On the attack on Sunshine Mary

Some boring people are attacking Sunshine Mary in particular and the entire Manosphere in general.

According to Matt Forney, Sunshine Mary said various things about her own life and activities, and the truth is various other things. I am a big fan of Sunshine Mary and yet don’t remember her saying most of those things, and if she did say those things, to find out the truth on those matters would require some seriously obsessive stalking, indeed merely paying attention to her saying those things, supposing she did say them, is stalkerish.

According to Matt Forney, she is not in fact submissive to her husband. Did he camp out in her bedroom and check out their relationship? If he says one thing he cannot know, it is a lie. If one lie, all lies.

But suppose that the things he claims, and could perhaps know, are true, for example he claims she was a slut in college. Supposing all that stuff is true, suppose everything he says is true. If it is true, then he is a stalker. If a stalker, the person stalked is interesting, and the stalker is insane.

Supposing that everything Matt Forney tells us about Sunshine Mary is completely true, what does this tell us about Matt Forney?

It tells us he responds to opinions to which he disagrees by investigating where the children of the person he disagrees with go to school.

64 Responses to “On the attack on Sunshine Mary”

  1. […] used everywhere now). Since then, Mrs. Dishwasher Knives and Spankings has been running around telling everyone that WE EDITED HER COMMENT […]

    • jim says:

      One can edit the one as easily as the other. Someone who titles themselves Sunshine Mary in order to defame the real Sunshine Mary is an unreliable source.

  2. […] also: Jim’s thoughts on Sunshine Mary’s defenestration and on raising fertility, wherein we find a formula upon which it would difficult to […]

  3. […] But I’ve never met any of them. They could all be liars; they could all be saints. I don’t know and you don’t know. Matt’s sum total of evidence is anonymous commentary from anti-Christian, feminist nutjobs and a random obituary. The only particularly damning piece of evidence is SSM’s comment threatening to contact CPS, which SSM says was not written by her. […]

  4. Colour says:

    Never liked Matt Forney, always came across as a poseur to me, irritable and was too young to have serious life experience for the type of advice he was giving.

    Also, editing people’s comments is a great sign that someone is an irredeemable piece of shit. I have no hypothesis to explain this, just the observation that every irredeemable piece of shit does it. See also, John Sc@lzi (also probably true for people who obsessively google their own name.)

  5. […] should be unified, not engaged in infighting. Related. Related. Related: One body. Related: Jim comments on Matt Forney’s. Related: SSM made public a temporary blog on the current issues. Related: Comments defending […]

  6. anonymous says:

    I thought Matt Forney was cool guy for running IMF, that article makes me think he’s a pathetic loser. Posting somebody’s 12 year old daughter on the web..? I mean it would be one thing to do it to a liberal, but, whatever the truth of her IRL life, based on the content of her blog sunshine mary seems to be one of the good guys.

    This did make me think a lot about the temptation for a certain personality type of woman to exploit the alt-right/trad/man sphere for megadoses of adoration/attention.

  7. […] On the attack on Sunshine Mary « Jim’s Blog […]

  8. Dystopia Max says:

    Matt Forney, much like a younger version of Udolpho, is a talented but unprincipled man who has all the patience and perspective of someone who’s never had to take care of his own children, and as a result can never quite seem to calm down long enough to make sure his philosophy is coherent and universally understandable to a general audience. They’re playing at being the parents they never were to what they believe are a bunch of spoiled Internet children, with about as much success as can be expected.

    Crucially, neither have fundamentally repudiated their own previous liberal philosophy, authors, or lifestyle, which tends to make them feel all right with themselves when randomly and viciously attacking conservatives in ways absolutely indistinguishable from the next Cathedralist. No repentance, no remorse, no progress in any useful direction.

    Hence the love of histrionics and the relentless disparaging of nerds, then losers, then joiners, then sincerity, then guilelessness, then the personally focused, then anything that they used to like, because their own failures at shepherding their own little corner of the reactionary movement effectively means that THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT HAS FAILED. No, you just suck at leadership, guidance, and parenting because you’ve never done it yourself and you’re doing it to people whose maturity is unknown and whose connection to you is far more tenuous than a father to his son, or even a sergeant to his platoon (though categorically disparaging the entire military as a bunch of losers is another liberal tic that seems to crop up a lot among them if not immediately corrected.)

    Have nothing to do with them, though do educate their followers as you see them recognize the same corruption in their leaders.

  9. Glenfilthie says:


    Don’t know Mary or Matt all that well…but Danny is a fucktard of biblical proportions. I don’t like him and if he is the best the Man-O-Sphere can produce…we are a sorry lot indeed. For Matt to rag on Danny strikes me as a case of the pot and the kettle.

  10. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Mr. Forney is a talented “troll” and has been garnering for himself a lot of attention. Though he isn’t the complete package, he has been good at sharply criticising Feminist doctrines and that in itself weakens Political Correctness. However, as a consequence of his success, he is seen as more powerful and that attracts female attention; he gets attention despite his un-orthodox methods and despite his down-side which is stained with intense hedonism. Even supposedly Christian women, like “Mary”, are drawn to Mr. Forney’s domain and want his good opinion of them. That is not the right thing to do, and if that is how people, and the women especially, conduct themselves they should be prepared for the consequences of treading on thin ice…

    That “Mary” has quit her blog may ultimately be a good thing for her and for the overall attack against the Politically Correct Cathedral, however, that she won’t be coming back from her Lenten sacrifice of removing comments from her blog surely takes away some of the glory of that sacrifice. That’s definitely less than optimal.


  11. giganticfaggot says:

    Basically, Forney’s claims boil down to

    1.”I suspect she exaggerated her status in life, so she’s lying about everything”

    2.”I have vague reasons to think she’s a domineering slut”

    3.”Lot’s of feminist blogs/sources don’t liker her, and say bad things about her, so she must be bad”

    Except for 1 (which is poorly sourced and not very credible), it’s just nonsense.

    • Leo Fuchs says:

      Forney seems to be saying “one lie, all lies”, you mean.

      That being said, I have zero use for him or SSM, and the whole tedious drama — including SSM’s interminable hysterical babbling in this comment thread — is a good argument for keeping women, as well as Matt Forney, off my reading list.

      • jim says:

        Forney has not produced one lie by Sunshine Mary.

        • Leo Fuchs says:

          He claims to have done so. I haven’t checked his claims. Based on what I’ve seen of SSM, I’d be surprised if she were terribly honest, though I’m sure she considers herself “honest” by whatever standards she finds convenient at any given moment. You’re familiar with women’s relationship with the truth. I’d be prepared to be proven wrong about her, if I actually gave a damn.

          For all of me, they can both pound sand.

          • jim says:

            I have checked out enough of his claims that I am not going to bother checking out any more of them.

            If they were true, would not matter, would still be boring, and they are not true.

  12. JacobV says:

    Whether or not Sunshine Mary lies about her personal life is of no concern to me, the only thing that matters to me as a Reactionary reading her blog is that she writes the right things.

    Of course this should make the boring and effeminate Forney come across as a hypocrite to anyone who knows him, as he’s spreading allegations of a woman he doesn’t know of being a liar and former slut, after going out of his way to defend his friend’s actions after she cheated on her husband and destroyed her marriage because she felt she wasn’t getting laid enough.

    • jim says:

      Clearly a feminist. How did he wind up running Mala Fide?

      • giganticfaggot says:

        Unintentional entryism?

        Forney seems to like writing self-improvement material. He fell into the manosphere subculture, and started sounding like other manosphere writers. But his fundamental beliefs remained feminist. He just rarely discussed them explicitly.

        • jim says:

          Sounds plausible.

        • Bulbasaur says:

          The Catholic stuff he writes provides clues to his psyche. He sees himself as a martyr bravely standing against the decline. Actually he only wants people to see him this way, the person he really is is the thing he postures as hating. Such blatant hypocrisy feeds into his self-loathing. Everything he writes serves to keep him from doing or being anything more than a basement dweller and foreveralone.

  13. Toddy Cat says:

    Forney is a loon. He once claimed that the fact that his father was not allowed to use the internet for personal business at work made the U.S. the moral equal of the USSR. I don’t read SS Mary and have no real interest in any of this, but MF has issues.

  14. red says:

    Matt is and always has been a troll. Why anyone even reads him after the disaster he turned mala fide into is beyound me. Trolls should be ignored and never believed.

    • jim says:

      How did a feminist wind up in charge of Mala Fide

      Matt Forney takes the feminist position that nine out of ten men are not good enough But if nine out of ten women decide that nine out of ten men are not good enough, those nine woman wind up having sex with that one man, which is the major reason why white fertility has fallen below replacement, why fertility of people not on welfare has fallen below replacement. (Wealthy alpha males and people on welfare are reproducing. Unfortunately people on welfare way outnumber wealthy alpha males)

      He is rationalizing hypergamy, and you cannot get more disastrously feminist than that.

  15. screaminjay says:

    I found Sunshine Mary to be among the most thoughtful blogger of what I like to call the Womanosphere. It’s way beyond anything anyone else does in terms of content.

    I can appreciate the uber-nihilism of Heartiste, while still finding Dalrock perfectly sane in his own approach.

    The fusion of reactionaries of various strands shouldn’t be causes for concern. Perpetual dissenters who dissent for the sake of dissenting are tedious people.

  16. Rollory says:

    Having scanned the article, I’ll note one thing that jumped out at me – Forney notes she’s claimed her husband makes 6 figures a year (although I do not see a specific cite for that claim, the rest of what he says is well-sourced enough that I’ll stipulate it for now), and also he provides evidence that they live in Ypsilanti. I’ve been to Ypsilanti recently. Decaying post-Soviet industrial towns in the middle of nowhere in Ukraine (which I have also been to) have better road and infrastructure maintenance and more operating businesses serving the needs of everyday life. Any claims of 6-figure salaries in that area for anyone not employed by the state or federal government are absolute bullcrap.

    As for the rest of it, it does seem Forney has sourced the claims he specifically is making quite thoroughly, which is only reasonable when making claims about a public figure’s dishonesty. If he hadn’t done it you’d be denouncing him as a kook spreading fantasies; since he’s careful, you call him a stalker. This only reflects badly on you, not him.

    • sunshinemary says:

      I have never claimed my husband earned six figures a year nor does Matt provide any links where I have done so. If you have a link where I have claimed this, post it now. Otherwise, you are trolling. (And our income is utterly immaterial, but actually our combined income does sometimes break six figures – though it didn’t in 2013, it did in 2012 – because my husband works a lot of overtime in addition to his base salary, and I work part-time as well. It wouldn’t be a big deal for me to prove that, either, simply by posting my tax returns publicly with our soc numbers and whatnot obscured. But so what? Why this obsession with our income? I never claimed to be rich, so what exactly is your point?)

      Matt’s sources are primarily Free Jinger, a feminist troll blog. This is not “well sourced”. If he has better sources than Free Jinger and an email from Lena S (CL), why doesn’t he provide them? Oh wait, he also used our 12-year-old daughter’s google plus account as a source – yes, that is certainly a source, but whether it is is good to use a child’s forgotten social media account during a disagreement with a fellow blogger is certainly up for debate.

      At Rollo Tomassi’s blog, a commenter who has been around the manosphere longer than I have and who is upfront about not being a fan of mine, went through each one of Matt’s sources and this was his conclusion:

      The Forney article attacking Sunshine Mary is a tutorial on how to stage a baseless attack, while trying to retain plausible deniability, by creating strawmen through unsubstantiated opinions of third parties who have obvious agendas, and then knocking down what never existed.

      I advise readers to look at his entire comment because he investigates every single “source” that Matt uses. And then Rollo agrees with him.

      Is Matt going to accuse Rollo Tomassi of white-knighting for a woman whose blog he doesn’t even agree with? The idea of Rollo white-knighting for any woman is laughable.

    • jim says:

      I don’t think she does claim that, since that would be irrelevant, and she, like me, does not provide irrelevant details about her own life, perhaps in part to protect herself against exactly this kind of attack

    • Alfred says:

      Actually, his claims are being debunked, his sources are being deemed nothing but hearsay, AND he is being called a stalker. You are doing nothing but cherry-picking.

    • jim says:

      Sunshine Mary’s argument is that the biblical sex roles are good for women, because they make for happy marriage and a secure environment for raising children, however, being a sinner, she sometimes unwisely rebels against her husband or gives him unduly harsh fitness tests. This is the standard Christian position “I am sinful and so is everyone, but we should all try to do better.” Only progressives, today’s pharisees, claim sainthood, claim to teach from a position of moral superiority.

      So, if the accusations against her were true, would be irrelevant – an ad hominenem attack that fails to cast any doubt on her argument.

      Sunshine Mary’s alleged sins would be an argument against her position if she was a progressive – but progressives denounce her because she is not a progressive.

      Hence the ad hominem attack on her would be boring and irrelevant, even if it were true. Since she is arguing from the traditional Christian position, where the preacher claims to be a sinner, rather than the progressive pseudo Christian position, where the preacher claims to be a saint, her alleged sins are irrelevant to her argument, thus boring to me.

  17. Rollory says:

    You’re objecting to the form of an attack rather than the substance.

    That right there, without knowing anyting else about the situation, strongly suggests that 1) you’re wrong, 2) the attack is making points worth considering.

    • jim says:

      If one lie, all lies.

      Probability is that substance is all lies. Also, substance is boring. Only a stalker would care where Sunshine Mary lives.

    • jim says:

      I checked two items, both turned out to be lies. Not going to check out all the others.

    • Xenonon says:

      He is objecting to both the form and the substance.

    • RichardP says:

      @Rollory: “You’re objecting to the form of an attack rather than the substance.”

      That is a seriously uniformed assertion. I will assume you are not well-read on this issue.

      When Person A is accused of saying things that were never said, how is it logically to expect Person A to justify having said those things (which is what you are expecting)? It isn’t logical. Person A would be focused on proving that the things were never said to begin with.

      The “form” of the attack is to accuse Person A of saying things they never did say. That is all that can be objected to. There is no “substance” to object to.

      “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Answer yes or no, and support your answer with specific examples. How do you even begin to defend against the “substance” of this question if you have never beat your wife, or maybe don’t even have one. All you can do is object to the question itself.

      So it is with this situation.

  18. sunshinemary says:

    You will notice that Matt provides no source for any alleged “threats” or “attempts” that I’ve made. The reason he provides no source is because I’ve never made any threats (or attempts) against anyone. Ever.

    Matt is using a comment on a feminist parody blog as a source. As I already explained in detail, I left a comment there and the author edited it to make it seem like I said something I didn’t. When I pointed out that this is what happened, Lena S (aka CL – 7Man’s girlfriend) and Laura Grace Robins (lgrobins) said that’s impossible because no one ever edits comments like that.

    Yet in the thread Matt wrote about me , he ADMITS he edited one of his commenter’s comments (they were trying to disagree with him; he changed the comment so that it looked like they agreed with him)! I wouldn’t advise anyone ever to leave comments there; nothing is stopping him from changing your comments just like he changed that one. What if he changes your comment to make it look like you are threatening to call CPS on someone, just like my comment was changed? By his own admission he has no moral qualm with this.

    Anyway, I’ve answered all Matt’s false accusations on my temporary blog, start with the post A sad good-bye. Lena S (CL) and Laura Grace (lgrobins) did an exceptional job of playing him for their own ends, though. And what he is claiming now – that FJ already linked to my daughter’s old google plus comment, is false. He is the first person ever to do that; if FJ had linked to it last summer, I would have deleted the account. But what does it say about him that he thinks feminist attack tactics are a-okay to use against a non-feminist who has never been anything but cordial toward him?

    Even a man I don’t know, who doesn’t read my blog and who is from the pick-up wing of the sphere, examined Matt’s accusations against me and concluded that they are baseless.

    Even Rollo Tomassi, with whom I’ve had strong disagreements, concluded:

    I had some more time to review the ‘evidence’ since I got home and I think maybe Matt’s gone off the deep end.

    Those are men with whom I’ve never exchanged any emails in my life and who are not particularly friendly to me, and they’ve concluded that Matt’s comments are false. It’s pretty obvious to everyone now that he’s just done this to try to stir up emotional hysteria in order to generate traffic to his blog. There was no other reason for him to come after me – I’m not selling anything on my site. I just write essays about social commentary and religion; anyone who doesn’t find what I write interesting can simply not read my site. Problem solved. There was no need for this vicious attack on me. There was definitely no need to pull my children into it.

    • jim says:

      It’s pretty obvious to everyone now that he’s just done this to try to stir up emotional hysteria in order to generate traffic to his blog.

      You give him too much credit. I think he is just crazy. Internet stalker, stalking a moderately famous internet woman, involved in his own mind with internet women, obvious craziness. Plus in his blog article he describes his own emotional state, which sounds pretty cracked. If someone blogs about their inner landscape, their inner landscape usually has demons in it – and his sounds to have demons in it.

      • Hmmm says:

        The ‘Sunshine Gary” blog has posted an inbox screenshot of SSM’s CPS comment, the one that she claims was edited, and is offering to forward the original comment notification to people to prove it wasn’t edited:


        • jim says:

          One can edit the original comment notification as easily as a comment.

          Plus, they call themselves Sunshine Mary, not Sunshine Gary – hence are known liars.

          • Hmmm says:

            You can’t edit a comment notification email, no. It comes from another person. Not sure what your second paragraph means: one is a wordpress URL, one is the blog title, and obviously both are pseudonyms.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Of course you can edit a comment notification email.

            There’s not a hash of the content with someone else’s private key attached to the original is there?

  19. Kathy says:

    Sunshine, Matt Forney is only involved in this because he has been manipulated by a woman. Too easy. He’s young and while smart very silly and immature.
    He is quite happy to engage in unethical behaviour himself, and sees no problem with it. Doctoring comments and doxing. So comes over as extremely self righteous and hypocritical.

    I believe, you can boil this all down to one thing. Jealousy.

    People like you, Sunshine. Men and women. You get a helluva lot of blog traffic. Unlike some women who have been slogging it out for years. And they just can’t understand it!

    You are pleasant, engaging and intelligent. Not rude. Genuinely interested in people.. You don’t antagonize or rub people up the wrong way. Don’t resort to vile language or nasty personal attacks to get your message across.

    These other female bloggers while intelligent are mostly boring and banal and don’t have a real interest to interact with other commenters. Too busy peddling their own agenda’s. Above all, they lack a sense of humour, are too intense and take themselves too seriously.

    Your only crime was to be liked.. You had a blog. One of millions.. You had opinions.

    They dislike you for who you are, not what you say..

    It’s sad and pathetic.

    Forney has no credibility.

    His latest rant, is rather telling.( Bit like a cornered rat.)

    ” Don’t give me some Pharisaical “oh, it wasn’t really a threat” nonsense; the fact that she would even think of doing something like that shows what kind of person she is. If Sunshine were a liar, that would be one thing: it’s the fact that she’s a liar and has threatened to harm her critics that makes her dangerous.”

    What a load of bollocks! You! Dangerous?
    That’s it? That’s the best he can come up with? All this nonsense just to tell everyone that they should beware of the Speechy and her hubby nurse! They wield great power????

    Spare me!

    George Bernard Shaw was right.

    “Youth is wasted on the young! “

  20. sunshinemary says:

    I should add that Matt Forney and the gossipy, highly emotional men who follow him don’t represent the whole of the manosphere. Men like Dalrock and Free Northerner are worth reading and are not “trolling the manosphere for fun and profit,” as Matt admits to doing.

    • jim says:

      You are reporting female nature as it so obviously is, both much more submissive than male nature, and, paradoxically, also at the same time more rebellious and recalcitrant than male nature. Lots of people don’t want to hear this, for the same reasons as they did not want to hear Chagnon on human nature, though I doubt you will get any criticism from Heartiste. I don’t think it is so much the libertine side of the manosphere that objects, as the progressive side of the manosphere that objects.

      It is original sin that people don’t want to hear about, whether originating from Adam and Eve, or from risen killer apes. “No”, they say, “we are not sinful, only Sunshine Mary”.

    • Leo Fuchs says:

      Well, that’s mighty white of you. Thanks for adding that. You really had me on the edge of my seat there for a bit

  21. sunshinemary says:

    This has been an eye-opening experience.

    There is very little in Matt Forney’s post about me that is accurate, but yes, he does link to an old, forgotten goggle plus page of our then-12-year-old daughter. Think about that; he widely linked the social media account of a little kid and invited all these men from the sphere to go have a look at her and her sisters simply because he’s taken a dislike to me at Laura Grace Robins’ (lgrobins, from Unmasking Feminism) behest. If he will do it to me, he will do it to you. Is this the kind of person those of us on the traditional right want as an ally?

    Despite what Matt wrote, I am not and have never been “part” of the manosphere; the reason people associate me with it is because I participated in a number of conversations on Dalrock’s blog. A handful of people who are “part” of the Christian manosphere (if there is such a thing) became familiar with me through Dalrock’s site and we would link to each other’s blogs and comment on each other’s essays. It’s not like I’ve been spending time hanging out in the Roosh V forums…but people in the Roosh V forums have linked on several occasions to my essays. What am I supposed to do about that? It’s not like I sent them an invitation to read my site.

    So despite Forney’s claims, I’m not part of the manosphere that he is supposedly leaving.

    This didn’t stop the entire bottom rung of manosphere blogs from trying to capitalize on the situation in order to generate blog hits for themselves; there have been half a dozen essays from these alleged high-value alpha males, each one starting out with some version of “I’ve never heard of Sunshine Mary or ever read her blog before but…” and then going on to call me a slut, a whore, a bitch, a cunt, an entryist (despite three years of commenting and blogging in the Christian trad sphere), ugly, a liar, a fraud.

    But who is the fraud – the woman who claims to be (and is) a middle aged Christian traditionalist and who writes anti-feminist essays for women and who is selling nothing on her blog?

    Or the men who won’t let the fact that (by their own admission) they know nothing about a situation stop them from babbling on extensively about it, and then reminding people to buy their books on how to bang 25 sluts in 10 days, which they are selling on their blogs?

    I wasn’t too sure about Michael Anissimov’s comments about the manosphere, but now I realize that he had these guys’ number.

  22. Marcel Popescu says:

    Jim, I like you and I agree with many of your opinions, but you do associate with the weirdest people. Vox Day thinks that “Americans are too stupid to compete” is a valid argument against the free market; Tom Kratman cannot wait to tell everyone how he would love to burn down villages full of people. (Yes, lefties are at least bad, as you’ve shown – and I agree; but socialists on the right side of the scale annoy me more.)

    • jim says:

      Vox Day criticizes free trade on the grounds that it undermines national identity, national cohesion, and national sovereignty. Whether he is right or wrong, and whether we care about these things when the Cathedral is in charge, that is not an argument as stupid as “Americans are too stupid to compete”.

      Kratman’s views on how to fight war have proven correct by the outcome of our efforts to win wars by sending in heavily armed nursemaids and social workers. If to win, we have to fight the war in Afghanistan and Iraq Kratman’s way, perhaps we should not fight them. But it is clear that to win, we do have to fight them Kratman’s way.

      • Marcel Popescu says:

        Is there any point in me finding out the article where he said pretty much that (free trade is bad because Americans are usually uneducated and can’t compete with the whole world)? Yes, I do believe “my tribe is better” is wrong (I remember reading about someone who said weirdoes started ten miles from his home), but that wasn’t what I was talking about.

        And yes, if you don’t automatically go from “the only way to win this war is to burn civilians” to “so we shouldn’t fight this war” then that’s a problem.

        • jim says:

          If Vox Day said “pretty much that”, rather than actually saying that …

          Sometimes you have to fight wars. Given that, realistically, you have to fight them Kratman’s way, one should avoid fighting wars as much as possible. But sometimes you have to fight wars.

          • Toddy Cat says:

            Neither Vox Day nor Tom Kratman have said either one of these things. If you reduce statements that are anti-free trade or that argue in favor of less restrictive rules of engagement in warfare to “Americans are too stupid to compete” and “Burn women and children” you are deliberately creating strawmen. Typical libertarian BS.

        • Leo Fuchs says:

          “My tribe is better” != “I prefer my tribe.”

          Should people provide for their own children, or for the smartest and most accomplished children in their city? If i provide for my own children first, am I claiming that they’re “better than” other kids? No. They’re MY kids.

          If I fix my rain gutters instead of my neighbor’s rain gutters, is that an assertion that my house is in some cosmic sense “better” than his?

          • Marcel Popescu says:

            “If i provide for my own children first, am I claiming that they’re “better than” other kids? No. They’re MY kids.”

            I cannot disagree with this – in fact, I absolutely, one hundred percent agree with it. (You know that thought experiment where on the one hand five people in a wagon are going to die, but if you press a button they switch to a different track and kill someone else – but they live? If that someone else is my daughter, tough luck for the five.)

            Having said that, I have yet to encounter an instance where someone saying things like “national identity, national cohesion, and national sovereignty” means anything but “my tribe is better than any other”. I grew up in a communist country – I get a visceral reaction when I hear anything like that.

            In any case – I took too much time too argue that “someone is wrong on the internet” 🙂 While I can understand Jim’s position that “to win, we do have to fight them Kratman’s way” (though I posit that people like him are the only reason we have to fight those wars), once we get to “neither Vox Day nor Tom Kratman have said either one of these things” there’s no point in continuing.

            Thanks for your time.

            • jim says:

              Having said that, I have yet to encounter an instance where someone saying things like “national identity, national cohesion, and national sovereignty” means anything but “my tribe is better than any other”.

              “Let’s kill all the haters. Let’s burn the haters alive. Let’s sexually mutilate their children by impaling them with large objects”

              You are nuts, full of hate, and, like Matt Forney, possessed by your personal demons.

              Which is why the Cathedral is having Tutsi women in the Congo murdered by sexual impalement with large objects. It worries that Tutsis are haters.

    • Tom Kratman says:

      I don’t suppose you could cite to somewhere where I said “I would love to burn down villages full of people,” could you? You’d really better, since your integrity – if that means anything to you – is on the line if you can’t.

  23. reakcionar says:

    Quote from the article by Matt Forney:
    “I was sitting in a brunch joint in downtown Buffalo, waiting for the waitress to bring me my orange juice, when I came across Danger & Play’s article on quitting the ‘sphere. Like an empty car ambling forward on drive, I slowly grew angrier, my left hand balling into a fist under the table.”

    I don’t know who Matt Forney is, and as far as I can remember, I never read anything he wrote. These few sentences are enough for me to see him as an effeminate self obsessed pussy who believes his deep feeling of anger is a valid argument.

  24. peppermint says:

    For today’s college women, pregnancy is absolutely precluded, and “having sex” is more casual and less of a declaration of intention to have sex later than kissing once was.

    In the past, would a woman who kissed too many men be considered a slut? I’m thinking yes.

Leave a Reply