it was a fait accompli. Then he jumped on the bandwagon and pretended---for the sake of his 'legacy' that he had achieved some monumental foreign policy coup. JCPOA was really accomplished through the diplomatic efforts of China. China and Russia were already trading with Iran---the diplomatic coup was bringing Britain and the EU on board. Once that happened, Obama horned in to take credit. 

       Smarting over this blow to his legacy and cognizant of being exposed for the poseur he was during the whole JCPOA debate, Obama has been fuming that Trump has "isolated America" and "sabotaged American credibility ." As if Trump hasn't done us a favor by getting out of a treaty we had no business with in the first place; or as if Obama didn't double-cross every country he engaged with. 

       As for weakening America's negotiating position, North Korea thought so little of it that they repatriated some American criminals held in their prisons as a goodwill gesture today.  

        Trump did say during the campaign that---while he would scrap JCPOA---he was open to negotiating a new treaty. The fact that he's going through with a planned summit with the North Koreans may bode for a future bilateral peace with Iran. 

        That would be the best outcome by far. Much more meaningful an accomplishment than any of Obama's follies. 


   In the early days of the Manosphere---when that genre was still about fighting for men's rights; against feminism; and ending the 'gender wars'---a commenter began appearing on several sites under the name 'A. Guy Maligned.' As time went on, Guy became disgusted with the increasing misogyny and Game/PUA schmaltz taking over the movement. Then, he hit upon a stroke of real genius.

     Guy started his own blog titled What Women Never Hear. It filled a badly-needed gap on the Internet. Guy understood that many women today lacked the kind of male mentoring that previous generations of girls got from their fathers. He also understood that women wanted this kind of input from men. This was a need that only an elderly, happily-married paternal type like Guy could provide. The blog was very successful at changing women's attitudes in a positive way. This is something that most of the Manosphere had given up upon completely.

      Today, we learned from his son that 'Sir Guy' (as he called himself on WWNH in overt defiance of the Red Pill sneering at 'White Knights') had passed away recently. I'm not certain what his age was, but he was well into his 80's. He had been a career officer in the US Navy. If I recall correctly, he saw service during the Vietnam War. 

       Sir Guy not only taught women how to be ladies again; by extension, he promoted gentlemanly behavior in men. His articles were meant to be positive solutions to gender issues. On a personal note, I can recall this incident. An ex-girlfriend of mine---with whom I was still on good terms---was engaged to marry another man and complained that he was continually postponing marriage. I referred her to Sir Guy; and she followed his advice. They were married three months later. 

        Guy's blog also had an influence on this blog. A lot of social issues---particularly on relationship and men's issues---were derived from concepts originally presented on WWNH. Our affiliated blog, The Pacific Coast Men's Journal, is modeled on Sir Guy's format (except that it is geared to men's issues). 

        I would encourage other bloggers interested in helping to continue Sir Guy's work to read about it and what they can do to help at https://wwnh.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/the-passing-of-sir-guy/