Resist Trump with Porn

Oh dear! It appears we have another deranged feminist plaguing us with her stupidity and ugliness. Apparently, the best way to resist Trump  and honor your puritan ancestor is by creating porn. Yes, you read that correctly.

Rebecca Goyette is a contemporary multimedia artist and Rebecca Nurse’s great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great granddaughter. Goyette, haunted by the horrific tale of her ancestor’s death, has long dreamed of making an artwork in her honor. Her summer exhibition at Freight and Volume marks the realization of said dream. Of course, as those familiar with Goyette’s radical feminist practice might have anticipated, this will be no orthodox tribute. Rather, to honor her martyred ancestor, Goyette made a pornography. Two, actually.

I find it hilarious that this woman is going to honor her ancestor by doing something that would have horrified said ancestor. Do you really think that a Puritan woman who lived in a strict Christian community 400 years ago would feel honored by porn?

And, unfortunately for us, this isn’t your garden variety porn. Here is what goes on in the porn flick directed at Donald Trump:

‘I wanted to do a complete domination of Trump, where everything he’s said about women I could throw back at him,” Goyette said. She ties him up, squirts breast milk on him, and cuts off his penis with garden shears. She gives herself an abortion and makes Trump lick the baby’

That is some sick stuff. What is with feminists? Why do they seem to revel in this sort of deviancy? Do these feminists have a mental defect that prevents them from creating anything beautiful? If this is considered honoring your ancestor, Goyette would have been better off pissing on her ancestor’s grave.

11 Red Flags When Looking for a Christian Wife

There are tons of articles out there telling Christian women what red flags to look for when searching for a good, Christian husband. However, there doesn’t seem to be as many articles telling Christian men what red flags to watch out for. My wife noticed this and began talking about it with me. From our conversation we came up with 11 red flags Christian men need to look out for when searching for a good, Christian wife*.


If you hear from anyone that your girlfriend or prospective wife is “used to getting her way”, stay away. That is a very polite and positive spin on the fact that she will not submit to you. Such a woman will refuse to listen to you and accept you as the leader of the household. This will be a constant source of friction and headaches that has little possibility of being overcome. Even if overcome, it will likely not be worth the effort.Better to prevent the headaches and stay away from such a woman.


Generally, it is better to go for a woman who has no political views or isn’t interested in politics. However, rabidly leftist woman will corrode your marriage faster than you can say, “Make me a sandwich”. The more to the left a woman is, the more likely she will be to refuse to obey biblical commands. As a Christian man, your marriage will be fraught with problems because she will very likely endorse explicitly anti-Christian views and beliefs. No woman can serve two masters. She can either love the Leftism and hate Christ or love Christ and hate Leftism. She cannot do both. So if you place any importance on your Christian identity, do not approach this kind of woman for marriage.


There are many women, especially Christian women, who may not harbor leftist beliefs but still claim to be feminists. I’ll be blunt, a Christian feminist is a walking oxymoron. You cannot be a Christian while claiming to be feminist. Sorry, not my rules. As such, any woman who claims to be feminist should be off limits. Feminists will cause all sorts of problems in marriage from refusing to recognize her husband as leader to denying biblical authority to refusing to have kids and even outright supporting abortion. Stay far away from any woman claiming to be feminist.


Today it is misogynistic hate speech to even imply that women are made to have children. But that is reality. The desire to have children is built into a woman’s biology just as the desire to have copious amounts of sex is built into the man’s. A woman who refuses to have children and hates the idea of being a homemaker is rebelling against her own biology. Such a women (unless she is committed to living a celibate life) genuinely has something wrong with her or is thoroughly brainwashed by the surrounding culture. Neither situation provides a good forecast for your marriage should you decide to put a ring on it.


Looks are extremely important for men. That shouldn’t be controversial. However, our culture (and many Christians) teach women they should be loved for who they are. That is usually code for “forget about your looks; a man who can’t look past your physical appearance isn’t worthy of you”. Now, I’m not saying only models are worthy of marriage. Unless you are extremely good-looking yourself, you will not marriage a model. However, A woman who is marriage material will try to look good for her husband and  will generally enjoy looking and acting feminine. A woman who does not care about these things is usually guilty of the less talked about sins like gluttony and sloth. Furthermore, these women become very unattractive as they age and then they wonder why their husband had an affair or looked at porn. Make sure the woman you marry genuinely intends to meet your needs just as you intend to meet hers.


The Romance genre, as a whole, is basically porn for women. This is a huge problem that is largely ignored by Christian leaders, the same leaders who love to take a dump on Christian men for their porn habits. There is no meaningful difference between most romance novels/movies and porn. Therefore, just as habitual porn use is a red flag when looking for a Christian husband, the consumption of romance books/movies is a red flag when searching for a Christian wife.


Feminism indoctrinates women into believing that life only has meaning if they have a career**. This belief has practically destroyed normal family formation.Let me explain. A woman is at her biological peak between the ages of 18-25 (in terms of health and fertility). A woman who prioritizes her career does not have time for anything else and will likely have to put off having children until she is “ready for children” and “established in her career”. As such, a woman pursuing a career wastes her child-bearing years pursuing degrees and high salaries. This causes all sorts of problems for family formation. A woman who has children later in life is not as fertile and will likely have to spend money undergoing expensive fertility treatments. Her children will be more likely to suffer health problems, disorders and chromosomal damage. She will also be more prone to complications and health problems as a result of the pregnancy in addition to having less energy to keep up with her children. Finally, older mothers tend to treat their kids like grandchildren, i.e. spoil them. As a Christian man who wants to start a family, a career woman is a non-starter. If you value your marriage, your future wife’s health and the health of your future kids, marry someone who is willing to sacrifice a career in order to have children at her biological peak and care for them.


This might sound unfair but reality does not care about fairness. Children of broken and/or bad marriages have a much greater chance of divorce or having bad marriages themselves. This is simply a fact that cannot be overlooked. Search google for the studies if you have any doubt. Getting married in the U.S. is now extremely risky due to a culture that promotes divorce and a court system that will bend over backward for the wife while destroying the husband’s life. Christian marriages rarely fare any better  in this climate. Now, given the already risky climate, why would you increase your chances of divorce by marrying someone who came from a bad/broken marriage.


Now despite what certain Christian leaders might tell you, marrying those single mothers is not a moral imperative. In fact, if your prospective spouse is a single mom, that is a huge red flag. A single mom has many counts against her. She fornicated, had a child out of wedlock and failed to provide her child with a father. These actions should alert you to the kind of woman she is. As such, stay away because an alpha widow never forgets. Now, of course there are exceptions. This single mom could be a widow or could have been raped. In these situations, you might be forgiven for overlooking her status.


If you care even the slightest about your own well-being and/or the well-being of your future kids, STAY AWAY from any women who has had sex with multiple men. I would include party girls  here because any woman who used to party has very likely been with multiple men in the past. The number of sexual partners strongly and negatively affects the chances of a successful marriage.  Even one man is enough. There is no shortage of studies that prove this. Look them up if you doubt me. This is true even of  Christian women who claim to have found Jesus and have changed. While we are obligated to forgive these women just as Christ forgave them if they truly repent, you are not obligated to marry them. The consequences of their behavior likely still linger. You will never let a man who has molested little girls in the past be around your daughter no matter how much he may claim to have changed. In the same way, refuse to marry any woman who has had prior sexual partners because, and I’ll say it again, an alpha widow never forgets. If you ignore this red flag, you are gambling with your future.


You should never consider marrying a woman who has a habit of disrespecting you, especially in public. Such a situation is not only a red flag for marriage but also a red flag that your relationship at present is not going well. A woman will disrespect you for two reasons: either you aren’t worthy of respect or she’s just a rebellious woman. Either reason should be enough to discourage you from marrying her. However, if you fancy becoming a cuckold, then, by all means, continue with the relationship.

*Disclaimer: This post will rustle some feathers. That’s fine as it really doesn’t bother me. I care about reality and if me pointing out reality for you upsets you, then deal with it. And again, remember these are general rules. Any exceptions you can think of are likely to be exceptions that prove the rule. Finally, it is possible to find women that are so stellar in certain areas that overlooking a red flag or two might be ok.. However, remember that most problems in a woman are are interrelated. A woman who is left-wing is unlikely to want children at a young age and will prioritize her career. So if you see one red flag, be sure you aren’t overlooking others.

**G.K. Chesterton once said that feminism “is mixed up with the muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employer but slaves when they help their husbands”.

Meet the New Gods

How much better and more honourable would it be to have a temple to Plato where his books were read, rather than to have temples to demons where Galli are mutilated, eunuchs are consecrated, madmen gash themselves, and every other kind of cruelty or perversion — pervertedly cruel or cruelly perverted — is regularly practiced in the rites of such gods as these.

-St. Augustine (City of God)

It should surprise no one that the Left worships worships progress. After all, progress is the king of the gods for the leftist. Why must we confuse children about gender and allow two men to adopt kids? Because Progress demands it; no other justification is required. This belief expressed itself most visibly through Justin Trudeau, Canada’s Prime Minister. When asked why gender equality was so important to him in choosing his cabinet, Trudeau responded with “Because it’s 2015”. Progress marches on and must continue to march on because it’s the current year.

Yet, in spite of all these talk of progress, it seems we haven’t really progressed much at all. Above, we see St. Augustine describing with great disgust the rites of the Galli, Roman eunuch priests of the god Cybele. In religious rites dedicated to Cybele, the Galli practiced all manner of perversions including castration, self-mutilation and cross-dressing. The Modern progressive pats himself on the shoulder as he thumbs his nose at the customs and superstitions of ancient barbarians, “We’re no longer like those savages… We’ve progressed”. Have we really?

As much as they would hate to admit it, the modern progressive is no different from those “ancient savages”. Just as the Galli castrated themselves to appease Cybele, so too do progressives encourage males and females to destroy their genitalia to appease their god, Transgenderism. Just as the ancient Canaanites sacrificed their children to Baal and Moloch, so too do progressives slaughter their young in the name of “Reproductive Justice” and “Women’s Rights”. Meet the new gods, same as the old ones. The only difference is the name.

As the good book says, “There is nothing new under the sun“.


Mohawk Girl

Back in community college, I had to read a book called Female Chauvinist Pigs for an English class. The book itself is pure feminist drivel trying to make a point using titillating subject matter. The professor who assigned me the book, a die hard feminist, said that even if we do not agree with the author, then at least we would be able to enjoy the book as smut. I bring this up because something happened a couple weeks ago that reminded me of the book after completely forgetting about it for years. What happened wasn’t exactly exciting or major, just a small interaction with a passenger while doing Lyft (Lyft is basically an Uber competitor for those who don’t know).

It was the Friday before Halloween and I’m told that this is a big holiday in San Francisco. Personally, I don’t get out to the city much as I don’t really have the stomach for it. That Friday was supposed to bring decent business and I didn’t mind driving people around for some extra cash. I remember it being somewhat early in the evening, the time when the city was preparing to party the night away.I spent an hour driving people to parties and bars and around 8, two young women came in.

One of the ladies had that mohawk-like hairstyle that only other girls seem to compliment; it really doesn’t flatter women at all.  If I remember correctly, it looked something like this:


Sorry ladies, but this is not attractive.

Given the hair and a few other small tics, I assumed Mohawk Girl and her friend to be lesbians. This was proven as both women settled into their ride and told me they were going to a huge lesbian party after I had asked them of their plans. Mohawk Girl asked if she could play her music and I obliged. Surprisingly, I enjoyed the music Mohawk Girl put on and thought the ride would be business as usual.

A few minutes into the ride, Mohawk Girl’s phone rang. She picked up and began chatting. I had no intention of eavesdropping as I was trying to navigate San Francisco’s horrendous traffic. Out of courtesy though, I turned down the music in order to facilitate Mohawk Girl’s conversation. Mohawk Girl also had a loud voice, so I think I would have overheard her conversation regardless.

At first, the topic concerned the caller’s personal issues, something I couldn’t care less about. But eventually the conversation turned to the night’s upcoming festivities and Mohawk Girl began to explain to her female caller that she wasn’t interested in picking up chicks that evening. She had apparently just come out of a relationship and had no interest in starting up a new one, but she was open to some action with any girl that showed interest so long as no commitment or effort was required.

Now, the conversation itself isn’t that important; it was the word choice and Mohawk Girl’s demeanor throughout the conversation that piqued my interest. I can’t really convey the flavor of her language as I don’t really remember the details. But the slang, word choice and cuss words made Mohawk Girl sound like the stereotypical bad boy who pumps and dumps women. You know who I’m talking about. The guy who brags about all the girls he sleeps with, the guy girls complain about but can’t seem to get enough of, the guy whose sexual escapades would make a pastor faint, the guy who exploits women and the guy who women are happy to have been exploited by. Basically, Mohawk Girl was every feminist’s nightmare in female form.  I thought it was funny and wondered what the feminist harpies would say about this because Mohawk Girl was at the top of the “oppressed people” pyramid; she was female, lesbian and Asian.

However, what struck me the most was just how artificial Mohawk Girl’s behavior felt. While she seemed to ape the characteristics of the cliche bad boy, she did it in such an exaggerated fashion that I still question the authenticity of it all. I really do wonder how much this masculine demeanor was real and how much of it was an act.It was this thought that reminded me of the book, Female Chauvinist Pigs.

The author of the book, Ariel Levy, writes about the ways modern females compete with, objectify and encourage each other to be sex toys for men; hence the term female chauvinist pigs. In the early chapters, Levy goes into detail describing the sexual antics of modern teenage girls, antics that should shock any parent. However, the chapter that stuck with me the most was the one discussing lesbian relationships and how lesbians treated each other. The author herself was dismayed as she recounted anecdotes of lesbians exploiting each other, abandoning their lovers and demeaning their girlfriends in ways that even our cliche bad boy would balk at.

Now I’m not here to discuss why women are like this. Others have done a far better job of explaining these sorts of things. I just wonder at the exaggerated antics of women who act like men and vice versa. See, the behavior of Mohawk Girl is a total exaggeration of what she must have been told about men. After all,  lesbians like Mohawk Girl are not male. They do not live in a man’s body nor think the way men do. It seems to me that these women act this way because this is what they’ve absorbed from the feminist propaganda. They believe that men act and think in this exaggerated manner because it’s what they’ve been told. Honestly, I’d find this funny if it wasn’t so sad and pathetic.

The surrounding culture may shout that gender is a social construct until it is blue in the face but reality cannot be ignored. Gender is rooted in biology. A female cannot be male no matter how much she apes the surface characteristics of males. This is, of course, precisely why Mohawk Girl and figures like Blair White do not feel authentic. They are, at best, acting like caricatures of the opposite gender; they will never be the opposite gender no matter how much they desire it.

Did Donald Trump’s Victory Shock You?

Let me ask you a question. Were you at all shocked that the God-Emperor ascended his throne Donald Trump won the US election? When I say shocked, I don’t mean horrified. I also don’t mean scared and I don’t mean disgusted. What I mean is that you couldn’t believe he won because you really thought he would lose. You don’t have to hate Trump to have been shocked; you could have voted for him believing there is no chance he would win.

If you were shocked, I want you to think for a second. Why did you believe he had no chance?  I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that you watched/read mainstream news sources (i.e. CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, etc). See, these news sources  gave Donald Trump absolutely no chance of winning even the nomination of the GOP, much less the general election. In fact, the few people who believed Trump would win the election were laughed at; Trump campaign was considered a complete joke.


Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination against all odds should have proven that he is a force to be reckoned with. Naturally the mainstream news media didn’t seem to learn anything from this. Then continued to double down on Trump losing. Just two days before the election the LA Times, among others, projected strongly for Hillary Clinton. They predicted that Hillary would win with 353 electoral votes against Donald Trumps 186. Turns out they were wrong, very wrong. Not only did Trump win with almost 300 electoral votes, but many states predicted to blue went to Trump by a wide margin: Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, etc.

I bring all this up for a reason. See, you were shocked that Trump won because the mainstream news media told you that Hillary would trounce Trump. Polls conducted by these news sources had Clinton firmly ahead for practically the entire election cycle. Now, there were news sources, bloggers and authors who predicted that Trump would win from the very beginning, but these guys were seemingly small fries compared to massive news stations like CNN and Fox News; they were “nobodies”. Vox Day and Mike Cernovich, both influential bloggers and successful authors in their own right, predicted a Trump victory months ago. Mike Cernovich, in particular, went further and released a book analyzing Trump’s successful candidacy almost a month before the election. The guy was that sure Trump would win. So clearly, there were some who predicted the Trump victory and their readers, myself included, were not all that surprised when Trump actually won. Those that received their news from mainstream sources were the shocked ones.

There are two reasons that could explain why mainstream news sources were wrong: 1) they were lying to you and 2)they were incompetent. Now it doesn’t matter which reason is true; both should disqualify these news sources as anything worthy of your time. They failed big time and their credibility is now suspect. This is not a matter of liberal news media vs conservative news media. Fox News also got it wrong and refused to take Donald Trump seriously as well. If anything, this election shows how trustworthy the American news media is. I suggest you do yourself a favor and find yourself other news outlets to explore. Let these mainstream news sources burn to the ground.

Thoughts on Religious Freedom

Religious freedom is Under Attack

This is the rallying cry of conservative Christians in America. Religious freedom is the bedrock upon which our society is built. The Founding Fathers believed in the importance of religious freedom and the original Puritan settlers escaped the tyranny of England in the name of religious freedom. Because of this, the government cannot clamp down on religion and must promote religious freedom…

…Or so the story goes. In spite of it all, little incongruities seem the lurk just beneath the surface. There are things that, when really thought about, just don’t line up as nicely as we would want. Let’s do a bit of thinking.

Religious freedom is a moral good; at least, that’s what the average Christian conservative assumes. This is simply accepted without question or thought. But what exactly is this moral good we call religious freedom? Well, it would seem that religious freedom means exactly that. The individual has the right to believe whatever religion they feel is worthy of belief. In addition, the individual can take whatever bits and pieces they find palatable from any combination of religions or even refuse to believe in any religion. In order to preserve this right to religious freedom, the state cannot dictate to the people what religion they can or can’t convert to. In addition, people should be free to proselytize and attempt to convert others to their religion. There should be a free market, so to speak, when it comes to religion and each belief system should sink or swim based how it can attract adherents. So far, I don’t think any of this is blasphemous; these are simply the assumptions that lurk subconsciously within Americans.

Given the above description of religious freedom, let’s now look at this from a Christian perspective. The Christian believes that all religions other than Christianity are false. Other religions may contain grains of truth, but they all lead to damnation in the end. Yes, I know there are liberal Christians who dispute this, but we’ll ignore those heretics for now. I am, after all, talking to conservative Christians.Now, assuming Christianity is the only way to paradise and salvation, why wouldn’t you want your community and nation to endorse, support and establish Christianity as a state religion? Why not unite the Christianity and the state in this way in order to forbid the spreading and proselytizing of false religions?

The response I anticipate is that such a thing will lead to forced conversions. But it need not. We are merely talking about the legitimization of Christianity as the national religion and the clamping down on the proselytizing of false religions. Religions minorities will not be hunted down and killed; they will be left alone so long as they keep their religion private and refrain from any attempts to convert Christians. Defiance of such laws will lead to fines, imprisonment, exile and (in the most severe of cases) death. If you are a conservative Christian (not to mention an average American), then I’m sure I’ve horrified you with my suggestions. It would seem that my suggestions would destroy religious liberty and establish religious tyranny. Such a reaction, however, betrays your priorities.

Again, if Christianity is the only way to God and paradise, then why would you allow false religions to proselytize and potentially cause Christians to apostatize? “But what about liberty and freedom?” says the American Christian. Well, what about them? Isn’t the salvation of human souls far more important than nebulous principles like liberty and freedom? It seems to me that the significance of liberty and freedom pales in comparison to the eternal destiny of souls. Let me illustrate this for you in a simpler manner. Suppose you have your local church or parish. Now imagine that your pastor, priest or whatever allows believers of other religions to come in and attempt to convert the flock because religious freedom. Sound bizarre? Well why should the sentiment change when on a national scale?

The funny thing is that the god-hating atheist is more rational here. See, the god-hating atheist believes that all religions (especially Christianity) are false and destructive to humanity. If you believe such a thing, then it would be logical to do away with religion and clamp down on religious freedom. After all, why would you want such a destructive force running around, wrecking havoc in your nation?


As a Christian, you believe that apostasy will lead to damnation. So why would you allow the potential for apostasy into your community in the name of religious freedom? Are you not prioritizing religious freedom at the expense of human souls?


Trump in Stride

A blogger that I follow, one William Scott, has a post where he uses Trump’s Gettysburg speech to launch into something that should be very interesting for those traditionally minded — agriculture. I thought about summarizing it, but there is no way I could to justice to what William Scott writes. Instead I will borrow a portion of that post and direct you to the whole thing. If you believe yourself to be conservative or traditionally-minded, I highly recommend you read the rest of the post.

There are two important implications in Trump’s medium range economic projection. One, as said, this is the essence of conservatism; slow careful change keeping the core of social norms and relationships intact. Of course we are in a time of extreme social decline and so we need intentional repair. It is difficult to ignore that some sort of reform is inevitable. But as reactionaries, traditionalists and conservatives we know these are restorative and not revolutionary. We in the Reactosphere live in many ironies. That we are NeoRactionaries or we envision Archeofuturism or dabble in Antiquated Innovations Is irony enough. Madness to Progs. But further we want to make social changes that will ultimately limit change. The Left decry this as stifling. Yet they has no proof that constant overthrow will lead to anything but more overthrow. This instability is nothing to base peaceful productive community on. So the limit of change in conservatism is not an end in itself, but the natural result of political, social and economic organization that fits a particular ethnic community.

We should not think there are only one or a few organizing principles that can achieve this health in community, but neither should we think they are infinite. We currently live under a system that is driven by the abstract unfounded notion of egalitarianism, along with some of its ugly cousins. So clearly we are capable of organizing ourselves on folly to the extreme. There are many long range goals that we are not even able to discuss in our current-year national conversations. Many of these are areas that both Left and Right bemoan the corrupt and myopic vision of megacorp capitalism. Corruption may be the wrong word. International corporations are just doing what they must. The more general problem is a (((disconnected elite))).

Our agriculture needs a long range reform effort. Farming should be done by people who have claim to the land they farm. They should love the land and the hard work they act on it to produce food and goods. Food should be produced regionally—locally as much as possible. Foods that cannot be grown in a region should be expensive luxuries. Like from when tea and oranges came all the way from china. The economic paradox of free expansion and consolidation needs to be resisted. It is a natural process of sorts, but one that ultimately is against nature, destroying the very communities that created it. When abstract (((financial))) concerns are included and the farmer is made a debt slave to endless innovations that do not arise from his own practice, the degradation of agriculture is complete.

I don’t know if Trump has an Agricultural reform plan. He should. Nothing could be more basic in making a nation great than a healthy relationship with the land. This is a shared concern of both the Organic Left and New Right. Imagine how a program, over slow conservative time, organizing farming around small and medium scale regional production would bring the better of our Leftist co-whites aboard the Trump train.  And we need to admit there are a lot of very hard working and innovative small scale organic farmers who though, because of a pernicious hippie meme, are mostly socially liberal. There are many young men and women who would love to get into large scale gardening and agriculture but due to parasitic speculation driving land prices up, will never be able to afford to. These latter turn their hearts to Marxist daydreaming of collectivism. And so adopt the resentment and loose behaviour that can’t produce the personal character that farming requires. They reject tradition because they see conservatives supporting megacorp food production. And this acquiescence to Big Ag is probably true of many who call themselves ‘Conservative’, but who really mean to say they are neo liberal. Yet these organic farmers are conservative at core. They intend to conserve land, to develop it slowly, to work hard, and to make a bit of money at it too. They take time to build soil rather than simply using drug-like nutritive products and chemicals on depleted earth. They have a religious dedication to their vocation, and in this case, this is a very good thing. They are not necessarily devoted to a lot of Marxist gobbly  goop, they are devoted to producing abundant healthy food.

Source: Trump in Stride