The whore at left is one Krista Conley Glover, age 36. Krista grew up in Methville (f/k/a Portland) OR; though the booking photo attached came from St. John’s County, FL. She looks to me little better than the typical drug-addled white feminist, who has graduated from a life of coddling to crime. The 1990s chic big-hairdo, the hideous, wall-hitting face, and the vacuous stare ahead, all combine to portray this bitch in the most realistic possible light.

At first glance, a brother could be forgiven for assuming that she had been busted for peddling crack. Before we get to the real story, let’s fill in some background. Krista is married to a multimillionaire pro-golfer named Lucas Hendley Glover, age 38. Lucas and Krista were married in 2012. By anyone’s standards, he has done a passable job as a provider — busting ass to give his whore of a wife a Florida mansion and spending sprees abroad. Here’s a tweet from last month, in which she is boasting about her ability to waste her husband’s money on fucking other men “girls night out” [sic]…

Now, maybe I’m showing my lack of experience with rough trade, but in this photo, with her plunging neckline and visible nips, Krista looks little better than an aging street hooker. Her minimal boobs and bony elbows give her an Auschwitz aesthetic, and her collapsed cheeks suggest that she might be toothless. The stretch marks around her mouth are also illustrative. She’s anything but attractive, and if she were approaching me in that getup, I’d assume that she was an anorexic prostitute coming to hit me up for some spare change.

For some odd reason Lucas found her worthy of marriage, and the couple now have two children. It ought to be noted that Lucas married Krista a couple of years after he had famously won the U.S. Open, and immediately after he had won the Wells Fargo Championship. She had already crested thirty-one years, and was well on her way to sexual marketplace irrelevance when she walked down the aisle. Krista ought to down on her knees, alternately satisfying her husband’s sexual needs and thanking whatever god or gods she worships, for this man who saved her from a sad fate.

Last weekend was Mother’s Day. Like any dutiful son, Lucas wanted to spend time both with his mother and his wife. He invited them both to the The Player’s Championship 2018, to watch him on the links, where he hoped they would enjoy themselves in private seats, while he earned the family bread. Unfortunately for everyone, Lucas didn’t happen to prevail, and washed out of the tournament without placing. This is where the fun apparently began.

And thus, Krista decided that she’d celebrate Mother’s Day, this year, by beating the hell out of her husband, in front of his mom and their two terrified children. The reason for all this? Because Lucas had not performed up to her expectations.

“You’d better win, or I will take the kids, and you will never see them again!”

When granny was forced to intervene, she turned her foul attentions on Lucas’ mother. By the time the police arrived, granny was reportedly ambulanced off to hospital to get stitches in her arm. This whole story is particularly disturbing, given the fact that Lucas and his mother are both actively covering for this abusive whore in the media, right now. Lucas refused to sign the affidavit, but the cops took Krista’s spoiled ass down to the station anyhow. She caused such a fuss, they gave her an extra “resisting arrest” charge. She is quoted as saying:

“This is why cops get shot in the face!”

Like a good male-feminist, Lucas has decided to “stand by his woman,” even as she has been a complete embarrassment to him, his family, and his profession. Here is his latest profession of solidarity with this trashy ho’ on twitter dot com:

Husband and granny have since bailed Krista out of jail, and have welcomed her back into the mansion, where she will surely cause more trouble. To thank her husband and mother-in-law, Krista has begun giving interviews to national media, accusing Lucas and his mother of torturing her. This ought to be appreciated by Lucas as a prelude to having him thrown out of the house, on trumped up charges. He doesn’t seem phased.

At this point, we ought to start that magic countdown to more mayhem. Stay tuned to this channel, and we’ll report further when the cops have to come back to the mansion. Will it be to serve Lucas with a protective order, and pack him into a hotel room? Or, will it be a murder investigation, after drug-addled slut Krista hacks up her husband and kids with a butcher knife? Only time will tell.

Read more at:

Miami Herald and/or ESPN

Read the police reports here:

The most popular articles I write consist of me, emptily boasting, about doing what any other man could easily do, if he had the time and proclivity. I get the most likes, comments, upvotes, and stars, not for talking about philosophy or politics, but simply telling the stories and posting the screenshots of my conquests. I get the feeling that a lot of brothers — even some who are married to supposed unicorns — are jealous of this. Fuck me. Any other man could do exactly the same thing, provided he lowered his standards enough to lay with the sorts of hot-but-vacuous whores I regularly plow.

Where do I meet these skanks? The majority come from random encounters, and not in bars or nightclubs, but on the street or in the supermarket. A large minority come from the typical dating sites: Tinder and PoF being the most fertile (heh), but also including OK Cupid, Match, and several others. For our purposes, we’ll just lump them together, and we’ll just call this class of virtual meeting-places ‘Fuckbook’ for short.

If you decide to take up the playa lifestyle, you will inevitably run into the “nice girl” who advertises her wares on Fuckbook, with scantily clad photos, usually showing everything but the nips and clit. These same whores will inevitably complain that there are no real men left in the world. You know, the types of real men like their fathers and grandfathers, who treated wimminz with “respect,” and who “never looked at wimminz as sex objects,” and who courted the wimminz with flowers, picking up the check like a dutiful sucker at the end of each meal.

The whore will bemoan her every interaction. “Why, oh why, can’t I get myself a trustworthy and dutiful man?” She’ll ask, while she’s down on all fours getting reamed by my cock, less than three hours after our first real-world encounter.

This is not a parody, and I didn’t make this profile up simply to serve as an illustration, though I would understand if the married bros assumed I did. (If I tried, I wouldn’t be this audacious.)

There seems to be a marked shift in the dynamic on Fuckbook. About two years ago I started seeing it, and it hit critical mass (in my area) around the pre-thanksgiving of 2017 — sometime around six months ago. It is as though all the “party girl” types were suddenly transforming into “nice girl” types before my eyes. Gone were the photos of the slut, giving a blow job to a beer bottle, as nude people of all ages foam-partied behind her. Gone were the “I have the pussy, so I make the rules” memes. The slut formerly known as “skankho69” has completely rebranded, and is now calling herself “virginalcupcake90” on Fuckbook. She’s now pretending to be a lovely young unicorn, ready to marry you and live a monogamous life as a good, dutiful wife.

At first I thought I was aging out of the skank wimminz, and into a new paradigm of born-again-virgins; but, a bit of research suggests that assumption was hasty. Given that I’ve been on Fuckbook continuously for nearly three years, in the same American city, and given that I have the memory and attention span of something greater than a housecat, I can remember my first view of virginalcupcake90, when she posed bent-over in red lingerie for the camera, and posted the best shot on Fuckbook. The skank will inevitably keep some things constant, like the photo of her running a 5k race, and the photo of her in a business suit, and the photo of her getting her MBA from a shit-tier diploma mill, up for cross-referencing. Moreover, I can dip into the Fuckbook girls who are in their early 20s, and I see nary a skank ho slut in sight, only virginal cupcakes, who are ready to land a sucker walk down the aisle for the dutiful nice-guy.

In this regard, wimminz will always be one step ahead of men. They are rightly lampooned as being not very intelligent, but they have an antlike intuition about what will work, and the meme seems to spread among them almost instantly, wherein they will all rebrand on-the-fly, and present the opposite characteristics they were displaying a day prior.

Skeptics should quit being faggots. What is a skeptic? It necessarily includes atheists, but also includes agnostics, and any nominal believer that doesn’t take religious texts at face-value.

Unfortunately, it’s more difficult to make this argument than it ought to be, because it often seems like the only alternative is joining hands with the filthiest of kooks. This is a good example:

There are very few people who are so irrational as to believe that the Bible is a history book. All these people are charitably believed to be, by Frank K’s definition, nonbelievers, and given that he labels all and every ‘Unitarian’ a nonbeliever, we’re being conservative. What Frank K. seems to be labeling ‘nonbelievers’ is roughly equal to what I’m calling a skeptic.

Nonbelievers have a wide diversity of views on the matter of religious texts. Most of the skeptics I know are Catholics, most of these go to mass regularly, and take the New Testament as a point of faith and a source of good advice. In the past I hung out with evangelical atheists, but for the most part, I found them about as interesting as their religious counterparts.

Frank isn’t wrong about everything. Wimminz do see religion as a social event, or an outlet for nonverbal communication. They wear their religious preference as they would a pair of shoes. Men — including skeptics — do not tend to do this. Skeptical men can continue to appreciate religion as a discipline, as an outlet for exploring the underlying mysteries of life, and to bond with other men in an entirely sublimated, healthy, heterosexual, non-touchy-feely fashion.

The evangelical atheist tends to be a specific type of person; namely, he’s the type that can cultivate an acceptable moral sensibility without ritual. The fact that ritual would simplify his cultivation of morality will, even if admitted, be argued to outweigh the supposed negative aspects of ritual. The skeptic is often driven over to the strange delusion that everyone is exactly as intuitive as he is, and as such, that religion is entirely unnecessary. This is particularly silly, because even as he makes this argument, he’ll be (often unknowingly) quoting Rabbi Saul of Tarsus, who wrote:

Religious praxis is useful because it gives people the means to self-organize. It’s also useful because it contains the thoughtless and the irrational impulses of man, channeling them to prosocial ends, even as it socializes the man himself. The evangelical atheist doesn’t need religion because he can self-organize, and thus he sees religious people as either deluded victims or inferior subhumans. One will note that this is a delusion parallel to that which drives people like Frank K., who, because they are unable to construct an ethical life without a text to guide them, assume that all atheists are bloodthirsty cannibals.

Because you would be a bloodthirsty cannibal without mythology doesn’t entail your own weaknesses exist generally in the population.

Skeptics should thus begin taking advantage of religious organizations, despite the overwhelming presence of weirdos and fanatics in attendance. If they do, they’ll likely find (as I have) that a large portion of those attending share their commitment to a rational, examined life, even as they gain a community, and find one of the last remnants of male space.

If I can do anything to help the people in the androsphere, it is generally to do what I get paid to do, by a big research hub, for free. What I get paid to do is to teach students how to think and write arguments. Some semesters, those arguments have been in the form of mathematical proofs, and other semesters, those arguments have been in plain English, originating in points that incipient lawyers and philosophers are practicing. Usually, my feedback strikes kids as a bit rough, but you have to take your punches in this life, and that’s that.

Brother Derek was good enough to linkback to an article on his blog, which contains a whole host of poor arguments. I’ll go through just a few here.

Bruce Charlton has a medical degree. He also has an academic master’s degree from Durham University, in the north of England. I got paid to go read one of my papers at Durham, a couple of years ago, and I know some of the faculty there. I like the place a lot, and it regularly churns out tons of thinkers who are brighter than I am. If you ever visit Durham, a quick trip to Hadrian’s Wall is interesting.

I don’t think it’s terrible for Charlton to give his opinion on politics, philosophy or economics; but, it should be noted that his degree is in literature, not politics, philosophy or economics, and if Derek quotes him giving his opinion, it’s dishonest not to point that out. Calling him Professor Charlton, and quoting him giving his opinion, is incredibly poor rhetoric, and it derails any points one might make, before the writer makes them.

All that aside, Bruce G Charlton is a completely discredited source on any topic, because he doesn’t believe in peer review. From nature dot com…

As Kripke and Wittgenstein would remind us, peer review is everything. Some measure of community is a pre-requisite to the notion of truth and meaning, and if you have no one to bounce ideas off of, you’re really just spouting “nine out of ten doctors recommend” nonsense.

They are approximations of truth, often really useful approximations, but ultimately are false because they are not true.

A couple of points:

1. Being “not true” is not a necessary and sufficient condition for being strictly false. This is very basic stuff, and if you are this illogical, you’re not going to win any arguments with serious feminist thinkers.

If you don’t know what I mean, consider these two propositions:

a. 1/0=5

b. 1=5

Proposition a is not true, because no one knows (at least with our conventional arithmetic) what the value of one divided by zero is. It doesn’t really mean anything, without a pre-existing axiom to define it. Proposition b, in contrast, is strictly false. By the principle we usually call ‘identity,’ 1 = 1, and 1 != 5. So there’s that.

truth cannot [sic] come from abstraction…

2. Truth can easily come from abstraction, and regularly does. If I write the proposition:

1 = 1

Then by the principle of identity, we can judge that proposition to be true. The numeral ‘1’ is abstract, inasmuch as it is both causally inert and observer independent. The same holds for the equivalence relation between ‘1’ and ‘1’.

I don’t mean to pick on anyone, but if you’re going to write arguments, then make them sound arguments. It’s better not to fraudulently use dodgy sources (like Charlton) and make sure you define the terms you use in the premises.

While Derek admits that the term ‘leftism’ has a very wide lexical range, he never bothers to define it for his argument. For that matter, he never defines ‘metaphysics,’ which is a serious discipline in the university, and which is sort of a joke at the bookstore, where it is used to denote things like crystals, finding one’s spirit animal, and nonsensical pseudosatanic occultnik texts.

Remember: if you can’t win an argument with me, then you stand no chance with our feminist enemies. Given that they’re jockeying to kill you and abuse your children, you have a positive (little joke there) duty to get good at logic and critical thinking.

This guest article was cobbled together from bits and pieces I found on PJ Media, authored by a brother calling himself Steve Gregg. Go here to show him some love. My comments inline.

If you work in any company with an HR department, white men are the enemy. If you’re smart, you will minimize your engagement with young women to protect yourself from false accusations of harassment from malicious, dishonest, stupid, or just plain crazy women. If a woman harasses you, you can not report it because you will be the one punished.

Of course white men are the enemy… because white men are a subset of #yesallmen, and the past few decades have proven that feminists do, in fact, hate all men.

If you are in a female majority office, you should move to a male majority office. Your prospects will be diminished by women, who select their girlfriends for promotions and training. Women in the majority feel emboldened to make gratuitous harassment complaints. There is an unconscious drive among women to drive out men they find unattractive. If your manager is surrounded by a coterie of her girlfriends all the time, particularly at lunch, you, as a man, have no future there.

Most of the places I’ve worked, even the female dominated ones, haven’t been all that terrible, but OK.

If you have been falsely accused at work, you should find another job and leave, documenting the reason why in detail when you leave. It won’t get better for you. Once you have been accused once, you’re more likely to be accused a second time and be fired. Remember to document everything. You can buy a recording device that fits in your shirt pocket for $30. That won’t save your job but it can help you in an EOC lawsuit after you are wrongly fired.

A cheap ipod touch can sit in your shirt pocket, camera forward, attracting little attention, recording a/v of everything in front of you. Google photos can sync the a/v to the cloud almost on the fly. This is what I use.

Of course, you should consult with an attorney about wiretap laws, but even if it’s illegal, it’s probably easier to face a misdemeanor recording charge than to have a bogus sexual harassment lawsuit or false rape charge.

All of that is a losing effort, of course. The EOC is set up to defend women fired by sexist companies, not men fired by sexist women.

Defeatism does not become you. The reason companies are not frightened by men is because those same companies rarely face any direct comeuppance by the schlubs they unjustly fire. Take them to court, put them in the media, and watch them squirm.

Your best defense is to hire into a technical company that requires STEM degrees. That excludes most young women. If you must work in an office with a lot of young women, be professional and polite with them, but do not engage them in personal chitchat. Anything you say can be turned into a harassment complaint and once you are accused, you are guilty. Women are more likely to file complaints against guys who are friendly to them and less likely to complain about guys who remain aloof from them and slightly disdainful.

You should only hire into a technical company that requires STEM degrees if you are really interested in that field. Not having a parasitic wife entails a much greater degree of freedom than your father had, and there’s no reason to be a striver, working subhuman conditions alongside H1B slaves, unless that lifestyle interests you.

It’s just as well to be a barista at Starbucks, open a small business, or be a lawyer with an online storefront. Wherever you go, the defense is the same. Treat wimminz as your enemies. Never give them an ounce of attention that you aren’t being paid to give. Let it be known, subtly but certainly, that if someone fucks with you –man or wimminz– you will spend the rest of your life getting revenge.

Never go into a conference room alone with a young woman, ever. Never meet a young woman alone for any reason on a business trip. Try to channel your communication with women into email, where it is documented, or meetings, where it is witnessed. Anytime you meet with young women alone, you are courting a bogus harassment complaint for which you have no defense.

Good advice, but I’d not channel communication with women at all. Just don’t have anything to do with them socially, and don’t communicate outside of the bare minimum.

The profile for women who file a bogus complaint is that they are usually single women between 25 and 35, girly girls, and neurotic. They have made one or more complaints against men previously. They may keep a spreadsheet of every man they feel has offended them. Avoid them like lepers.

This is bullshit. Any wimminz will file bogus complaints, regardless of age or status, the minute it benefits the ho’. Simply don’t talk to any of the wimminz you work with, problem solved.

Women age out of this belligerent phase of their lives. Once a woman gets married, has a couple babies, and turns 40, they become safe to work with. Generally, grandmas in sensible shoes and bad hair are far more safe to work with than single, young girls in heels.

These ugly old wall-hitting crones must have missed the memo about “aging out.”

This is total nonsense. There are countless sexual harassment claims being made by old grannies right now, who feel free to peddle bullshit in order to back up their narcissistic delusions of being formerly desirable. Simply don’t indulge in personal banter or casual chit-chat with any woman, while on the clock.

The office isn’t a nightclub anyway. You’re being paid to do work. Why would you try to game wimminz at the office, of any age? Who needs the headache?

Once, when I worked in Dallas, a young woman named Laura called me and said I needed to call a meeting. OK, Laura, what about? Laura said, you just need to call a meeting. OK, Laura, what’s the agenda? Laura said, well, you just need to call a meeting. So, I tell Laura, I’m not going to call a meeting if I have nothing to say. Then, she starts screaming at me on the phone because women are free to abuse men as much as they please in the office. Managers won’t discipline them, only placate them.

A couple days later, my boss’s boss calls me in his office and tells me Laura has complained that I won’t work with her. So, I tell him she wants me to call a meeting where the agenda appears to be why are we calling this meeting. So, my boss says Laura also accuses me of stalking her. Do you believe that, I say. Well, I don’t know, he says. I reply, you mean she can just lie and win. He looks me in the eye and says, yes.

That kind of bogus complaint has happened about ten times in my thirty years of work and prompts me to avoid young women. Most men have similar stories. From what I see, about a third of women’s harassment claims are legitimate, a third ambiguous, and a third phony. That is roughly supported by an Air Force study which found about a quarter legitimate, about 3/8 ambiguous, and the rest bogus.

You’re an idiot who didn’t learn from his own mistakes. Why would you have a double-digit history of harassment claims? The first time it happened, should have been enough to convince you that flirting or bantering with wimminz on the clock is a terrible idea.

But the best proof that harassment policy is profoundly biased is that I have never seen nor heard of a woman disciplined nor fired for harassment, only men. Please tell me how many of those women you found guilty of a false accusation were fired?

The answer to that question is, of course, some number close to zero.

That’s the problem. Women suffer no adverse consequence from making false accusations. I know of one women manager who was known for filing accusations against men, getting two fired, who was finally dismissed from a government office because of her “problems with men,” suffered no harm. Her contracting agency put her to work in their headquarters.

I have no problem believing this.

I think there are plenty of experienced men who avoid young women in the office because I’ve read or heard their stories. And, really, at every office I’ve ever been where a group of guys has gathered to talk, the conversation changes when a woman joins the group. There is a widespread wariness of young women in the working world.

I’ll give you another example. I used to take photos at office parties, but every other time, some woman would wildly object to a photo taken of her. In one case, the young woman shouted and threatened me in front of the entire office. When I asked my lead how I could report it to my company, he accused me of being the real harasser and demanded I confess. That’s how it works in the real world.

This part is only believable if you had a proven history of being an intolerable asshole. That’s much more plausible than your conspiracy theory.

In an other case, a woman came up to my desk and began wildly screaming about a photo that showed her husband standing next to another woman. I offered to pull it from an album I was making but that was not enough. She came back the next day and did it all over again. She got all her friends to harass me. My boss called me in and chastised me for not getting along with the women. Again, that’s how it works in the real world. As a consequence, I stopped taking photos and going to office parties. I don’t need trouble.

Why did you photograph these filthy wimminz in the first place? I’m guessing that you were trying to be the “nice guy,” and that’s your problem. I hope you’re sincere in your claims that you’ve stopped that nonsense.

Don’t do nice things for wimminz, like take photos or try and make them look flattering in online albums. They’ll just resent you for it. Ignore them utterly.

Office parties are never much fun anyway. Show up at the office party alone or with a date, stay for about 15 minutes, mingle with the men you work with pleasantly, and then go have some fun. If you’re off the clock and on non-company property, and there’s a wimminz you don’t work with in attendance, then you might consider gaming that whore. Otherwise just get in, get out, and move on to much better pastures.

That said, these episodes did not happen at every office I worked at. They came in clumps at offices that hired a lot of twenty-something women and had female bosses who were eager to back any accusation of harassment their subordinates made.

There were offices where the women were normal and professional, but then disengaging from them gave them less opportunity to make complaints. My life at the office improved dramatically when I stopped chatting with the young girls and remained aloof.

I’m glad you finally learned to quit being an asslicking supplicant of the filthy wimminz you work with. I’m sure your life has improved since you finally learned from the ten sexual harassment claims you’ve been subject of.

Here’s another example. A co-worker at my current office was looking for office supplies in HR, which he found in a drawer. He remarked to two nearby young HR women, “So THAT’s where the goodies are!” They accused him of making a lewd come on. Fortunately, his boss’ boss was there and saved him, otherwise he would be taken to an HR kangaroo court and be found guilty of being a man.

His mistake was to talk to those young girls. Every time you speak to a young girl in the office, you’re courting a bogus harassment complaint. The approved solution is to say nothing to them, to not even acknowledge they exist, and press on.

I can’t really disagree with this. Treat wimminz you work with as though they’re livestock or furniture. Wimminz respond much more favorably to men who treat them with the contempt that they deserve.

Over on Airstrip One, our Christian brother Jason describes his recent exploits as a guerrilla minister. He goes out on foot in the evenings, not to run hoez or get drunk, but to try and do what society won’t, namely keeping young people out of trouble. On one particular night, he met a nice but troublefinding kid named Aieesha.

I offered prayer, one took me up on it (her name was Aieesha…pray for her…..if she actually had a dad, a PASTOR or grandfather around she would turn around quick).

Aieesha does have a dad, of course. She just doesn’t live with him. It might be that skank-ho mommy threw him out of the house recently, and is now preparing to run him face-first through the divorce courts. It might also be that in the course of fucking and sucking hundreds of random strangers, she conceived Aieesha, and thus became entitled to 19+ years of taxpayer-funded freebies. Either way, it doesn’t matter, as the result for the rest of us is the same. We have another aimless young girl wandering the streets, while she should be home doing her homework, under the protection and loving guidance of the only man who can be counted on to selflessly look after her interests.

The only winner in this scenario is skank-ho mommy. The rest of us lost, Aieesha’s dad lost big, and Aieesha lost most of all. Pray for her, if you pray, and let your heart fill with hatred for the trash that has inflicted misery on her and upon her generation.

I like the idea of a reader-driven blog, because in the first place, it allows me to learn as much from my readers as they can pick up from me. Down below, someone sayeth:

I was referring to Nietzche & friends…

It would actually surprise me if Nietzsche had any friends.

The anecdotal story that philosophers like to tell was that Nietzsche had sex exactly one time, and he just happened to catch syphilis on that single occasion. What an amazing coincidence! Of course, this was part of Nietzsche’s schtick: that he had already progressed far beyond the needs of us lowly humans who were interested in sex, and was well on the way to elucidating the Übermensch.

While I don’t mean any disrespect to my old teachers — they were all fantastic thinkers — I don’t personally buy this, any more than I’d buy it from Joel Osteen, who probably claims to only have sex with Victoria. In the first place, being a well-known thinker has a particular charm: not because wimminz like philosophy, math, art, or any other higher form of expression, but only because you have a certain measure of social validation among your male peers. In the second, well, get real. The sex drive is second only to the impulse for eating as far as men’s instinctual needs go, and if the wimminz are willing to have sex with me, they’re certainly willing to have sex with Fred. I’m far scrawnier and paler than he, and can’t grow a cool ‘stache to save my life.

The continental tradition is a personal lacuna. I did that thesis on the analytics, and while I’m very comfortable talking shit about Bertrand Russell and Gottlob Frege, my knowledge of Nietzsche comes largely from reading exactly one of his books. I do know he wrote his thesis on early Greek playwrights, and that his love of the chaotic influenced the psychoanalytic tradition, who adopted his theory that we were all very repressed and needed more outlets for our individual and collective angst. I also know that the mathematician/phenomenologist Edmund Husserl criticized him in his Crisis of European Sciences and that Martin Heidegger (Husserl’s student) rehabilitated him in Being and Time. That’s about it.

I’d actually be pretty interested in the SJW appropriation of Nietzsche.

hits Infogalactic for more

No disrespect; and, you’re not wrong, but Infogalactic is even less reliable than Wikipedia. It’s owned by a guy named Beale, who is lately famous for being the oddball Amerind white-nationalist, who is having a fit at Andrew Anglin, and supposedly threatening to sue Gab because anonymous internet folks are making fun of him. All this sounds very inconsistent to me; though I don’t judge, and perhaps he has some motivation aside from an excess of money and time for his behavior.

Infogalactic pulls (i.e. steals) directly from Wikipedia. I’ve authored Wikipedia articles, and if I can create and modify articles there, you really shouldn’t take anything on it at face value. I tell kids it’s a good place to start, but one ought to follow the sources back to more reliable places.

I was mistaken in calling Frege an MGTOW. I appreciate the correction, because that’s a misconception I’ve held for years.

Of course, as a man, Uncle Karl was a hateful misogynist and rapist by default; but his personal antifeminism goes way beyond the usual boilerplate. For example, Karl Marx was a monogamist who was married to a girl named Jenny von Westphalen. They were married young and had seven children who survived, with at least a couple who died in childbirth. Karl’s father, Heinrich, was a deeply religious man, who converted to Protestant Christianity in Holland. He homeschooled young Karl until high-school.

With all this in mind, it’s strange to see the simultaneous love of him by feminists, and hatred of him in the androsphere. He was wrong about many things, but his post-Hegelian take on the historical imperative proves very useful to men like us. His greatest antifeminist student was probably E. Belfort Bax, whose work is up on marxists dot org. Men on our side ought to at least read Feminism in Extremis here.

I shall soon have a salacious update about Jane Doe, the leggy redhead who pretends to be a devout Christian woman, and who fucks on demand, ready to go. I also have another critical theory article in the works. In the interim, I thought I’d talk a bit about one of my favorite historical characters. Problem is, you can’t really understand him without understanding the people he influenced. If you read to the end of this article, you’ll see that he would have agreed that context is important in any discussion of semantics, and so we begin with his peers.

Up above, we have our brother Richard Dedekind (you pronounce his first name RYE-card). Dedekind was the philosopher who gave us the rigorous definition of the real numbers, by taking a previously constructed notion (the naturals, constructed via set theory), adding the notion of series, and further logically defining the irrationals with the eponymous “Dedekind Cut” that incipient pure-mathematicians learn in their sophomore years of undergrad. Much of his work in this area was clarified and logically expanded by the philosophers-of-language Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, in Principia Mathematica Vol. 1.

Oh and the chair of Dedekind’s thesis committee, when he went and got his graduate degree in philosophy? It was Carl Friedrich Gauss. No shit.

Philosophy and mathematics have been tied together since Plato, but contemporary analytic philosophers tend to be especially prone to the logicizing everything, including mathematics. Who can we blame for this? My best guess as the culprit was a man named Gottlob Frege.

Frege was an “idiotic” 19th century MGTOW* philosopher who was concerned with semantics. Before I go further, I’ll recall one of my students coming up excitedly to declare that he had begun reading someone named FREEJ. It took me a minute to realize that he was talking about Frege. As I told that kid, you pronounce his name FRAY-guh.

Frege was always very curious about conceptual life, and one of his main concerns was the notion of the word, as opposed to the meaning of the word, as it exists. So what is a word? It’s sound-waves, spoken and listened to, or its an inky squiggle, and the light-waves that carry it to the reader’s eye. Before anyone can make any sense out of language or meaning, one must have a metalanguage to communicate precisely in, and Frege was the first person to carry out the work of creating a logical way to describe what was going on in the object language (of German, in his case).

He published his Begriffsschrift in 1879. This is, as near as I can tell, the first rigorous primer on mathematical logic, in human history. He covers first-order predicate logic, and begins the construction of a second-order logic, allowing for the quantification over relations. In this regard, Frege was the first person to realize that one could logicize the notion of the mathematical proof.

Given the consistency of Frege’s philosophical system, he became convinced that one could logicize the whole of arithmetic. What this means is that all arithmetical operations and axioms could be reduced to, or were equivalent to, axioms and operations in his logical metalanguage. He published his best known book, the Grundlagen, in 1884. You can (and should) download it in English here.

The primary thesis of Frege’s Grundlagen is that only in sentences do words have meaning. This seems counterintuitive, given that sentences are constructed out of words. Frege insists that no one had ever properly thought about how meaning erupts in the lifeworld of a listener or a reader before, and his arguments had merit. In order to properly understand a natural language, we have to understand the various meanings that each word can project, and how to pre-judge on the fly what people say when they’re saying the word, based upon where it appears in a sentence, and what words surround it. He wrote an accessible paper, entitled Sense and Reference, which can be downloaded here.

This is the classic Marxist take on philosophy. Marx hated to be known as a philosopher, and was famously quoted as denouncing philosophers as “professional dreamers,” who spend their lives trying to explain things that they ought to be changing.

A large part of my work on this blog is the cultural appropriation of Marx and his descendants (including post-Marxist thinkers, like Marcuse and Althusser). I do this mainly because Marx and his ideological descendants are useful to antifeminist men in a strategic sense, but it’s also fun to do it because it gets feminists, who seem to think Marx was on their side (hint: he wasn’t) all upset.

Frege is a good example of a philosopher who did change things. The reason there are “pure mathematics” and “theoretical physics” programs at most tier-one and tier-two universities is due to him. Of course, “pure mathematics” and “theoretical physics” are deprecated by many technocrats as “just philosophy programs;” but, good practical stuff comes out of them, like some of the parts of the intel chips inside the average computer, ya know.

As for what gets women wet? Well, none of it, in my experience. Dedekind, Cantor and Frege* were, as near as I can tell, MGTOW brothers who never had steady girlfriends. Gauss and Whitehead were married monogamists. Bertrand Russell was a notorious playa, but it almost certainly wasn’t because of his skill as a mathematician or philosopher.

* Edit 9 May:

Frege was not MGTOW. He was apparently briefly married to a woman who died young. From Britannica dot com:

Credit to Gunner Q for the correction. Show him some love at his blog.

Over on Dalrock, Luke writes:

With no women to drain them financially… many [single incel men] could save up to afford… surrogate services.

Luke doesn’t know what he’s talking about, of course, but in this case, he’s not alone. There is a wide-ranging myth structure surrounding technology, which is supposedly going to make feminism disappear real soon now. Surrogates join sexbots and Virtual Reality waifus in the expected antifeminist turn.

Let us now indulge in a thought experiment. Let’s suppose Luke’s pal, Joe, decides to go the surrogate route, as a result of Luke’s bad advice.

As increasing numbers of men are doing today, Joe hires a fertility clinic in India, which arranges (for a fee) to find a series of potential egg donors. Joe picks egg donor A: a leggy supermodel, who also has a Ph.D. in physics from Cornell, to be the biological mother of his kids. The clinic arranges for some poor unfortunate woman from a backwoods town to carry the pregnancy to term. Less than a year later, presto, Joe has twin babies Johnny and Janie, and is bringing them home to North America, hassle free.

At this stage of the game, Joe thanks Luke profusely. Joe has no unruly wimminz holding the threat of divorce and child support over his head, and he thinks that he is in the clear. The wait to adopt children is lengthy and just as expensive, and even where the law allows a single man to adopt children, many birth mothers won’t sign the papers. Most importantly, adoption doesn’t result in your own genetic progeny running around underfoot. It seems like Joe has won big.

Now, fast forward a few years. Joe and his two kids are minding their own business, living their lives, when a concerned female citizen phones the child protection bureau. It seems Johnny said something this filthy wimminz judged as crude, and suddenly, Joe is in the crosshairs of the bureaucracy. The state’s child protection racket sends over a social-worker… another bullying wimminz, naturally, who concludes that Joe must be a monstrous racist and pedophile, given the lack of a wimminz in the home. She uses her state-granted authority to pull Johnny and Janie immediately into protective custody. They will subsequently be split up, to be raised in different areas.

Johnny goes to an overcrowded orphanage, where he is mercilessly bullied, underfed, and has all his shit stolen. He’ll shortly be fucked in the ass by the Christian priests who run the place. Other inmates of the orphanage will eventually introduce him to drugs, stealing, and trying to escape at every opportunity.

In his 20s, he’ll either suicide or be imprisoned.

Janie goes to live with a “foster family” consisting of two disgusting bulldykes. Recall that the feminist state has allowed such beasts to anally marry one another.

Johnny and Janie have their placements solidified in court, in front of a faggot CONservative judge, who lectures Joe that: “Two parent homes are always superior to one parent homes…” before banging his gavel.

With their positions secure, the bulldykes begin teaching young Janie healthy sexual expression, through what bulldykes like Eve Ensler call “the good kind of rape”.

In her 20s, she’ll either suicide or turn to prostitution.

Joe gets to see his two kids, for one hour a week, under the supervision of one of the feminist social workers. He also gets to pay for the ongoing torture of his kids, in court-ordered child support, until they become legal adults, at which point their lives are already effectively over.

Remember, gentlemen, you do not have any say over your kids. Your children belong to the feminist state. Once you internalize this truth, you’ll find yourself ready to participate in Marcuse’s great refusal.

I’ll cop to enjoying a cheap laugh at the expense of the joyless, and in that vein, I enjoy fucking with slut single-moms on dating sites. Especially great are those who claim to be holy and devout Christians, but who sport skank-ho tatts and who boast about taking their ex-husbands for all they were worth in the divorce courts.

In every state of the U.S., the divorce courts are open and public, and Joe Jackass is free to walk in off the street, and kick his feet up (metaphorically speaking) to watch the show… and quite a show it is. You can call it a freakshow, or you can call it a horrorshow, but in the end, it is theater, whichever side of the room you’re on.

If you are a man in today’s climate, and you do not yet realize that your children belong first to the feminist state, then I invite you to go sit in on a session, because you’ll quickly grok the truth there that you won’t believe from guys like me. The only person who counts in such a venue is the wimminz in question, be she the skank-ho who shat your kids out, or be she the skank-ho granny. You, as their father, come last in the court’s appraisal. Everyone intuits this immediately, and you should expect your own parents to sell you down the river in order to get into the good graces of the courts.

What all these parasitic faggots and useless cunts depend upon, in order to keep this scam running, is for men to continue doing what they’ve always done: putting the interests of their children first. You will see such men in the theater of the courts, and they all grovel before their masters…

Yassuh ya honah, I beez real good nigga from now on. I payz my chile support and allow this skank-ho bitch to move her a series of new men in dat house I continue to pay da mortgage on…

I have known many attorneys, and am related to dozens of them. It’s sort of a family tradition that I rebelled against. In my experience, divorce attorneys are the biggest losers of the lot. If you find yourself in the position to be in the docks of the divorce court, your own faggot divorce attorney (who is, first and foremost, an officer of the same court that owns your kids) will encourage you to adopt the slave-mentality, for the sake of little Johnny and Janie. He will tell you that your “rights” are at stake.

What your faggot attorney will never explain is that if they were, in fact “rights,” then they couldn’t be taken away from you. What you have are, in fact, privileges, granted by the state, in return for being its servant. Your so-called “rights” will be removed the minute you become “uppity,” first by your own faggot divorce lawyer, and then by his pal on the other side of the room, who represents your skank-ho wife, and finally by his colleague who wears a black robe, on an elevated podium, who is running the show.

Theater. That’s all it is.

The underlying problem, as Uncle Herb would explain, is that you can not put the best interests of your kids at the forefront — because they are not your kids. They are the property of the feminist state. As such, any time you obey the state’s decrees, you are merely rubberstamping the states trampling of your supposed “rights” as a father.

The more attempts you make, as a father, to “fight for your kids,” the more money you put in the pocket of your own corrupt parasite attorney, and the more power you give your skank-ho bitch of an ex-wife, and the more social validation you give to the process.

Marcuse would remind you that you can not win this fight.

You will not win if you get violent. That only gives the state new victims to whine over, and justification in painting you as the scumbag they’ve painted you as from day no. 1.

You will not win by emulating Thomas Ball, and burning yourself on the courthouse steps. That only gives skank-ho mommy free rein to talk shit about you to your children, for the rest of their lives, with no chance of an opposing view. The media will not cover your suicide. No one will care that you’re dead. The only people who will notice, will celebrate.

The only thing you can do is to refuse to participate.

You can say “No!” to the divorce courts. Those of us who got lucky enough to get a clue about the nature of the system, as it exists, can also say “No!” to any skank-ho bitch who has ever run a man through them.

Giving such a woman any of your time, spending any money on her, or otherwise being such a woman’s servant, is a direct rebuke against your father and grandfathers, and all the men who came before.

I am aware that all of this goes directly against all your hardwired programming as a man and a father. The great evil of the system is that it has twisted these healthy instincts against you. The idea of “being a good man” and “stepping up to the plate” is the same ideal which is being used to enslave you.

A more repressive and evil apparatus than the divorce courts does not exist. Greater evil never did exist, in the whole history of humanity.