This morning, my nigga honeycomb alerted me to the fact that the “proud slut” who goes by the stage name “Shahrazad” had pulled her latest video. It is common for trashy hoez to get just enough self-awareness to become embarrassed after playing the jackass, and I assumed this is what had happened. Sadly, I was mistaken.

It seems that the shameful censors over at google have decided that we shouldn’t be entertained by this aging slattern. I do have mixed feelings about this clear violation of net neutrality. “Shahrazad” was willfully vulgar and constantly obscene; however, her profane solicitude was not merely served up for its own sake. Whether she knew it or not, “Shahrazad” was offering rare glimpses into the female psyche.

“Shahrazad” explains that the censors pulled her channel after giving her numerous warnings about content…

I had been reticent to post this, given that one of the few rules at Casa Boxer is absolute anonymity; but I have been suitably convinced that the name she uses is as fake as Kardashian’s tits. With this in mind, and given the sad fact that she’s being silenced by a large corporation, I decided to dig up a promotion. In case any of you brothers are actually needy enough to pay big dollaz in order to fulfill your granny fetish, here she is in all her glory.

Aside from the fact that she has worked for a school district, “Shahrazad” does give us an interesting glimpse into her background. She is, apparently, the daughter of Iranian immigrants to Germany. She, herself, moved to the U.S. as a child. She has abandoned her ancestor’s honorable Muslim faith, in order to chase enlightenment in a new-age (rhymes with sewage) kooky cult. (That’s very San Diego.) She is, unsurprisingly, a divorced hoe, and any reasonable person can safely assume that it is not her exorbitant “fees” which support her, but that she continues to ride the coattails of whatever unfortunate man was silly enough to wife her up, cashing his alimony checks monthly, for the rest of his life, as is the custom in California.

Thus we see the deracinated, alienated, rootless consumer in action. She has no culture and no homeland. She has no sense of community, and no sense of decorum, self-respect, shame or understatement. She is the perfect citizen of our global plantation.

Her stated fees on her web page run her professional time at 300/hr, or 6000/day. I have never hired a professional prostitute before, and I’m forced to wonder if this is realistic. Maybe one of the MGTOW bros could school me.

Note that I have hired attorneys before; and I can get one of the better attorneys in my town, with his paralegal, to do a day’s work (including piecemeal office staff work on the back end) for 2000.00. With this in mind, it’s difficult to believe that anyone has ever actually paid “Shahrazad” 6000.00 for a day of her “labor.”

She has profiles available on several of the prostitution sites. Here is a satisfied customer, who apparently paid at least three c-notes.

Here is another one, almost precisely similar to the first. While the original was written by “Panchito,” this one is ostensibly penned by “Man 4821”. He describes her as a “gem.” These reviews are so solicitous, I wonder if she didn’t sock up and write them for self-promotion.

And here is a sample of her photos.

Objectively, I suppose we can admit that she looks better than her age (she claims to be about 55).

As I dredged up this stuff this morning, I couldn’t help but feel a bit of regret on her behalf. Here is an old woman who ought to be enjoying time with her dozen Muslim grandchildren, living the reward of years of fidelity to her husband. She should be swinging around with him on the dance floor, traveling, writing books about gardening or cooking, and basking in the respect and dignity of an examined life. Instead, she’s peddling her saggy ass on the internet, begging strangers to part with a couple of hundred bucks, in return for her spreading her well-worn meat flaps. She’s writing books about being a trashy sex worker, and embarrassing her family on a youtube channel so vulgar that google couldn’t stomach it.

I decided not to link to her web page, because my interested viewers can simply type it in from one of the screenshots, and, well, it’s even too crass for ya boy Boxer. Such is the state of the world we live in.

Note: An implicit copyright of some or all of the preceding work is duly noted. This review is published as a transformative work, in order to 1. educate the public, 2. parody the material, 3. comment upon general social trends. My impression is that the author is being unfairly censored. Be that as it may, if “Shahrazad” or her agent would like to respond or request a retraction, the comment box is the place to do it. 

Back in April, we met “Shahrazad,” who explained that “the more men I f*ck, the greater is my value.”

https://youtu.be/0i36r9qN8jc

Now she’s back, to peddle her new book, entitled (unsurprisingly) The F*ck List. She goes on to explain that she doesn’t have sex with just anyone. She seeks out young, fit, good looking men to bang, and she boasts that her “schedule” along with her job (she claims to be an escort) often necessitates servicing multiple cocks per day.

https://youtu.be/XJz7Sf3RjpQ

Personally, I think she’s lying, both about her job, and about being so discriminating. As she speaks, check out the crazy eyes, the turkey neck, the weird, high cheekbones in her wrinkly, wall-hitting face.

Brothers, was there ever a time that you’d shell out good money, just to bang this sad old bag?

I didn’t think so.

Red Pill Latecomer, one of the champions of the Dalrock research team, found the second video and the old fruitbat’s book. Check out his review here, and show him some love.

Jesus Christ. How embarrassing.

Over on Dalrock, there is scuttlebutt about a new commandment by the Christian god, that all Christian men must marry.

Cane Caldo explains:

there is a command is for each man and each woman to marry, but that concessions–exceptions–might and should be made in specific cases for specific reasons.

Later on, BillyS agrees and amplifies:

God said it was not good for a man to be alone and made a woman for him. That is the baseline principle. Exceptions, such as Paul, exist, but they are just that, exceptions. Review the Scriptures I already posted.

The problem that Cane and Billy have is a simple one. There is no “Thou shalt marry” commandment, anywhere in the new testament. So, Cane and Billy are fabricating new commandments, and weaving justification for their new commandments from minor allusions found here and there in the text.

Astute readers will remember that Artisanal Toad seemed to do something precisely similar. When asked where the “Thou shalt marry multiple women” and “Thou shalt let thine wives dyke out in weird lesbo group sex orgies” commandments were, he’d go on a long, dull tirade, about how ya boy Boxer was too worldly and too stupid to get the hidden meaning in the text.

Now Billy and Cane are asserting that the Christian god says something which he clearly doesn’t say. Their motivations for making this assertion are unclear, and don’t matter anyway. Let’s assume that both Cane and Billy are perfectly sincere in their beliefs, and are not trying to lead anyone astray for the sake of any ulterior motive. Since their beliefs neither correspond nor cohere with the propositions in the New Testament, there are a finite number of possibilities available to explain the disparity.

• The Christian god has given a new commandment, by revelation, through internet bloggers.
• Cane and Billy are starting a new, post-Christian religious movement.
• Cane and Billy are reading the text through the lens of ideology.

While all of these are plausible scenarios, the first doesn’t seem likely. The text itself warns against false prophets, and implies that it constitutes both the completeness of the theory and a final revelation. It also pronounces a curse on anyone who claims to have had a subsequent revelation (Galatians 1:8-9). Billy and Cane both study the New Testament, so they know this themselves.

The second also doesn’t seem likely. Neither Billy nor Cane has ever denounced any of the central tenets of Christianity, nor have I ever seen either of them claim to be anything other than a sincere Christian.

So, assuming (as I do) that these guys aren’t purposely lying to people, I am left with the final scenario as the one that seems most likely to be the case. They are reading the New Testament through the lens of ideology.

What is ideology, and what does it mean to read a text through the lens of ideology?

Ideology is a Marxist term which (like most weighty philosophical items) takes some effort to unpack. We might say that it is a social phenomenon, which originates in the false state of consciousness, arising out of the mode of being prevalent in our particular historical epoch. Marx would point out that the mode-of-being in the epoch is brought into being by the mode-of-production, but we’re not going to go that far. The bare concept is itself hard to understand.

We live in a world that prioritizes certain things (fame, money, status, women) and thus we adopt certain inherent biases that color any new sense data we are exposed to. When sense data hits our eyes, our brain instantly begins working to translate such stuff into intelligible information. It does this by making associations through a conditioned structure. That’s part of ideology.

The warm fuzzies that the wimminz get when they see a lavish wedding, or the sympathy that a man feels when he sees a suffering child… some of that may be inborn, but most of it is ideology. We have each been conditioned and socialized to respond in certain ways, and the conditioning is at least partly subconscious.

The Marxist term is usually considered a subset of what Hegel called a world-spirit (weltgeist). We theorize about history, that is about our place in society, as we navigate all the currents that brought us to the now, in terms that our place in society offers us. To some extent, we are limited by language and pop culture to certain channels of thought, whereas other possibilities are closed off to us.

So what does it mean to speculate that some people read texts through the lens of ideology? In truth, we all do. This is why so many texts can be interpreted in such a variety of different ways.

The truth of this statement often gives way for linguistic relativism, and an idea that nothing inherently means anything: that in the war between text and subtext, context is the only winner. While students of ideology should examine the truths available from a variety of interpretations, we should also be careful about adopting the view that the interpretation is everything. If meaning is chiefly interpretive, then text is deprecated.

In an answer to the bizarre assertions of Cane Caldo, I had to ask:

Where is this command that each man marry? Chapter and verse, please.

Of course, Cane had no answer. Neither did anyone on his side of the argument. I did get a few replies, though. My man Earl said:

It’s not there. There are commands on what you are supposed to do when you get married…and what you are supposed to do if you are not married (the common theme for both is sexual morality)…but there is no command that states you are to get married.

That’s the way I read the text also. Of course, I read the text at face value, and try to keep my Marxist critique-of-ideology shades on, whenever I turn a new page in it.

One thing many of my secular readers might not appreciate are the differences between the Christian god, and the Mormon god. These are, despite all the protests to the contrary (by Christians and Mormons both) very different gods. Mormons have a specific commandment to play up our similarities when among Christians, but in private we tell our children the score. We can pass as Christians, but we are not Christians.

One of the differences between the Mormon god and the Christian god is what each calls his people to do. The Christian god does not make any specific commandment to marry; but, the Mormon god did command his people to marry.

To obtain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, a man must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (D&C 131 1-4)

The Mormon heaven is only for married people. Mormons who never marry will not be allowed in. Not only this, but the Mormon man or woman who marries in a secular ceremony, will also be counted as an unmarried person after death, and will likewise never be allowed into the Mormon heaven.

If a man marry a wife not by me, their covenant and marriage is not of force when they are dead (D&C 132 15)

Mormons are not only commanded to marry, but they are further commanded to marry other Mormons, in temple ceremonies. Failure to do so precludes a brother from any leadership positions in the church, any sort of benefits or employment within the church, and he will die condemned.

This, in fact, is the greatest example of the superiority of Jesus (the name of the Christian god) and his disciple St. Paul over Elohim (the Mormon god, who definitely has nothing to do with Jesus) and his disciple Joseph Smith. Jesus allows for those of us who may want to choose another vocation to do so.

I will always be a Mormon, and I will always love my people; but I will never bow the knee to the Mormon folk religion, and I encourage my Mormon brothers to explore the truths that can be found in the works of St. Paul, and, for that matter, Karl Marx.

Over on Dalrock’s comments, there’s an interesting conversation about the prospect of surrogacy and technology allowing single men to conceive and raise motherless children. Dalrock is a religious blog, and naturally, people look to the New Testament for guidance. It’s particularly murky on this topic, though.

honeycomb sez to Billy…

We disagree .. unless you can show me with scripture that it’s evil.

(Rather than cite a specific source, Billy made a general statement, then alluded to honeycomb being an idiot)

honeycomb retorts…

Ah yes the ole personal attack & no supporting documentation bit.

While I don’t share Billy’s personal sentiments (i.e. I don’t think either honeycomb or AT are idiots), honeycomb is asking for something that no reasonable person would expect to find in the New Testament. The bible is a product of its age, and the thinkers who produced it had no reason to denounce men masturbating into a sex robot, then producing a motherless kid via an artificial placenta.

Lots of things aren’t listed in the bible that would be, if someone was writing it today. (Weird trannies being allowed in the girls’ public toilet, the prevalence of S&M sex play, nose piercings, etc.)

Either honeycomb has adopted AT’s fallacy, that everything not specifically prohibited in the text is explicitly permitted (thoroughly debunked by a guy named Lyn87, over a year ago) or he knows some part of the bible which allows for motherless kids to become a societal norm. I’ve never seen this allowance myself.

So is bringing a motherless child into the world sinful? I don’t personally have an opinion on that. I think it’s for the religious bros to try and work out what qualifies as sin. Is it socially destructive? I think it certainly is. Any kid brought into the world in these circumstances will desperately want the love and example that a decent mother provides her children. S/he will look around at other kids who seem to take this situation for granted, and will feel deeply hurt by the lack of it in his/her own life. That wounding will not go away. It will likely result in deviant behavior. This is almost understandable to me. Why should such a child grow up feeling invested in a society which s/he doesn’t identify with?

Now, guys who promote this have a couple of choices. They can be inverted feminists, and demand that every child be stripped of his/her mother (the way kooky feminists do now, demanding that father’s day be abolished, &c.) They might also try to start a separate society made up only of single fathers (women don’t have the strength or foresight to do this, but I think men might try it). Either way, their kids will ultimately pay the price for their narcissism.

One of my Mormon cousins has a blog which deals with red pill stuff from a traditional LDS perspective. Go show him some love here:

Tales from The Mission Home

I’m also permanently adding Artisanal Toad’s blog. Love him or not, he’s a very interesting character and a skillful writer. Go check out his public denunciation of Dalrock here:

Toad’s Denunciation of Dalrock

Tim Finnegan is posting high quality content from a Catholic perspective over on The Wake. Read his advice to young men here:

Don’t Be Your Own Enemy

The female brain is such that a bitch, when she’s properly motivated, can dream up any scenario, and will not waver from accusing you of doing or saying anything, if it supports whatever makes her feel good in the moment.

This bitch (an unremarkable redhead) suddenly reappeared about a month ago. I had fucked her last summer a couple of times, and subsequently given her the brush with no drama. She wanted some more of Boxer, and Boxer obliged.

So, we met up for a bit of fucking. All seemed to go well. I bounced, and suddenly, she remembered how mean and rude and rudely mean I had been, all those months before. She had to text me about this affront immediately, asking me if I really meant all the mean stuff I said.

I kept blowing her off and deleting the conversations until finally, I offered to make material amends for my crap behavior — provided she could pony up some evidence of same.

Supposedly, I had hurt little princess deeply, by insulting her womanhood, or something. Problem is, I archive all my conversations; and no such squabble ever took place. This nonsense is not at all uncommon, but it does throw the recipient into confusion, if he’s not accustomed to wimminz and their shallow dealings.

How to explain this strange phenomenon? There are a couple of distinct possibilities, which I rank in order of descending probability.

1. Bitch had said squabble with some other dick she was riding last summer.
2. Bitch is a drama queen, and is making shit up for attention.
3. Bitch is genuinely psychotic, living in a dream world.

Scenario 1 is slightly more likely than 2, only because bitch caused no drama whatever last summer. Either bitch got her feelz hurt by someone she has mistaken for me, or she got her feelz hurt by a man and she needs me (a man) to pay the price for hurting those precious feelz.

Naturally, once any bitch has gone down this road, pride precludes a reasonable reversal. No bitch is ever wrong, even when her dumb ass is.

This is an annoying but fairly common scenario, which young brothers should note well. Remember a few things when dealing with a bitch that pulls this sort of nonsense.

1. Never complain, never explain.
2. Don’t apologize, even if you did something resembling what she’s accusing you of.
3. Don’t panic.

This tedious sort of chickie theatre is, in fact, a blessing. Bitch who pulls this sort of line is tipping you off to the fact that she is completely unfit to fill any role other than “former fucktoy” in your life. Next her immediately, and without mercy.

In Chechnya, they are putting the children first.

Authorities in Russia’s Chechnya Republic are claiming success in an unconventional, sweeping campaign to compel people who have divorced to reunite, for the sake of the children — and, they say, to help in the fight against terrorism.

Ramzan A. Kadyrov, the president of the Chechen Republic, has reintroduced the concepts of children’s rights and family values, by retroactively nullifying most of the divorces that happened in his country in the last generation.

Read more at Carlos Slim’s Blog.

Fun commentary here:

https://youtu.be/dO8OX05pqFk

There’s really nothing I can say about this.

Women, who have been refusing to reproduce (at least in developed countries) for the last 50 years, are now slated to be replaced completely.

Motherless babies could be on the horizon after scientists discovered a method of creating offspring without the need for a female egg.

 

The landmark experiment by the University of Bath rewrites 200 years of biology teaching and could pave the way for a baby to be born from the DNA of two men.

 

It was always thought that only a female egg could spark the changes in a sperm required to make a baby, because an egg forms from a special kind of cell division in which just half the number of chromosomes are carried over.

The future apparently consists of male homosexuals, growing male babies, with the help of incubators and artificial placentae. This sounds like a bizarre vision of the world, but remember just a few years ago, before a couple of men could pretend to get married, or extort decent people of the title to their bakeries, for their refusal to pay lip service to such nonsense.

“It has been thought that only an egg cell was capable of reprogramming sperm to allow embryonic development to take place.

 

“Our work challenges that dogma, held since early embryologists first observed mammalian eggs in around 1827 and observed fertilisation 50 years later, that only an egg cell fertilised with a sperm cell can result in a live mammalian birth.

 

“We’re talking about different ways of making embryos. Imagine that you could take skin cells and make embryos from them. This would have all kinds of utility.”

 

For the initial experiments, scientists “tricked” an egg into developing into an embryo using special chemicals which makes the egg think it has been fertilised. Crucially the cells in an embryo copy themselves completely when they divide, and so mirror closely most other cells in the body, such as skin cells.

 

When scientists injected the embryos with sperm, they grew into healthy mice which went on to produce their own litters.

Read More at The Telegraph (link)

Technology’s ability to render a false state of consciousness, putting the world and its contents in a state of reserve, was explored by Heidegger. He called it “enframing.” Old Mart had a rosy view of the future, in which humanity transcended their own delusions.

Read The Question Concerning Technology (here)