Wednesday, 20 May 2015

President Kinnex-Man

Judging by the contents of this video, Barack Obarmy desperately needs to be introduced to the Iron God by way of being hit over the head with a barbell:


When I first saw that, I damn near caused an incident, I was laughing so hard. I mean, the most powerful man in the world (or so he'd like to believe) lifts weights like a little girl!

Actually, judging by what some girls can do, that's an insult to little girls:


Yes, all right, some of them are lifting with CrossSh*t plates, but hey, they're still lifting more than the POTUS.


Mr. President, here's a word of advice:

Deadlift - Because somewhere...

Tuesday, 19 May 2015

Didact's Mailbag: A Vile Faceless Minion's response

You Can't Fix Stupid
There are few problems that cannot be solved through liberal application of duct tape... except liberal stupidity
Someone named GunSmithKitten, who appears to be a fairly frequent commenter on Reaxxion articles, is apparently labouring under some rather severe misconceptions about His Unspeakable Evilness:
GunSmithKitten: True, at the same time, those moderate folks are not impressed by the ragings on the right either, especially when their veneer of "for freedom!" get's scraped a bit and you find an equally authoritarian bent from people like Theodore Beale... 
Didact: you find an equally authoritarian bent from people like Theodore Beale...
Are you being serious or just trolling for giggles? 
GunSmithKitten: Not at all. 
Didact: If you are being serious, then your understanding of Vox's personal views on politics are about as accurate as the notion that the Moon is made of green cheese.
If not, then I can't say this was particularly amusing. At the very least, you'd need to Photoshop a picture of Vox in a Hitler Jugend uniform. 
GunSmithKitten: I am. Do tell how my assessment of Vox Day is incorrect, considering I base it off of his own statements. 
Didact: Evidently you need to read what the man actually writes. I'll give you three simple pieces of evidence, you can surely go find the rest.
1. He not only supports #Gamergate- an avowedly anti-authoritarian, anti-fascist movement- but is one of its most important and eloquent defenders.
2. He is against universal suffrage and believes that government has no right whatsoever to tell anyone who and what to marry. The first is an anti-fascist position, given traditional fascist support for giving women the right to vote; the second is in direct opposition to one of the religious right's core ideas.
3. He is completely opposed to free trade, which is intellectually unsupportable and practically unworkable. This is the exact opposite of an authoritarian position; in fact, it is free-traders, who insist on ramming massive regional and global trade agreements down the throats of an unwilling people, that are the authoritarians.
That should be enough to get you started. If you go and read his writing, and are then foolish enough to continue to call him an authoritarian, then there really isn't much I can do for you- you're beyond help. 
GunSmithKitten: Then how do you reconcile his desire for a return of the criminalization of homosexuality and by-law segregation of the races with his supposedly anti-authoritarian stances? 
Also, how is depriving people of the right to vote who otherwise did not have that right indicative of anti-facism?
Let me preface this by saying that the Supreme Dark Overlord of the Evil Legion of Evil does need me, or anyone else, to defend his views. He is more than capable of doing that himself- in fact, he's far better at tearing apart midwit critics than I am, mostly because he is capable of much more creative and appalling verbal cruelty.

That, after all, is why he is so Unspeakably Evil, while I am merely a Vile Faceless Minion.

Moreover, I have no doubt that Vox himself does not care even the minutest quantum of a damn what I, or anyone else, thinks of him and his views. Like me, he has no interest in being popular. Like me, he does not care if you, or I, happen to be on his side.

As for me, well, the only reason I'm writing this is because I get annoyed by falsehoods and misrepresentations. And there are plenty in GSK's statements up there.

GunSmithKitten levies three charges against Vox Day:
  1. He supports the criminalisation of homosexuality;
  2. He supports legal re-segregation;
  3. He supports actively depriving those without access to the sovereign franchise of the right to vote
These are serious charges- or at least, they would be if they had even the slightest smidgeon of merit.

However, since I'm more interested in evidence than I am in feelings, I'm going to propose something really rather novel. Namely, how's about, instead of making accusations about what we think Vox Day believes, we go by what he is actually on the record as saying?

The best source of such material would probably be his old WND columns, which of course he stopped writing a few years ago. They are all a matter of public record. We can then corroborate and cross-reference his views in his WND columns against his blog posts, which are of course also public.

Like me, Vox knows full well that what he writes and puts on the internet is there for public record and consumption. He knows that what he writes must be defensible against both those who seek honest debate, and those (like GunSmithKitten) who blatantly misinterpret or cherry-pick his writing- he's said as much in the past. So it is entirely fair to look at his writing and take it as representative of his views.

In the interests of absolute fairness, we cannot restrict ourselves to cherry-picking from his statements, so as to avoid taking his comments and beliefs out of context. I have, however, taken the liberty of highlighting certain sentences that I, personally, consider to be germane- thus any misapprehensions that result from this post are due to my interference, not Vox's original writing. Therefore, I will be quoting from his writings at some length- feel free to skip the blocks of text to the TL;DR section at the bottom.

So, what does Vox truly believe, and say, on these subjects?

On Gay "Marriage" and Outlawing Homosexuality

From Vox's WND column, October 7th, 2012:
These changes began with the 19th Amendment and women’s suffrage in the early 20th century. Now, less than 100 years later, they have reached a critical point with the transformation of marriage from a private, religious ceremony recognizing the union of a man with a woman into a licensed, government-approved relationship between two or more individuals of either sex. Neither homogamy nor polygamy have yet been fully enshrined in what presently passes for law throughout the country, but the historical trend is perfectly clear. The only serious question is whether homogamy or polygamy will be the first anti-Western form of relationship to become broadly accepted throughout American society.


Advocates of homogamy often ask how government recognition of homosexual relationships will have any impact on normal marriages. Setting aside the specific answer, which is that the recognition of homogamy has already led to the elimination of the legal terms “husband,” “wife,” “father” and “mother” in some jurisdictions, the more problematic aspect is the way a modified form of Gresham’s law can be observed to apply to modern society.

Call it Dalrock’s law. When a government officially overvalues one type of relationship and undervalues another, the undervalued relationship will decline and become less societally influential, while the overvalued relationship will become more common and more influential.
From Vox Day's post, "An unmoored state", October 20th, 2014:
What we are witnessing here in the Supreme Court's cowardly decision to permit the widespread implementation of sodogamy through inaction is precisely what Wright describes, the abandonment of law and logic. I'm not even remotely surprised by the Court's decision to punt; the reason they did so was expressly because they did NOT wish to set a precedent, any precedent, in either direction. On the one hand, they did not wish to "turn the clock back" in favor of traditional, actual marriage because they wish to curry favor with the global elite that are actively seeking to destroy marriage. On the other, they did not wish to set an actual legal precedent because there are no solid legal or logical grounds that would permit them to demolish the concept of marriage consisting of the union of one man with one woman that would be limited to only changing the "man/woman" element; every argument that can be made for sodogamy can also be made every bit as effectively for polygamy and for unions with non-human entities. Regardless of whether you are anti-sodogamy or pro-marriage equality, this abandonment of jurisprudence should not be celebrated. 
The continued abandonment of law and morality is inevitable at this point, to the extent it hasn't already happened. It is part and parcel of a civilization in the latter stages of decline, and our responsibility is not to try to prevent its fall, but rather, to continue to uphold each petty traditional schwerkpunkt represented by the families and institutions that have not succumbed to the cultural rot. Human societies are cyclical entities, and one can no more fight the cycle than gravity. This is not, however, a counsel of despair, but rather, one of hope. "Progress" is neither linear nor inevitable. What we are seeing has happened before, and will happen again. Our fathers and grandfathers may have failed to sustain the civilization they inherited, but we cannot be held responsible for that. What we can, and will be responsible, is if we fail to keep the seeds of that civilization alive to pass on to future generations.
A simple Google search of the words "outlaw homosexuality" on his blog reveals exactly zero results.

A similar search for the terms "ban sodomy" yields the sole result, the post "Federalism and the Right", written December 20th, 2003, in which Vox Day says this:
a federal ban on state laws criminalizing sodomy
against it
Moreover, I've been reading Vox Day's writing every single day for the past 7 years; at no point have I ever been able to recall him calling for an outright, open criminal ban of homosexuality.

Maybe he has, and I haven't found it. But it's pretty unlikely, given his libertarian positions on this and other issues.

On Legal Re-Segregation

There was ‘massive resistance’ in parts of the South.
Because forced integration has worked out SO well

From Vox Day's WND column of July 24th, 2011:
Just as the depression of the 1930s set the stage for large-scale military conflict, the even larger global depression that began in 2008 is likely to build upon the dreadful foundation that was foolishly imposed upon the West by the multiculturalists. What the eventual outcome will be is uncertain. It may be the global government of progressive dreams, but based on the pendulum principle of history, it will more likely mark a return to the pre-World War I state of balanced and ethnically homogenous powers. 
On Saturday, Matt Drudge reported a shooting in Seattle that was rather less covered than the Utoya one. Ten people were shot, none fatally, and no one was arrested. But the gunfire at the La Raza car show was every bit as significant as the more lethal shots fired in Norway, because it represents the other side of the coming immigration conflict. According to the statistics, more Americans will die in the next eight days at the hands of immigrants than were murdered in Oslo and Utoya. 
Thus far, Americans have proven to be more tolerant of the ethnic vibrancy in their midst, despite the Sept. 11 attacks and 4,380 annual murders by immigrants. But, as the Norway attacks show, apathy and tolerance will not last forever. And when the separatist conflict comes to America, as history tends to suggests it eventually will, it should not be forgotten that primary responsibility for the bloodshed will lie with short-sighted immigration advocates such as Rep. Emanuel Cellar, Sen. Philip Hart, Sen. Edward Kennedy and former President Lyndon Johnson.
From Vox Day's blog, May 21, 2010:
First of all, I would absolutely voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which is an egregious violation against property rights as well as the Constitutional Right of Free Association. That being said, it is remarkably stupid for any politician, of any party, to comment upon what he would or would not have done had he been voting on a bill 46 years ago. 
The correct response would have been to say: "Rachel, I have no more intention of speculating about how I would have voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than I have of speculating how I would have voted on the Declaration of War against Spain of 1898 or the Proclamation of Imperial Divinity of 14 AD. I was not a Senator in either Washington DC or Rome at the time of those previous votes, and while hypothetical speculation is always interesting, it's simply not relevant to a Kentucky Senate campaign in 2010."

On Universal Suffrage and Fascism

A bit misandrist of the anti-suffragists if you ask me...
From Vox Day's blog, October 25th, 2005:
Very well, let's list your supposedly unalienable rights. There is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are the Constitutionally enumerated Bill of Rights, including the rights to free speech, to a free press, to bear arms, to be secure in your person, houses, papers, and effects, the right to a speedy and public trial, the right of trial by jury, the right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the right to not have private property be taken for public use without just compensation. 
How have those rights fared since women received the "right" to vote. 
1. The right to life is under siege, for unborn children, disabled children and the elderly.
2. The right to liberty is all but destroyed already.
3. You still have the right to pursue happiness.
4. The right to free speech has been eliminated by sexual harassment laws, hate crime laws, the FEC and campaign reform laws.
5. The right to a free press has been limited by campaign reform laws and the establishment of the FCC.
6. The right to bear arms has been significantly reduced by gun control laws.
7. The right to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects has been eliminated by the drug laws, the airport laws, the IRS, etc.
8. The right to a public and speedy trial has been eliminated by the Patriot Act. Once declared an "enemy combatant" by a government official you can be held indefinitely.
9. The right to trial by jury has been eliminated by the family "courts", the tax "courts" and the immigration "courts", none of which even belong to the judicial branch but are simply executive-branch bureaucrats dressed up as judges.
10. The right to due process of law has been eliminated. See 9.
11. The right to not have your property taken except for justly compensated public use has been eliminated under Kelo.

 Straightening Out the Tangle

Schools are failing our children in this country by design.
Truth
What GunSmithKitten, and others like him/her, fail to realise is that nothing Vox has written on the subjects mentioned above, or any others like them, indicates any degree of agreement with fascism or fascist principles.

Moreover, as most liberals routinely fail to recognise or understand, fascism is absolutely not a right-wing ideology. It is categorically and completely a left-wing ideology, as Jonah Goldberg proved beyond virtually any doubt a few years ago.

Let me insert here some words about universal suffrage. Most people- myself included, up until a few years ago- constantly confuse the right to vote with freedom. The two are not the same, and it is downright stupid to mix them up.

The sovereign franchise is no more a "right" than is your right to your neighbour's property and possessions. Your right to vote is no more a guarantor of your freedom than an open door is a guarantor of your home's security from the predations of a thief. Voting is manifestly and absolutely not a right, for rights must be earned and must always and everywhere be balanced with responsibility.

Simply giving someone the right to vote, with no attendant responsibilities to offset that right, is no guarantor of freedom; in fact, if history is any indication, granting such an invented right is a guaranteed way to destroy freedom and all of its blessings.

Moreover, every society in history has, always and everywhere, attempted to restrict the sovereign franchise to those who were thought to be able to wield it best. In our own supposedly "universal" modern democracies, no less than a fifth to a quarter of the population is always excluded from voting due to arbitrary markers placed on the age of those given the franchise.

Like Major Reid in Starship Troopers, I rather fail to see how a fifteen-year-old genius is somehow less qualified to vote than a thirty-year-old moron. But never mind; our time is rife with foolish notions, and these too shall find their end in fiery destruction when the appropriate moment comes.

The object lesson here, for GunSmithKitten as for others, is that if you're going to criticise Vox Day's positions on various things- and his positions, like mine, are legitimate targets for criticism and discussion- then you should at least try to know what it is you're criticising.

Otherwise, you'll simply end up looking ten different kinds of stupid.

The master and his students

What happens when you put the great-granddaddy of European power metal on stage with some of his most devoted acolytes and followers, but remove his guitar so that he can concentrate on just singing?

Well... this:


One commenter on that video put it rather well:
If I was playing this song and suddenly comes Kai Hansen behind me to watch me play I would [be scared sh*tless]
Oh, and in case you're wondering what STORMWARRIOR are all about- they're basically your typical European power metal band, but with one rather interesting twist.


And yes, that's every bit as annoying you might think.

Doesn't stop them from making tremendously fun power metal, of course.

Sunday, 17 May 2015

Yes, boycott Mad Max: Fury Road

... scene-stealers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/mad-max-guitar-dude.jpeg

Our stolid friend Captain Capitalism recently wrote an article over at Return of Kings calling on men NOT to see the movie Mad Max: Fury Road, starring Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, and Rosie Huntington-Whitely. (The latter is known for basically looking really hot in lingerie, and then really really hot in a Transformers movie. Coincidentally, that movie was the worst of the Transformers series, until the 4th one came along and shat the bed.)

The article unsurprisingly inflicted epic amounts of ass pain upon the mainstream media, who got quite hot and bothered about the fact that men might be annoyed at the idea that feminists would usurp a movie supposedly MADE FOR THEM.

Now, I have not seen the movie. I have seen the trailer, and... well, it looks freakin' awesome:


It's got GIRLS! And EXPLOSIONS! And TORNADOES! And GUNS! And MORE EXPLOSIONS!

It looks like possibly the most manly, badass, over-the-top, great movie since... well, Kingsmen.

So, does it live up to the hype?

Judging by the reviews of those non-brainwashed men who actually went to see the movie yesterday, it appears that the answer is a definitive "NO":


If this movie is indeed what Mark Dice and Aaron Clarey and others say it is, then it deserves to be boycotted by men who still have balls, brains, and enough blood to work at least one of these organs at a time.

There is nothing in the world wrong with making movies designed specifically for women. They're called "chick flicks", they are almost always absolutely terrible when judged by any reasonable standard, and in terms of messages, they pour the most vile of poisons into the eyes and ears of the women who watch them. You know, or will find out sooner or later, how most chick flicks go:
  • Amazing Girl with great career, friends, sex life, huge apartment in New York City, and sassy wit meets Bad Boy
  • Bad Boy has a great time sleeping around with Amazing Girl's friends, and eventually manages to get around to boinking Amazing Girl herself
  • Bad Boy sees the error of his womanising, hard-drinking, hard-partying ways and falls into twoo wove with Amazing Girl
  • Amazing Girl is such a Strong Independent Woman that she proves how little she needs a man in her life by needing a man in her life more than ever
  • Bad Boy becomes a Sackless Beta, settles down with Amazing Girl, and they all live happily ever after- in Amazing Girl's huge loft apartment, in the middle of freaking NEW YORK CITY
There are several variations and flavours of this sort of nonsense, but you get the basic idea. The fact that such movies are completely counterfactual and hopelessly unrealistic is beside the point- this stuff is chick-crack. It is emotionally addictive to women because it hits them right where they are most vulnerable- in the deepest darkest hidden hypergamous desires that every woman has, whether she gives voice and rein to them or not.

If women choose to watch them, then that's on them and they alone are responsible. I have no problem whatsoever with women watching, paying for, and emotionally masturbating to chick flicks.

Just leave that nonsense out of action movies marketed at men.

There is a reason why men of my generation remember great TV shows like The A-Team with such fondness. It is because these were shows by men, for men, with a purely masculine sense of over-the-top fun and lunacy. This is also why I love Top Gear so much.

And it is that sense of free-wheeling, madcap inventiveness that made the original Mad Max film such a classic.

The new one, by contrast, seems to be aimed specifically at turning men- all men- into villains, buffoons, incompetent weaklings, and/or sadistic and twisted lunatics, yet markets itself as an action movie aimed at the evergreen male tastes for explosions, fast cars, and girls.

Bottom line: don't bother watching this movie. Feminists may harp and screech all they like about how "the patriarchy" is abusing them, but the one thing that they cannot do- yet- is force us to watch a movie made by feminists and designed to push a feminist agenda down our throats.

Instead, save your money for better things- like, say, supporting the almighty RUSH on their R40 tour, for instance, or supporting Bill Whittle's conservative, crowd-funded film projects over at Declaration Entertainment. At least with those, you'll get real bang-for-buck, rather than the endless series of eardrum-shattering pyrotechnics that appear to be Mad Max: Fury Road's substitute for plot, character, and charm.

Friday, 15 May 2015

"Scream for me Brazil!"

bruce_dickinson_0.jpg
"Why, yes, I AM in fact as badass as I look in this picture"
It's Friday, it's sunny outside, and the GREATEST SINGER OF AL- er, I mean, Bruce Dickinson has just been given the all-clear following a course of treatment for cancer:
IRON MAIDEN singer Bruce Dickinson, who earlier in the year underwent a seven-week course of chemotherapy and radiology to treat a small cancerous tumor at the back of his tongue, has been given "the all-clear" by his specialists following his recent MRI scan. 
Says Bruce: "I would like to thank the fantastic medical team who have been treating me for the last few months, resulting in this amazing outcome. 
"It's been tough on my family, and in many ways, it was harder for them than me. 
"I'd also like to send a heartfelt thanks to all our fans for their kind words and thoughts. 
"I'm a firm believer in trying to maintain a positive attitude, and the encouragement from the global MAIDEN family meant a great deal to me. 
"Right now, I'm feeling extremely motivated and can't wait to get back to business as usual, as soon as I can!" 
Adds IRON MAIDEN manager Rod Smallwood: "We are, of course, all absolutely delighted that Bruce's doctors have pronounced him free of cancer.
"Although Bruce is naturally eager to resume MAIDEN activities, it will take a while before he is completely back to full strength, as we explained previously. Because of this, the band will not be touring or playing any shows until next year. We know our fans will understand the situation and, like us, would prefer to wait until Bruce is back to his usual indefatigable levels of fitness before going out on the road. For now, the focus will be on putting the finishing touches to the new IRON MAIDEN studio album and that is what we will be concentrating on over the coming weeks. The release, however, will definitely be this year. 
"Meanwhile, I'd like to echo Bruce's words and thank all MAIDEN fans. You have been incredibly patient, putting Bruce's health and well-being first during this difficult time and the band and I appreciate all your positive support."
Knowing Bruce, he'll be back in fine fettle soon enough. The man is irrepressible, as anyone who has ever seen him charge around a stage like a man with his hair on fire can attest.

I have to say, I'm hugely relieved to see this. I am, of course, a HUGE fan of IRON MAIDEN- also known as THE GREATEST BAND OF ALL TIME. I cannot WAIT to see them tear it up live again- last time I saw them on tour was in 2012, and they absolutely killed it.

On top of all of this good news, though, we have the truly awesome news that there is a new IRON MAIDEN album coming out before the end of the year.

Now, as news goes, it doesn't get much bigger than this. The year of our Lord 2015 is shaping up to be a very good one indeed in the metal world. Just take a look at all of this good stuff that got, or will be, released this year:
  • BLIND GUARDIAN
  • NIGHTWISH
  • HELLOWEEN
  • POWERWOLF
  • Possibly a new AMON AMARTH
  • Maybe a new MEGADETH
  • JOE SATRIANI
  • Could be a new VOLBEAT in the offing too
And I'm sure there are loads of other great bands whose work I forgot to include here.

On top of ALL of that, we get a new IRON MAIDEN album. I mean, does it get any better than this?!

Thursday, 14 May 2015

What would Jesus do, indeed

Posted by Ron Garcia at 12:00 PM
Amen
A few days ago, a brave and enterprising woman named Pamela Geller- whose work you may be familiar with if, like me, you regard the religion of so-called "peace" with the contempt that it deserves- held an art exhibit involving depictions of the "prophet" of Islam, Mohammed. Now, if you know anything about Islam, you'll know that depicting his high-and-mightiness is one of the fastest and easiest ways to enrage Muslims, because they really don't like it when what they regard as the perfect and ultimate man is actually given a face.

And that, of course, is precisely what happened.

Two blokes with guns drove up, opened fire on the crowd- there were roughly 300 people at the event, doing no harm to anyone in any way- and were shot and killed by one of the security guards there.

That security guard should have received a medal. And Ms. Geller should have been upheld as an example for the rest of the Right to follow.

Unfortunately, instead of reacting with praise for the guard and for the courageous Ms. Geller, quite a few figures on the right have condemned her for "provoking" Muslims by attacking their faith.

Oddly enough, however, the exact same characters are inexplicably nowhere to be found whenever Christians are attacked for their faith and respond by doing what real Christians do: vigourously defend their righteous and decent faith through argument and reason, rather than by trying to shoot those who disagree with them.

This right-wing circular firing squad then invoked the stupidest of all possible arguments when Bill O'Reilly argued that Jesus Christ, whom Christians rightly and correctly regard as the true source of Divine revelation and wisdom, would not have done what Ms. Geller did.

My friends on the right, let me tell you this: if a mere heathen like me can see how idiotic this line of argument is, then there really is no excuse whatsoever for you Churchians to believe this nonsense.

John Nolte's withering response to Bill O'Reilly's misinformed opinion was pitch-perfect:
Who is this Jesus Christ Bill O’Reilly speaks of?

The Jesus Christ who offended and provoked the Religious by entering their temple, overturning tables and chairs, and name-called, using words like “ROBBER!” — that Jesus?

The Jesus who flagrantly provoked others by violating religious law — that Jesus?

The Jesus who called religious leaders (Pharisees) “hypocrites!” — that Jesus?

The Jesus who called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” — that Jesus?

Jesus Christ was a revolutionary.

A radical.

When Jesus turned the other cheek, it wasn’t an act of surrender, it was pure defiance. Hit me again — I will not yield.
And that, my friends, is Christianity.

Christianity is not about yielding meekly before evil. Christianity is not about being "nice". Christianity is not about being soft, squishy, or easily led.

Christianity was, and remains, a radical and deeply uncomfortable set of timeless truths, handed down to us by a loving and eternal Creator who has given His children endless chances to redeem ourselves, to become more than these fallen and broken shells. As proof of His love for us, He gave us the Lord Christ- and we scorned Him, we tormented and tortured Him, and we killed Him.

And yet, despite everything that we did to spit in the Lord's face, still He delivered upon His promise to us. Still He proved to us that He does, indeed, have faith in us, even if we do not have faith in Him.

The Lord Christ was not some weak-kneed long-haired hippie, preaching love and tolerance and communal harmony. He was a wise; He was just; He was strong; He was endlessly compassionate without ever being wishy-washy.

He was, quite simply, the living embodiment of Truth itself.

Truth is not comfortable, easy, or soft. It is difficult to handle; it is even more difficult to live with. That is precisely why so many Christians fall short of the fully glory of the teachings of Christ, and yet they try valiantly even so.

There is nothing "nice" or "accommodating" about Truth. It simply is what it is, and trying to tart it up with soft words and foolish nonsense does not change it.

Which brings us to what the Lord actually said, and what He actually did.

When the Lord Christ commanded His followers to turn the other cheek, He wasn't trying to tell His followers to be "nice" and "accommodating". He was telling them to refuse to yield in the face of wanton aggression.

In order to understand just how astonishingly radical this teaching is, you have to have stood in the path of danger- and refused to flinch. You have to have been in a position to see doom thundering towards you- and refused to get out of the way. You have to have stared right into the abyss- and then refused to listen to your brain, which is screaming at you to yield, to save yourself from pain and harm.

You have to have balls the size of church bells to spit in the face of the established authority of tyrants and kings and Pharisees, who could destroy you in an instant, and simply smile at them when they threaten to do their worst.

You have to be foolhardy to the point of near-insanity to simply stand there and take a beating while refusing to lift a finger in your defence, as if to mock those beating you for their sheer inability to break you.

Jesus did all of this, and more besides.

That is the example that He set. He wasn't trying to be "nice" or easygoing. How many times did He tell us that He had come "not to bring peace but a sword", to set brother against brother and father against son? Did He not say that those who followed Him would be reviled and scorned, spat upon, persecuted, tormented, tortured, and killed for their audacious insistence on believing in the truth in a world governed by lies?

I am not a Christian. I haven't even read all the way through the Bible yet. And even I can tell that Bill O'Reilly has absolutely no idea what the hell he's talking about when he argues that Jesus would not have provoked Islamists the way Ms. Geller did.

Pardon me, Mr. O'Reilly, but based on the evidence that we have before us, that is exactly what Jesus would have done.

The King of Kings would have stood, fearless and mighty in His terrible splendour, before those who believe in the blasphemous and twisted parodies of His teachings that Islam claims to be. He would have urged His followers to stand firm, with their faith in Him and in the Father to sustain them, in the face of unspeakable evil. He would have told us not to despair, not to fear, because for those who stand fast and who believe, the reward is eternal salvation and the release from the terror of death that has, at some point, defined the life of every man who has ever lived- except one.

How do we know this? Because that is what He promised when He walked this Earth- and because that is what He delivered when He died and was resurrected.

So, the next time someone- whether on the Left or the Right- is stupid enough to use the "What Would Jesus Do" to pretend that Christ would not have stood up to evil and corruption, remember what Jesus actually did, and set your friend straight.

Synthol: not even once

How on Earth do people convince themselves that physiques like this are to be emulated?!?


In case you're curious about what synthol is or does, the video above explains it pretty well. Synthol is basically just an oil, combined with alcohol- and the only reason for the latter is to avoid infection. That is how nasty this stuff is- you literally have to inject alcohol directly into your muscles in order to avoid harming yourself.

And even then, you probably won't avoid serious long-term damage if you use it "in excess". The stuff could leak out of your muscles; your muscles could become riddled with hard cysts; they could even explode.

So what's the upside of using synthol?

Well... to be honest, it's hard to think of one.

The stuff doesn't make you stronger. It doesn't make you look better- take a look at any of the synthol freaks out there and you'll see physiques that look sloppy, poorly proportioned, grotesque, and malformed. Even professional bodybuilders don't use the stuff except in limited amounts before competitions, and then they use it to give their muscles volume and definition that wouldn't happen otherwise.

In other words, it's an expensive, dangerous, and not particularly effective substitute for real hard work within the crucible of the Iron God.

If you're following the advice of this blog or others like it, you won't go anywhere near this crap. There is no substitute for honest, difficult, incremental gains made through focus and dedication to the iron, which gives you real strength and real confidence. Don't waste your time trying to pursue stupid and dangerous shortcuts; instead, focus on what is important, and the rest will take care of itself.

Monday, 11 May 2015

All hail the Army of the Night


The only thing better than windmilling to some POWERWOLF is seeing them play live. I really hope they visit the States soon- these guys slay on every single album I've heard from them, and I cannot wait to see them kill it live with their hilariously over-the-top brand of power metal.

Oh, and speaking of over-the-top:


Say what you will about RHAPSODY (OF FIRE), or whatever the hell they're supposed to be called, but they are very very very good at what they do. Personally, I find them cheesier than a Swiss fondue- and that's saying something, considering how much I love MANOWAR- but any metal band that can get the one and only SARUMAN- er, I mean, Christopher Lee- to narrate for their album and song is worthy of respect.

By the way, if you thought Christopher Lee was a badass on screen, his actual life history makes Rambo look like a complete pussy:
The most prolific actor in motion picture history, Christopher Lee was born somewhere in England in 1922. His mother was an Italian Countess who was actually descended from the line of Charlemagne, and she was so important that she was allowed to wear the royal seal of Frederich Barbarossa and so MILF-y she had her portrait painted by something like a half-dozen famous Italian artists. One of Lee's ancestors on that side was the Papal Secretary of State who refused to attend the coronation of Napoleon and is buried in the Pantheon in Rome next to Raphael (the painter not the ninja turtle), which seems like kind of a big deal. Lee's father, meanwhile, was a distant relative of Robert E. Lee and was multi-decorated war hero who'd served as a Colonel in the 60th King's Royal Rifle Corps during World War I and the Boer War. Growing up, Lee studied Classics at Wellington College, where he was also a champion squash player, a ridiculously-badass fencer, and spent his spare time playing on the school hockey and rugby. After college, Lee took a bullshit job working as an office clerk (that's a Classics major for you), where his pay was one pound a week – and by one pound a week I think it means his entire compensation for busting his ass 8 hours a day was that every Friday around 4:30 a really cool guy would walk by, fist bump him, and say something like, "Hey, nice job man! Hang in there bro!"

Shit got real in 1939 when Christopher Lee quit his day job, caught a boat to Finland, and decided to enlist in the Finnish Army to help them fight off the Soviet invasion of Finland. Lee got geared up to kick some commie asses up and down the frozen wastes of mid-Winter Finland, but didn't see much action, returning home in 1940 to deal with a much bigger and more England-centric problem: Nazis.

Christopher Lee enlisted in the Royal Air Force in 1940, where he worked as an intelligence officer specializing in cracking German ciphers and skulls and any other Nazi bullshit he came in contact with. In North Africa he was attached to the Long Range Desert Patrol, the forerunner of the SAS, where he would jump in a badass fucking four-wheel-drive jeep with a gigantic machine gun mounted in the back, drive hundreds of miles behind enemy lines, survive the scorching heat of the Sahara Desert, then sneak-attack Luftwaffe airfields by rolling up on them at sixty miles an hour with his .50-caliber machine guns blazing out curtains of white-hot Nazi-smiting justice, planting dynamite on their airplanes, then peeling ass out of there leaving nothing but bullet-riddled corpses and gigantic explosions in his wake. After working with the LRDP, Lee was assigned to the Special Operations Executive – better known as Winston Churchill's Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare – a group that did shit like lead a twelve-man assault that destroyed the German top secret nuclear weapons development facility in Norway and assist brave Eastern European partisans and rebels sabotage Nazi supply lines to prevent them from bringing reinforcements up to fight the Soviets. His service records are sealed and Lee doesn't talk much about his service (when pressed on the subject, he reportedly asks his interviewer, "Can you keep a secret?". When they excitedly say yes, he leans in close and says, "So can I."), but we do know that by the time he retired as a Flight Lieutenant in 1945 he'd been personally decorated for battlefield bravery by the Czech, Yugoslavian, English, and Polish governments and was good friends with Josip Broz Tito, so draw your own conclusions.  
And that's just his CV up until 1945. When you consider everything else he's accomplished, it's actually kind of amazing that he doesn't have, like, a freakin' country named after him.

Oh, hey, look- he's even released his own heavy metal albums:

No matter what you do, you will NEVER be as epic as this

Sunday, 10 May 2015

Don't fall for the Dubai story

dubai future skyline

For me, "home" is basically wherever my parents have made their home. Last year, when they moved back from Singapore to the old country, my method of getting home changed too. If you want to get to my country of origin, there are direct flights available- but they involve flying on airlines that are, frankly, horrible.

If, like me, you prefer to meet your loved ones looking and feeling (and smelling) like something other than the stuff that you flushed down the toilet the morning you left, then you're far better off paying some extra money to fly Emirates or Etihad and take a pit-stop in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, or Qatar.

I've flown through Dubai four times now, and each time I've seen the airport, I've come away convinced that there is something deeply wrong with the supposed miracle story behind Dubai's explosive growth over the last thirty years.

Now, to be clear, I've never actually visited the city of Dubai itself. I've only gone through the airport. The astute reader would undoubtedly argue that it is ridiculous to judge a city by its airport.

Certainly one can find evidence to support this assertion. After all, if you stopped by Singapore's Changi Airport, you'd probably come away convinced that the city itself is a marvel of innovation, architecture, and human capital, and is a shopper's paradise.

And if you pass through Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion, you'd be convinced that Israel is a God-blessed land of miracles created through the sweat, toil, and sacrifice of a courageous and decent people.

And if you went through New York's JFK, you'd probably think that NYC itself is overcrowded, absurdly expensive, with horrible infrastructure, and full of rude angry blacks, Latinos, and Indians.

And if you went through Newark Liberty, you'd probably be left with the impression that the city of Newark, if not the entire state of New Jersey, is the armpit of America. (Personally, I rather like certain parts of Jersey- I live in the state- but I think that calling Newark an "armpit" is being far too kind.)

And if you go through London's Heathrow airport, you'll probably come away thinking that England's once-great and mighty civilisation is in terminal decline.

... OK, so maybe you can judge a city by its airport.

Which brings me to Dubai.

If you spend any amount of time in Dubai's airport, you're probably going to find yourself thinking that it's a bit... weird. It's huge, it's artificial, and it's in some ways thoroughly bizarre.

One of the first things you'll notice is that it, like the city it connects to the world, stands in direct opposition to its natural environment. Dubai is between the desert and the sea; as such, it doesn't actually have much by way of fresh water.

Yet, in the middle of its biggest terminal is a fifty-foot waterfall. And that's merely the most obvious and most egregious example of the chronic waste and over-the-top extravagance of a third-world city desperately trying to project a first-world image.

I cannot even imagine how much it costs to maintain just that one aspect of Dubai's opulent facade. The city itself reminds me very much of Las Vegas- you get that same sense of wanton excess and bizarre dislocation from reality.

The major difference, of course, is that, being an Islamic nation, Dubai is a little bit more straight-laced than Vegas when it comes to women.

Las Vegas Bikini Contest
This sort of thing, for instance, isn't quite so common
Beyond the wanton waste and excess that you see everywhere, even within the airport, there are two other rather odd characteristics of Dubai that make themselves abundantly clear to even the casual traveler.

First, unlike every other city that I've ever been to or through, you will very rarely find natives working any of the shops, stalls, and facilities.

It's a very strange feeling to walk into a supposedly Arab nation and find that everyone, from the toilet cleaners to the security staff to the restaurant waiters to the duty-free and pharmacy counter clerks, is a foreigner. The city is owned and run by Arabs, to be sure, but the actual work is done by Indians, Filipinos, Malaysians, and even Turks.

This is surprising for the casual visitor, but if you know something about Arab culture, you'll quickly realise that this is actually pretty normal. There is a reason why oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia have chronic unemployment problems- the "insh'Allah" mentality that pervades these cultures, combined with vast oil wealth, leads to some decidedly screwy incentive structures for native populations.

Now, to be clear, Dubai is a bit unusual compared to its neighbours- it is not an oil-rich petro-state. It has, in fact, based its entire economy on trade, finance, and debt. And on the surface at least, it has done a tremendous job of creating a modern economy. Its unemployment rate is among the lowest in the world, even for native Emiratis.

United Arab Emirates Unemployment Rate

Yet there is a decidedly dark side to this, which Johann Hari explored in a classic article from nearly 6 years ago:
Dubai only had a dribble of oil compared to neighbouring Abu Dhabi – so Sheikh Maktoum decided to use the revenues to build something that would last. Israel used to boast it made the desert bloom; Sheikh Maktoum resolved to make the desert boom. He would build a city to be a centre of tourism and financial services, sucking up cash and talent from across the globe. He invited the world to come tax-free – and they came in their millions, swamping the local population, who now make up just 5 per cent of Dubai. A city seemed to fall from the sky in just three decades, whole and complete and swelling. They fast-forwarded from the 18th century to the 21st in a single generation. 
If you take the Big Bus Tour of Dubai – the passport to a pre-processed experience of every major city on earth – you are fed the propaganda-vision of how this happened. "Dubai's motto is 'Open doors, open minds'," the tour guide tells you in clipped tones, before depositing you at the souks to buy camel tea-cosies. "Here you are free. To purchase fabrics," he adds. As you pass each new monumental building, he tells you: "The World Trade Centre was built by His Highness..." 
But this is a lie. The sheikh did not build this city. It was built by slaves. They are building it now.
Mr. Hari's article chronicles the long list of issues buried beneath the city's massive success- chronic waste, environmental damage, an economy built on something approaching slave labour, and the largely untold and unknown realities of Islamic law that Westerners have never bothered trying to understand.

The second odd characteristic that becomes immediately obvious is just how bloody expensive the place is.

Let's put this into perspective. When I flew out to the old country a few weeks ago, I ordered breakfast at an Irish pub in an American airport. I ordered the Irish breakfast with a cup of strong coffee. The total bill came to $18. For that, I got:
  • Two scrambled eggs
  • Two large grilled tomatoes
  • A large helping of sauteed button mushrooms
  • Two pieces of sourdough toast with butter
  • Three different kinds of sausage
  • Two large rashers of bacon
  • A heaping helping of potato wedges
  • An Americano with milk
Since I'm all about meat, meat, and more meat, this was in many ways my ideal breakfast. It just doesn't get much better than that.

This is characteristic of life in America- when it comes to food, you'll be hard-pressed to find anywhere else in the developed world that comes anywhere close in terms of value for money. You'd have to go to Southeast Asia, to Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia, to enjoy the same kind of quality at the same price range or lower.

If you go to Dubai, though, and try to order anything there, you'll immediately find that the markup over American prices is at least 50%.

Case in point: a 16oz blended fruit/vegetable juice comes to AED 24 (Arab Emirati Dirhams). The AED/USD exchange rate is about 3.6-to-1.

That means that a simple juice costs damn near $7.

Again, a sense of perspective is in order. You can get better quality juice smoothies in New York City- which is a very expensive place to live, and therefore to eat- for $4.

Part of the huge cost differential is due to the fact that Dubai has no real arable farmland and therefore has to import practically everything.

The other part, of course, is that in airports you can charge whatever the hell you want for anything and people will pay it- that's the annoying (from a consumer's perspective) reality of traveling.

I have no idea what prices are like within Dubai itself. My educated guess, however, is that they're about as bad- in other words, you'll pay 50% to 80% more for everything, even relative to very expensive cities like New York or Boston.

The absolute worst thing about Dubai, though, has nothing to do with the airport.

Rather, it has everything to do with the way that young women prostitute themselves out for a chance to fly on all-expenses-paid junkets to this supposed paradise in the Middle East.

dubai-instagram
She probably didn't go just for the hummus
My Reaxxion colleague and editor Matt Forney documented this extensively a few months back. And his conclusions about why these young, pretty Western women do this mirrors my own conclusions about why young people my age are so keen to go live and work in Dubai.

They want to live that lifestyle because it looks amazing on the surface- just like Dubai itself. But they completely ignore the ghastly realities behind the mirage. They're not willing to look past the slick marketing and impressive steel-and-glass skyscrapers to see the ecological, financial, and human time-bomb ticking beneath the sands.

If you're going to Dubai for a visit, then that's all well and good. Just don't fall for the hype. As I've been discovering, once you look a little harder at what's under the hood, you probably won't like what you see.

What the hell, I might as well say it- visit Israel instead!

Rule Britannia

That seems like an awful lot of hassle when all I wanted was a cool sword.
Given what I've seen of what is left of what used to be the greatest civilisation on Earth, I'd say that's about right.


Saturday, 9 May 2015

You're not fooling anyone

Dick Comments On Alice's Blog - Dilbert by Scott Adams

My Jargon is Better Than Yours!

Anyone who has dipped a toe or three into the Androsphere and its accumulated wisdom will be instantly familiar with the terms Alpha, Beta, and Omega. These words are used to define a sexual, and in certain cases a socio-sexual, hierarchy, wherein each category is characterised by very specific traits.

Thus, the Alpha is usually considered to be the good-looking, sexually and professionally successful, outgoing, highly energetic "natural leader", to whom victory comes easily and often; the Beta is generally marked by personal, sexual, and professional mediocrity; and the Omega is to be shunned and derided at all times, being as he is at the absolute bottom of the (socio-)sexual pecking order.

Eventually, Vox Day came along and decided that the existing binary Alpha/Beta heuristic might work well enough to describe sexual hierarchies, but did not work at all in describing social hierarchies. The Alpha, Beta, and optionally Omega groupings were overly restrictive and narrow.

Hence, from Vox's (quite brilliant) mind has sprung the Delta, the socio-sexual equivalent in his rankings of the Beta described above; the Gamma, the snarky, self-obsessed, intellectually above-average yet stunted loser; the Sigma, the aloof, disinterested loner who also happens to be sexually very successful; and the Lambda, who is best described as a hyper-sexed sodomite fairy.

The Hungarian Version of Sociosexual Orientation Inventory Revised ...
Can anyone figure this out???
When he introduced this new hierarchy a few years ago, he was alternately mocked and praised for it. Personally, I agree with Vox something like 95% of the time, but even I'm willing to admit that the expanded hierarchy looks, at first glance, to be more than a little absurd. It takes quite a bit of getting used to, and waaaaaaaay too many guys have wasted way too much time trying to figure out where they fit in that hierarchy by aiming for Alpha/Sigma status when, really, their problems could be solved much more easily.

(For the record- I also happen to think that Vox's hierarchy is also rather a good heuristic explanation for what we see in daily life. It just takes some getting used to, that's all.)

And as Matt Forney pointed out in his criticism of that hierarchy, the end result was a list of terminology so silly that novice Manospherians ended up sounding like idiots.

The outcome of all of this noodling around with letters and jargon for the novice is that, unless you actually speak Greek or have an unusual tolerance for pain- and the two might be more closely related than you think- your head is soon going to be spinning with all of the definitions and jargon.

Unfortunately, the rest of us in the Androsphere have not exactly helped in this regard. The writers of the Androsphere- myself included, I'll confess- spend and have spent a truly staggering amount of time and energy writing about how to move up the ladder from one's starting position to another, higher level.

We started doing this with the best of intentions; if the Androsphere is about anything, it is about teaching modern men how to improve upon themselves.

To put it another way, I seem to recall an article over at RoK by Blair Naso in which he wrote that the best definition of Hell is to be lying on your deathbed, breathing your last- and in that final moment, to see the man that you could have been had you reached your full potential.

In our pursuit of terminology, jargon, NLP terms, and clearly understood, easily digestible dichotomies, we run the serious danger of losing sight of this most admirable goal.

And it has become a huge problem.

"You Keep Using That Word..."

My Name Is Inigo Montoya
Er... sorry... wrong meme
Certain other Androsphere writers, such as Uncle Bob and Carey, treat the entire concept of a socio-sexual hierarchy with utter contempt. And while I don't exactly agree with their rejection of it, they do have a rather good point.

Namely, we as a group have taken the Alpha/Beta conceptual framework and abused it to well past the point of recognition or sense. And to make it worse, we did so with good intentions.

To understand just why this is such a problem, we first need to understand two things about the entire concept of the socio-sexual hierarchy.

The Captive Hierarchy

Alpha_Beta_Omega_by_bloodhound_omega.jpg
Probably not how naturalists look at wolves
The first is that its beginnings are not quite what you might expect. The whole Alpha/Beta dichotomy was probably first coined by a naturalist by the (awesome) name of Rudolf Schenkel in 1947, using studies of captive grey wolf packs. It was popularised by another guy by the (even more awesome) name of L. David Mech in a book called The Wolf in about 1970.


Forty years after the publication of Mech's book, the terminology has caught on in the imaginations of a thousand Manosphere writers, to the point where we fancifully tart up amoral (though not necessarily immoral) traits like Machiavellianism, sociopathy, and narcissism as a sort of "unholy Trinity" or "Dark Triad" set of behaviours, whereby the perfect proportions of these traits will, in combination, lead to epic socio-sexual success.

After all, who wouldn't want to be an Alpha-wolf with a harem of bitches fawning on his every look and gesture?

Did I forget to mention that this video might be NSFW?

The problem is that this notion isn't supported by actual evidence, at least not among wolves in the wild.


It does, however, apply to human beings, to some extent anyway. If you look at any highly successful, highly admired masculine figure, most of them have these traits to some extent.

At the extreme end of the scale, you have men like Bill Clinton, Gene Simmons, and Hugh Hefner, all of whom embody these traits very well indeed; in President Clinton's case, I would argue that the man is such a sociopath that the word should be substituted for his middle name.

Yet there remain exceptions to this loose rule. Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic, for instance, are undisputed masters of the tennis world. All three are highly admired and highly admirable. All three are ferociously competitive. All three command huge salaries and rapt audiences wherever they go.

Novak Djokovic , Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are known for their ...
L-R: Blitzkrieg, Grinder, GOAT
And yet, away from the tennis court, there does not appear to a Machiavellian, narcissistic, or sociopathic bone in any of their bodies- not even in Roger Federer, whose ability to play mind-games with his opponents during press conferences is legendary.

For these three Titans of their time are also gentlemen of the highest calibre and devoted family men- Roger Federer is the father of four and appears blissfully happy with his rather rotund wife, Rafa Nadal is unfailingly polite and humble in his press conferences regardless of results and is known for his strong bonds with his extended family, and Novak Djokovic is a new father and appears to have found several new strings in his racquet as a result, leading him to truly crushing dominance of the men's game.

All three are also extraordinary ambassadors for their sport, both on and off the court.

However, just because these concepts apply to human beings, does not give us license to abuse and mishandle them.

The fact is, in the real world, these simple rules and constructs turn out to be... not so simple.

And that's because they're based on flawed, though not necessarily wrong, premises.

The Alpha/Beta hierarchy that Schenkel and Mech came up with only applied to wolf packs in captivity.

It turns out that wolf packs in the wild consist of a family unit made up of a pack leader, his lifelong mate, and their cubs from the last 1-3 seasons. Beta and Omega males- never mind Delta, Gamma, Sigma, or Lambda males- don't exist at all in the wild wolf pack.


the grey alpha
An Alpha male... and a bunch of other guys looking at a wolf
That is not to say that there is no such thing as an Alpha. It's just that the theory doesn't apply particularly well to wolves, or to most wild canines.

It does apply in the case of the great apes, where there is such a thing as an Alpha male who has easy sexual access to multiple females relative to Beta and Gamma males. Yet even here, the divisions are not as neat as one might expect.

What this means for the Red-Piller is that a self-improvement strategy based on an unrealistic, incorrect, and ultimately foolish heuristic explanation of human socio-sexual relations will inevitably lead to failure.

If You Have to Ask...

If you have to ask, you don't want to know

The second thing that newcomers to the Androsphere need to understand is:
If you have to ask whether it's Alpha or not... then IT'S JUST NOT.
The reason I bring this up is related to a subreddit that I read daily- /r/TheRedPill. Now, like any hardcore Androsphere site, this one is full of great information and great stories. It's full of stories about men who have changed their lives through hard work, discipline, mental fortitude, and an unswerving dedication to bettering themselves.

The problem with it, however, is that it's full of newcomers to the 'Sphere who are basically trying to claim their place in the hierarchy of the site and, by extension, the world. And because of this, quite a few users of that site spend altogether too much time posting field reports that contain more jargon BS than a field of cow-pats.

Newcomers don't need to waste their time doing any of this.

It's Simple, Really...


The Androsphere comes down to a few basic concepts:
  • Be strong
  • Be confident
  • Lift weights
  • Understand women
  • Get laid
  • Be independent
  • Be FREE
Notice how I didn't use any jargon there? The rest is essentially just exposition and detail.

The fact is that new entrants into the Manosphere, and plenty of existing ones, who write articles or blog posts and sling terminology around aren't fooling anyone.

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!

The Manosphere exists to help men become the best versions of ourselves that we can possibly be. That is a most admirable and respectable goal. But if we insist on disguising the simple and powerful concepts and ideas that will help our fellow men become strong, independent, and free, then we do them, and ourselves, a huge disservice.

We face a world that is doggedly hostile to the entire concept of masculinity, and which views that concept as something to be feared and destroyed. In reality, masculine strength is the foundation and protection of civilisation as we know it, and any culture that seeks to destroy it is simply not serious about preserving its own existence.

Given that hostility and the challenges that it poses, what, exactly, is the benefit of using endless jargon to frame our arguments?

We in the 'Sphere will succeed when we keep things simple, direct, and on point. Bear that in mind, and hold Manosphere bloggers- like me- to a higher standard when it comes to what we write, and the way we write it.