…to punish father.

Crazy woman from the Houston (TX/US) area murders her daughters, to punish their father. The murders occurred on his birthday, on the run-up to wedding preparations for the oldest girl. The husband was not shot in a calculated ploy to make him suffer survivor’s guilt. Cunt was still waving her pistol around as the police arrived, and some poor cop was forced to ice her, saving the people of Harris County the cost of a trial.

Fortunately, facebook left the miserable old cunt’s web page up, so that the brothers can see what kind of woman they’re ending up with when wedding a “southern belle”.

High angle glamour selfies, dumb jokes, and vacuous product placement for south-themed transnational corporations. This will be the woman you’re shackled with, twenty years hence. Don’t you guys want to get married? Yeah, me too!

Case of beer for the cop on the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Department force who took out the trash, payable on demand.

NOTE: Despite our obvious disagreements on a number of important issues, I really like Toad. He exemplifies what my average polygamous cousin would be like, if he took a shower, got off welfare, and went to get a Ph.D. or a law degree. My criticism of his positions should not be read as an attempt to belittle him. He’s a smart guy who has the ability to teach us all how to argue more succinctly. Of those who have been given much, much is expected.

NOTE: See part one here.

In a number of recent articles, Artisanal Toad (visit his blog here) has argued the incompleteness of the New Testament. He graciously expounded when I asked for details and I believe that I understand his position. I argue here that while Toad’s interpretation is reasonable, it throws up an important contradiction.

Like my polygamous cousins, Toad begins our conversation by noting that he has the one true way, and that I don’t. As such, I will never be able to fully understand his arguments.

One of the central problems we bang up against in these discussions is that you are not a Christian, you are a natural man who does not have the Spirit of God. That, by your own admission, so unless something has changed I believe that to be correct. That is a fatal issue with respect to this discussion…

(source)

In previous conversations, Toad has made it clear that he does not expect other men to live as he does, but he also makes clear that by “Christian” he does not mean participating in the traditional sacraments of Christianity.

Given that I don’t subscribe to the teachings of the magical book of medieval opinions (otherwise known as the teachings and traditions of the church), the idea that you would be a Christian because you were the subject of a baptismal ceremony (possibly as a child) is the equivalent of claiming you are a cage-fighter because you took a Tai Kwon Do class when you were a kid.

(source)

So, like a traditional polygamist, Toad implies that he has some hidden, occult knowledge which is unavailable to unwashed normies (like ya boy Boxer). Unlike a traditional polygamist, the means for the acquisition of knowledge is nowhere well-defined.

In the first place, Toad has drawn a line of differentiation between his version of Christian (which I’ll subsequently denote with an asterisk) and the normie Christians who imagine that a baptism is the prerequisite initiation into the mysteries of Christianity.

I’ll begin by conceding here that I am not a Christian*, by whatever standard Toad uses to define that term, and grant that I am not privy to whatever occult knowledge is available to Christians* so defined. I believe that I don’t need such knowledge, whether or not it exists, to make my point.

I’ll subsequently state that while I’m not a Christian*, I believe I can competently act as an advocate for average, normie Christians, who may not agree with Toad’s numerous innovations.

Toad argues that the King James Version of the New Testament, when taken at face value, is an incomplete symbol. He implies that Christians* can apprehend, or intuit, additional, abstract commandments, which form a model for Christianity*.

In other words, there are some things that are comprehended only by the Spirit of God. At the same time, the tendencies of the flesh (the natural man) are at war with the Spirit of God and we see this time after time with Christians who are swayed by peer pressure and the doctrines of men. A good historical example is the arrogance of Augustine:

 

In his treatise “Way Into The Will” he discusses the nature of good and evil.

(ibid)

I haven’t read Way Into The Will at all, and I haven’t read Augustine in years, so I can’t comment on specifics. Yet, I find it interesting that Toad needs to cite a historical Christian to make his point about Christianity*. My readers may note a certain circularity developing in Toad’s argument. Toad has secret knowledge, which is only available to those who have the Spirit of God, and which supplants a reading of the text. Even though this secret knowledge is coherent with the text, its existence is nowhere hinted at in the text, and demonstrations must be extra-textual.

In fact, the text of the Bible is very clear about those who innovate new teachings from it. In Deuteronomy 4:2, we read:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Later, in Deuteronomy 12:32, we read:

Whatsoever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

And elsewhere, in Revelations 22:18, we read:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Toad continues, explaining that the text was never meant to be taken at face value. Christians* are its intended audience, and the bible was intended to be an incomplete supplement or addendum to their intuition:

Even though Scripture informs us with God’s own testimony that we are not capable of understanding God, likewise we are informed that while some parts of Scripture are so simple and pure that the natural man can comprehend them, God’s Word is designed to be spiritually discerned. Even so we can see that even Christians who have the Spirit of God can be lured astray by everything from established (wrong) doctrine to their own prideful arrogance and confidence in their intellectual abilities.

 

When this is the case and we see that Christians have difficulty dealing with God’s Word, how can we have a discussion when the book we’re using as the standard for behavior clearly states that you can’t understand it?

(emphasis mine)

Toad only thinks he is arguing with his Brother Boxer, at this point. He is actually contradicting Saul of Tarsus, the author of most of the New Testament. From Galatians, Chapter 1, verses 6-12:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

 

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

 

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

 

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

St. Paul warns Christians not to stray into Christianity*, nor to pursue innovations. He goes on to assert the completeness of his teachings.

My readers are already aware that all wimminz lie, all the time. Even so, I find it funny to note the depths to which they commonly stoop, in a desperate bid for attention.

Meet “Sally,” a cute but dramatic redhead, who had few talents so prounounced as the ability to make public scenes. This was a briefer than usual pairing (we went out a grand total of two times), and the brevity was largely caused by the incredible energy drain of just being around her. This morning, she decided she wants some more of Boxer’s life.

I’m honestly unclear about the best way to give the brush to someone. She’s not worth talking to, but she’s also not worth cursing out. She was more annoying than the typical wimminz, but it was never personal.

No doubt she wants to tell me about how her cat died, or how she got fucked and chucked by five guys (at once) on Tinder, or how she just got arrested for robbing the liquor store. The problem is, I don’t care.

Over on Dalrock blog, a critical article was recently published about the work of one Pastor Doug Wilson (link). Wilson is a cunning neo-feminist who uses various lawyerly tactics to redefine marriage in order to conform with feminist norms. Wilson noticed the critical article, and immediately confirmed his feminist credentials, by poisoning the well with broad accusations of wife-beating. (link)

Of course, the fact that people disagree with Wilson doesn’t automatically imply that they beat their wives, and people who use these fallacious tactics are safely ignored. It did surprise me to see Wilson use this cheap trick. He’s a very clever guy, and his arguments are (formally speaking, anyway) quite well constructed.

When I see men in the sphere talking about wife-beating, I instantly prepare myself for a handful of distinct, but related, neurotic types. In the first place, there is the feminist, who socks up to indulge in black propaganda. Our deluded sister will pretend to be a man of the sphere, and under her very manly pseudonym, will boast about keeping “his” little lady in line. There are also the trolls, who write over-the-top parody. Matt Forney is alleged to have created a funny web page about this, years ago. Disguised as a female, he drove the saps crazy with sexual allusions and garnered a few bucks in the process, from thirsty simps who just couldn’t help but fantasize about a night with this prize catch of a drag queen. And then, there are the fetishists.

My nigga Artisanal Toad (visit his blog here) is a quasi-famous polygamist and advocate of the spank fetish. Toad encourages men to spank their wives, going through a whole spectrum of less-than-optimal responses, until he touches on the perfect woman, with the perfect attitude.

The truth is if a woman is honest with herself, she’ll admit that at least some man exists for whom she will get undressed and with tingles running through her body… lay across his knee in anticipation of having her bottom turned cherry red.  But, only rarely does one find a woman who can admit she would do so for the man she is with.  She may love him and she may even be in love with him… but not like that.

If Toad’s thesis is correct, then, a wife who eagerly accepts her spanking is the perfect woman, who is perfectly in love with her man.

By the same token, there are men who may not be sufficiently interested in beating their wives for sexual thrills. These men are not merely people who have other interests. Toad explains in detail, as follows:

there are also many reasons why a man might object to this, chief among them is the claim that women are adults and should not be spanked.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  When men object, as a rule the objections are driven by fear.  They know the woman they are with would never allow such a thing to happen, which only leaves one of two paths to take.  Either they acknowledge their woman is just not that attracted to them, or they come up reasons why it shouldn’t happen.  Their wife or girlfriend will back them up on this 100%, knowing she would never allow him to do something like that and even claiming no man would ever be allowed to do such a thing to her.

In other words, if you married bros aren’t interested in spanking your wives, it’s because you’re insecure. You must conform to Toad’s weird sexual fetish, or you’re not a real man.

If you disagree with Wilson, then you’re a wife-beater. If you disagree with Toad, you secretly wish you were a wife-beater, but your wife isn’t sufficiently attracted to you to make you want to beat her.

If I were to take this nonsense seriously, I’d honestly need a spreadsheet to keep track of all these convoluted arguments about paraphilias and sublimated desires.

In reality, most men just aren’t interested in spanking their wives. They’re probably too busy fucking to bother with any of this other nonsense. Most men aren’t anorexics, pedophiles or zoophiles. Most men don’t get turned on by smelly feet. Most men don’t have granny fetishes. Most men aren’t interested in anal or oral sex. None of these normative men have a problem. They’re perfectly happy. I’ll stop short of speculating on the underlying neurotic energy that makes people like Toad and Wilson focus so much of their efforts on wife-spankery. Maybe these people enjoy it, and it’s nothing to me, but the fact that not everyone agrees with them doesn’t imply some underlying hangup.

I do think there is a general problem (with both social and individual dimensions) with fetishism. One aspect of paraphilic degeneracy (whether it be the spank fetish or something else) which seems universal, is the gradual overtaking of all other aspects of the relationship, by the primacy of the sexual fetish. For men like Toad, real emotional intimacy, and interpersonal connection, is secondary to the act of beating a woman’s ass. The fetish eventually comes to replace feelings of love and union. The act of beating a woman’s ass may eventually become a substitute for actual sex. Experiencing the beating is the telos, and intercourse may never occur, or may be a halfhearted, masturbatory afterthought.

Pull the full PDF (here)

So, what do people in your state hate?

The moral to this illustration is not to be a nice guy. Women just assume you’re desperate, and will treat you accordingly. Be an asshole, instead. It’s what they respond best to…

Down below, Renee complains:

Astutely, she brings up the correlation between being a side bitch (or a side nigga) and being LJBF’d by someone. In the first case, a side nigga is someone who is used for sex and possibly emotional/financial support also. Such a person is strung along by the object of his desire, while she (or he) makes great plans for the future with her (or his) first choice — who isn’t the side nigga. In the second, the situation is precisely similar, though even the sexual contact is removed.

If someone pretends to like you, and manipulates you into meeting her (or his) needs, while not even deigning to have sex with you, then you’re a chump. My prescription is to dump that bitch (or that nigga) and quit wasting your time.

A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself, in any relationship, if you are benefitting. If you’re not even gaining a tiny advantage in return for your time invested, then you should cut your losses immediately.

The correlation between the side nigga and the LJBF certainly needs some further deconstruction. Look for a more serious article in the near future.

An excellent illustrative article that shows the inherent weaknesses of Christianity, along with the inherent manipulative proclivities of women. This bitch can justify any contradiction, no matter how ridiculous.

“I would describe my relationship with Jesus as a bratty sub with a dominant…”

http://nypost.com/2017/07/13/a-christian-womans-secret-life-as-a-dominatrix/

For weeks, I’ve hesitated about posting this, because I knew that if it got any replies, they’d be from angry manosphere types going all FUCK YOU MOM! Recently, however, I realized that if I can’t troll my own blog, then I might as well take it down. I subsequently acknowledged that I’m less interested in the focus of this article than in improving regular peoples’ ability to read serious research.

Months ago, on some other blog, I read the following:

Women absorb and carry living DNA and cells from every male they have sexual intercourse with

Linked to the claim was a discussion on a conspiracy theory web forum. A few links deep, however, there were a couple of serious journal articles. More generally, this claim has been bandied about since, as though it were unshakeable.

Just as a spoiler, the quoted claim above is wrong (and not only is it wrong, the opposite is true). Even so, something interesting is going on.

Can a woman’s prior sex partners influence the characteristics of her children with an unrelated male? That’s the question being asked in a 2014 study (pdf download), headed by Angela Crean (link) of the University of Sydney (Australia).

ABSTRACT

Newly discovered non-genetic mechanisms break the link between genes and inheritance, thereby also raising the possibility that previous mating partners could influence traits in offspring sired by subsequent males that mate with the same female (‘telegony’). In the fly Telostylinus angusticol- lis, males transmit their environmentally acquired condition via paternal effects on offspring body size. We manipulated male condition, and mated females to two males in high or low condition in a fully crossed design. Although the second male sired a large majority of offspring, offspring body size was influenced by the condition of the first male. This effect was not observed when females were exposed to the first male without mating, implicating semen-mediated effects rather than female differential allocation based on pre-mating assessment of male quality. Our results reveal a novel type of transgenerational effect with potential implications for the evolution of reproductive strategies.

At least in fruit flies, previous matings seem to alter the phenotypical traits of children, conceived by a different father. This is a nongenetic transmission (paragenetic? – ya boy Boxer is not a Biologist, and doesn’t know the correct term). In plain language, no DNA is being recombined or stored. Even so, something appears to be happening that no one can sufficiently explain (yet).

Crean et. al. constructed a series of different experiments, in an attempt to control for environmental factors that would muddy the results. Well-fed fruit flies, for example, are larger than poorly nourished ones. Nutrition was safely ruled out by the researchers. There was also an attempt to filter out non-penetrative attempts at mating.

What we end up with is some evidence that the transmission of semen has some effect on children, despite the lack of any genetic transmissions. The researcher’s conjecture is that some unknown component in seminal fluid is effecting ovules (i.e. immature eggs). No one knows the mechanism of transmission. What was established was a statistical anomaly that our present understanding of heredity can not account for.

If a female fruit fly mates unsuccessfully with a large male, and then goes on to successfully mate with a small male, her offspring will have a significantly greater chance of displaying a large male phenotype, despite having no genetic legacy from the large male.

What this study shows is generally not the claims made by conspiracy-theorists and hardened MGTOW types in the ‘sphere, but it remains interesting. Namely: Something is going on with promiscuous female fruit-flies, and all the usual things that might cause it have been successfully ruled out.

What Crean et. al. hypothesize is only one of a handful of possibilities. There are similar studies suggesting an indirect epigenetic link — basically the stress of an immune response methylating DNA in the mother to activate various gene expressions. It’s something like common sense to suggest that if the stress of smoking cigarettes can influence gene expression, and it does (pdf download) then getting pumped full of strange jizz and STDs on a regular basis might also. Nothing definitive exists, though, and nothing is likely to be done to address this obvious question in the foreseeable future.

In an ideal world, we’d have qualified people trying to replicate these findings, testing for specifics, and eventually performing parallel research on mammals. In our current feminized milieu, that’s not likely to occur. The results of future tests would draw attention to, and invite criticism of, the hyper-promiscuous ‘you go girl’ cultural facets which we all know and love. Both men and women are supposed to be able to slut it up, and if (motherfucking science!) gets in the way of that, then it needs to be suppressed.