This is the day where I tended to show up over on wimminz, to wish all the fathers there a happy day. The author had his own children stolen from him, by his whore of an ex-wife, in a custody dispute, so it was appropriate. AfOR’s story was somewhat similar to my own father’s sad tale; so, I expected his kids to contact him, once they got out from under the thumb of the family courts. I don’t think they ever did.

If you are separated from your child, or your father, then allow me to sub for either, and wish you a happy day today.

It’s current year, so we need moar brainwashing of children. Sex is a social construct, bigots!

Like many new dads, Sabastion Sparks knew parenting would come with serious challenges.

But most new dads didn’t give birth to their child. They didn’t breastfeed them. And they don’t endure glares from strangers when they go shopping with their wife and their toddler son.

Sabastion, 24, is a transgender man who lives with his wife Angel in suburban Atlanta. Assigned the female gender at birth, he began transitioning five years ago . It’s a process that felt more complete last month when he had surgery to remove his breasts.

Translation: Sebastion (Jesus, can’t these dykes spell?) is a wimminz. At first I assumed she had an anal marriage to another wimminz, named Angel; but, it gets funnier.

With Father’s Day approaching, Sabastion finds himself thinking about gender roles and what it means to be a dad. He wants Jaxen, their 20-month-old son, to have as normal a childhood as possible.

And for the first time, he now feels at ease inside his own body. He hopes Jaxen will see that difference.

We get it. CNN is trying to sully Father’s Day, by listing young Jaxen’s mom as his dad. What they later discuss is who Jaxen’s dad actually is.

They both knew they wanted to be parents. After they were married in 2016, they agreed that Sabastion would carry their child — a decision, Angel Sparks says, that wasn’t taken lightly.

Like many transgender men and women, they had been taking medication to increase the testosterone or estrogen in their bodies. So to make a baby, they briefly stopped taking their hormone pills.

The couple conceived their son the conventional way, even though their biological roles at the time were not compatible with how they saw themselves.
“Getting pregnant was fine,” Angel says. “Trying to stay pregnant was difficult.”

The first time they tried, Sabastion miscarried. When he got pregnant with Jaxen, they worried another miscarriage could happen.

So, Jaxen’s “dad” is actually his mother, and his “mom” is actually his father. Typical clownworld shit. Got it. Here’s a photograph of the man called mommy…

That’s a really convincing tranny.

Read More

CNN: Transgender Father’s Day

Александр Николаевич Волков: Pomegranate Tea House (1924)

Our Muslim brothers are, right now, celebrating the end of the Ramadan fast. I wish them well. While I have no antipathy toward Muslim men, and I don’t intend to consciously disrespect any man who reads here, this joyous event opens up the possibility of discussing a constellation of widespread misconceptions among North Americans.

Too often I see brothers idealizing Islam, as a way to fight feminism. Their delusion centers around Hollywood stereotypes of Muslim men as strong and in charge, and Muslim women as chaste, obedient, modest, sweet and helpful.

This bit of propaganda is more than just a factor in the widespread Islamophilia I see among men on the internet. It has the potential to be quite dangerous. Young men pass around the meme that one needs only to immigrate to some Muslim country and marry a Muslim chick, or to import a mail-order Muslim wimminz to the U.S.A., and he will have the makings of a trouble-free family.

This is naïve at best.

I have known many Muslim women, and fucked a few, and my experience suggests that Muslimahs are possessed of all the evil qualities of American whores. The only difference I was able to ferret out is an added propensity for being excellent liars. Where the American bitch will take pride in her calling as harlot, the Muslim woman is an excellent pretender in public. When the doors shut behind her, she’s as dirty as any Las Vegas barfly.

Of course, I don’t expect a young brother to take my word for any of this. In honor of the holiday, we’ll dispense with my useless anecdotes, and examine a real-world incident, that illustrate the actual homemaking and mothering skills of Muslim wimminz.

Let’s meet young Ayesha Ali.

Scratch that. We’ll never get the chance to meet Ayesha, because she’s dead as dirt. Tragically, no one knows the exact day she died. She was found in her North London bedroom, with her head caved in, on 29 August, 2013. First responders report that she “had been dead for some time.” Blood trails suggest that she had been locked in her room days before, to desperately crawl around and beg for help, as she slowly bled out on the floor. They estimate that the poor kid died two or three days before her discovery.

Who could do something so monstrous? It must have been her father, right? That’s what the feminist media is always telling us.

Afsar Ali: Forced to fund the murder of his child

Afsar Ali, young Ayesha’s dad, couldn’t have done the deed. Months before, Ayesha’s mom found an accomplice in a faggot judge down in the divorce courts. We don’t know exactly what happened, because in the U.K., divorce court proceedings are sealed. What we do know is that immediately after she walked into the divorce court, skank-ho wimminz Polly Chowdhury was granted sole legal and physical custody of young Ayesha, and her ex-husband was threatened with a long prison sentence if he attempted to make contact with his own little girl.

Of course, Mr. Ali was expected to keep paying all the bills. Princess must continue in the style to which she has grown accustomed, and all that…

Polly Chowdhury: Child murderer

Once free of the patriarchal oppression of her Muslim marriage, skank-ho Polly moved her lesbo girlfriend, one Kiki Muddar, into the home that her ex-husband was paying for. Evidence suggests that the two hateful bulldykes immediately commenced to torturing young Ayesha for their own sadistic amusement.

Kiki Muddar: Child murderer

When rescuers found Ayesha’s lifeless corpse, they made a hideous discovery. Months of brutality were recorded in her flesh. She was covered in bruises, scrapes and bite-marks. Authorities also found a diary which Ayesha kept hidden in her room. It became clear that Ayesha had been subjected to considerable psychological stress, and the two dykes appear to have “brainwashed” her into believing that she deserved the abuse they randomly dished out.

When they weren’t torturing young Ayesha, the two dykes amused themselves by taunting her father in text messages, saying things like:

“Your daughter will soon be dead”

and

“You have no right to ever love your evil daughter”

One would think that these two empowered feminist wimminz, who had treated a little girl so badly, would be given some prison sentence commensurate with their crimes. A sentence of life in prison would not be unreasonable. It was not to be. They were lavished with sympathy in the British press, and the courts have so far treated them as “victims” in the whole affair. Skank-ho mommy got 13 years, and her dyke girlfriend got 18 years, and both are due to be released long before their sentences run out, so that they can go do it again to some other kid. In the meantime, Ayesha won’t be celebrating any more holidays, and her father has been effectively destroyed.

Ayesha Ali, dead at eight-years old. RIP

Read More

BBC: Bizarre Relationship Led To Killing

ITV News: Mother Who Tortured Daughter Jailed

One of the greatest parts of being a man is the drive to learn, simply for learning’s sake. The manosphere has been an interesting place for me to burn spare time, simply because there are so many talented people in residence who know all sorts of shit I don’t. Here I can talk to attorneys, plumbers, physicians, carpenters, social scientists, diesel mechanics, and engineers. Ya boy Boxer knows nothing about these sorts of things, and he appreciates all of you for expanding his horizons.

Like everyone else, Boxer has his own areas of competence. Arcane arguments in linguistics and philosophy of language are one. Epistemology is another. Aside from its primary focus, as a survival guide for younger guys, this blog functions as a way for me to give back some free knowledge to the community that has been so generous with me.

Down below, Gunner takes issue with Pascal’s work. In doing so, he’s joined some truly great minds (like Descartes). He also makes some problematic generalizations. We should parse one in detail.

Pascal’s wager fails on two counts with respect to Christianity. (1) Works don’t achieve salvation, belief does. Keeping the various rules isn’t sufficient.

For the sake of argument, let’s grant that the New Testament is a series of true propositions. With this as background, Gunner is correct that good works alone is not a sufficient condition for salvation. Gunner is incorrect in arguing that belief as a sufficient condition for salvation. From the New Testament:

One must note that the word ‘belief’ does not appear as a part of the argument. Moreover, Gunner’s exegesis seems to deprecate the importance of works. Works are described here as the outward manifestation of faith.

Now, it might be that Gunner is apostatizing from Christianity, and attempting to re-write the text, and start his own religious movement. I don’t believe this to be the case, but I want to cover the possibility. A charitable reading of his argument suggests a more likely scenario. Gunner is conflating the notion of ‘belief’ with that of ‘faith’. This is not at all uncommon, because ‘faith’ is one of those English words with a tremendous lexical range, and people commonly use it to describe a variety of dissimilar states-of-affairs. Let’s go through a few examples…

• Faith as a feeling of surety or confidence,
• Faith as an adherence to certain precepts,
• Faith as trust in some modal claim, and,
• Faith as a practical commitment to some set of ontological or ethical claims, with no evidence of their material existence.

None of these things rise to the epistemological level of ‘belief’ per se. Moreover, most people who use the word ‘faith’ to describe their own internal psychology will not posit the whole range of definitions.

Example: Suppose Person X describes his own faith as a commitment to follow the rules laid down by St. Paul in the New Testament. He’s probably not going to also posit that he trusts the possibility that those rules exist someplace in the universe. ‘Faith’ in Person X’ parlance, in this context, is ‘faith in’ the utility of an abstract system, rather than ‘faith in’ the existence of God. It’s entirely possible for Person X to have both types of faith, but given that they take different types of subjects, the meaning of the word is different in each claim.

What St. Paul is promoting in James, above, seems to correspond to our second example. If you have faith, in this context, you will follow the positive duties, and those will manifest in a distinctly material fashion. The bible talks about charity, and your faith will entail donations, or works of service, or at least going out of your way to be kind to people. The works are not faith, and neither the works, nor the faith, are beliefs, but the works follow from faith, when we read it in this context.

Belief is qualitatively different from faith, in that if I believe some proposition p, then p features in a network of associated beliefs which form the backdrop of my existence.

Example: I believe that the most expedient route to my car is out my window. This belief is justified by my proficiency in mathematics; but, I don’t need to consciously re-write Pythagoras to justify it. The “straight line” proposition just features in my epistemology. I also believe that I can’t take the most expedient route to my car, because that would entail a) breaking the window, and b), jumping three stories to the pavement. I don’t need a primer on employee rules, nor do I need to dredge up Newton and discuss gravitational acceleration, to come to this belief. The details are less important than my belief. I’ll be able to keep making money and stay out of the hospital if I take a less direct route, and so I do.

There are certain things that, by definition, we can not believe. For example, we can’t claim to believe in a proposition if it has never occurred to us. There are almost certainly new subatomic particles that we haven’t yet investigated. There are probably novel astronomical objects that we haven’t yet discovered. If nobody has ever posited such stuff, then it stands to reason that nobody can ‘believe’ in these things, whether or not they exist.

God, for better and for worse, has some similarities with these examples. It may be plausible to posit that “something created me,” but describing this something becomes very difficult. The best that most people are able to do is to posit a “first cause” or an Anselmian sort of “greatest” being.

So, faith and belief are different words for a reason. They describe different things. St. Paul was careful not to require his adherents to believe in too much. For the most part, Christians are called to have faith, and observers are cautioned to test the faith of the adherents by the material manifestations of the same.

Read More

Robert Audi: Faith, Belief and Rationality

Daniel Howard-Snyder: Does Faith Entail Belief?

Visit: Gunner Q’s Blog

As an amateur sociologist, with absolutely no formal training in that discipline, I enjoy articles like these. Apparently it’s “universally acknowledged” that “a single man with a good fortune needs a wife.” Are we surprised that the hack who wrote this, both for the content and the grammar mistakes, is a wimminz named “Aimee”?

One thing Mizz Picchi isn’t wrong about: The marriage rates in North America continue to decline. While we can (and should) laugh at articles like these, we should also wonder why marriage has such a bleak future. Dalrock is a pretty good place to begin researching social trends, but a huge lacuna in that blog is looking at factors other than divorce. I get the feeling Dalrock is in his 40s or 50s, when I read him, and as such, he probably doesn’t have much day-to-day interaction with kids of prime marriage age.

The most dysfunctional community in North America is the African-American working class. Their dysfunction is directly tied to the historical dishonor of being the first to abandon marriage en masse, and embrace the skank-ho single mom lifestyle. Why did they do this? Their behavior was driven purely by economics. Until the latter half of the twentieth century, Black families in the U.S. were more stable than the norm. Black women, in the late 1960s, realized that they could get more money via a life of harlotry, than they could by being decent wives and mothers, and it has been downhill ever since.

Never wanting to be outdone, the white Protestant working-class in the U.S. has embraced single-mom harlotry and welfare, and now races to the bottom with its nappy-headed rival, for most disgusting ethnic group on offer. They have a way to go yet, but whitey is doing his damnedest to catch up in this race, and countless stringy-haired white skanks on PoF are available (with white bastards in tow), which are perfectly comparable, in every bad aspect, to the stereotypical black welfare queen.

Marriage is not merely declining because of an increase in divorce, and marriage is not declining because of an absence of faith or values. Marriage is declining because it does not make financial sense for marriagable couples to get married. Let’s consider John and Jane, a monogamous couple who live in Seattle, and who attend community college, as an example.

As a single brother, John gets:

• Washington State Need Grant (like the dole for students)
• Apple Health (Free medical and dental insurance)
• QWEST (Food stamps and a small amount of cash assistance, loaded into a debit card)
• At risk youth scholarship

As a single woman, Jane gets all the same shit John does. They hold themselves out as “roommates who live separate lives” when they go down to the welfare and student aid offices, so they have completely separate accounts. For better and for worse, the minute these two lovebirds get married, everything but the Food stamps disappear (and the food stamps that they get will suddenly be cut by something like 50%).

Now, let’s suppose John and Jane want to have a kid. They are suddenly faced with a new choice. They can get married, and get private insurance, or they can get married, and somehow pay 20,000 USD in cash at the hospital, or they can remain as they are, holding Jane out as a skank-ho single mom, and let Uncle Sugar pay the tab.

Not only will John and Jane have a free kid, their combined welfare bonus will suddenly go way up, along with being enrolled in other programs, like WIC nutrition. They won’t even go after John for child support, if they play their cards right. Jane is a single-mom, and she puts “unknown” on the birth certificate. Never mind John, who is here kissing the baby, and holding Jane’s hand.

“He’s just my roommate. He’s just here for support, and sheeeit.”

If you think this doesn’t happen, you’re crazy. I used to teach at just such a community college, in Washington, and I saw it happen constantly. I couldn’t fault any of the kids who did it, either. There’s no downside to being shack-up parents in this society, and grievous financial penalties for being married.

Sites like Dalrock constantly review the drawbacks men face when getting married, but they also often ignore the very real incentives that appeal to both men and women, in staying single. Moreover, much of the manosphere is pointed at men age 35+, which has almost no relevance to the lives of 20-something kids. Should Jane get a divorce from John after a couple of years, what do you think her payout will be? The answer, of course, is nothing. By this we know that the incentives for staying single factor at least as much into the decision not to marry, as the fear of eventual divorce.

Does male feminist Justin Trudeau, head nancyboy of pozzed out Canuckistan, have a sordid history of sexually assaulting women? Sources say yes. Even so, wimminz make so many complaints about powerful men that this might be wish fulfillment, on the part of some fugly little reporteress. I’d probably be more ready to accept the accusation if the reporter was a man; but, anything is possible.

Full disclosure: one of Trudeau’s alleged victims is from Creston, B.C.. Ya boy Boxer is well known in that town, though I have never heard of the reporter.

From the Creston Valley Advance:

You little hut made of a chain of bones, sewn together with flesh and sinew. Fie upon the evil-smelling body. You cherish those who have another’s limbs. You bag of dung, tied up with skin, you demoness with lumps on your breast. There are nine streams in your body which flow all the time. Your body with its nine streams makes an evil smell and is obstructed by dung. A bhikkhu desiring purity avoids it as one avoids excrement. If any person knew you as I know you, he would avoid you, keeping far away, as one avoids a cess-pit in the rainy season. (Theragāthā 1146– 1208, in Norman 1969: 106–10.)

That place, hard to gain, which is to be attained by the seers, cannot be attained by a woman with two-finger-intelligence (i.e. very little intelligence). What (harm) could the woman’s state do to us, when the mind is well concentrated, when knowledge exists for someone rightly having insight into the doctrine? Everywhere enjoyment of pleasure is defeated; the mass of darkness (of ignorance) is torn asunder; thus know, evil one, you are defeated, death. (Therīgāthā 60–2, in Norman 1971: 9.)

Monks, a woman, even when going along will stop to ensnare the heart of a man; whether standing, sitting or lying down, laughing, talking or singing, weeping, stricken or dying, a woman will stop to ensnare the heart of a man. Monks, if ever one would rightly say: It is wholly a snare of Māra,—verily, speaking rightly, one may say of womanhood: It is wholly a snare of Māra. (Aṅguttara-Nikāya V.55, in Hare 1973: 56.)

See the painted puppet, a heap of sores, a compounded body, diseased, with many (bad) intentions, for which there is no permanent stability. See the painted form, with jewels and earrings; covered with skin and bones, it is resplendent with clothes. The feet are reddened with lac, the face is smeared with powder, enough to delude a fool, but not for one who seeks the far shore. Hair braided eight-fold, eyes smeared with collyrium, enough to delude a fool, but not for one who seeks the far shore. The hunter laid his net; the deer did not come near the snare; having eaten the fodder, let us go while the deer-trapper laments. The hunter’s net is broken; the deer did not come near the snare; having eaten the fodder, let us go while the deer-trapper grieves. (Theragāthā 769–93, in Norman 1969: 74–6.)

Read More:

Theragāthā: Verses of The Elder Monks

Jethro, Cletus and Quantravious just pulled a train your girl. The obvious solution is to apologize, and bake her a cake.

Vasily Kandinsky: Several Circles (1926)

For at least three thousand years, humanity’s greatest thinkers argued for (and against) the existence of God by immediate entailment. These arguments still exist, and some of them are quite compelling. Probably the most familiar modern argument was given in Descartes’ Meditations. Uncle René wanted to ask a fundamental epistemological question: “What kinds of things do I know?” One of his counterexamples included a theoretical devil, who was bored and powerful enough to convince him of falsehoods. What he concluded was that even if this were the case, the devil didn’t create him. And someone must have created him, because he was the “thinking thing” that was coming up with all these thought experiments. Given that it was indubitable that he was thinking, it followed that there was a “he” that thought. And given that “he” existed, there must be He who created. Such is the origin of the saying:

cogito ergo svm

which means “I think, therefore, I exist…” Simply by doubting, the skeptic has immediate knowledge of his existence, and therefore, he has knowledge of the possibility of a creator.

Aside from being a Christian theologian and Epistemologist, Descartes was a country doctor. When Descartes was about fifty, he met a brilliant young thinker on his rounds who was terribly ill. Descartes had a sort of unique bedside manner, and the story I heard includes the idea that he saved his young patient’s life by arguing with him. The boy, about 20, was named Blaise Pascal. Pascal went on to embrace the mystery of the faith, partly thanks to the pointed arguments of his clinician.

Pascal gave his own reasons to take the leap of faith that made him a skeptical Christian. In doing so, he humanized the pursuit of faith, and made an authentic relationship with God available to millions of people today.

We take calculated risks every time we make a choice. We may take the freeway home or the backstreets, based upon our experience with traffic patterns. We may decide to skip a certain restaurant, because the health department published a roach problem in the paper, a month prior. We might hold on 13 in a card game. We might eject early when we meet a new girl, simply based on some slight errata in her behavior. Of course, we might waste our time, lose our money, miss out on really good tacos, or fail to meet a really good piece of ass. This is the way life goes.

Pascal tells us that theology is really no different. The average intelligent person, then and now, was more-or-less agnostic. Sure, I exist, and if I exist, as Descartes suggests, there must be some state-of-affairs that brought me into existence. But I really don’t have enough information to make a rational judgment as to what sort of creature He is, or what He wants me to do.

Thus every thoughtful man is at the card table. He is compelled to bet (and, remember, if you choose not to bet, at this particular game, you still have placed a bet). Any clever gambler wants to risk as little as possible, while maximizing the payout potential.

Let’s say Gambler No. 1 bets on the existence of God. By placing this bet he will have to spend some time and energy doing what God says. What does God say? Well, his book gives us a lot of rules, but most thoughtful people would agree that most of the rules are beneficial. For example: Don’t kill anyone without justification. Don’t fuck married wimminz. Don’t rob people. Breaking any of these rules puts a brother at risk of immediate consequences, and really, most of us don’t violate them anyway.

Let’s now posit the existence of Gambler No. 2, who bets on the non-existence of God. All the rules above still apply to him, if he lives in any sort of functional society. So, he really doesn’t gain anything by betting this way.

Now, let’s say God exists. By choosing to have faith in God, Gambler No. 1 is afforded the possibility of a pleasant afterlife. Gambler No. 2 runs the risk of not being able to enjoy all the fruits of paradise, and he might risk eternal punishment, if he’s been especially blasphemous or disrespectful.

But what if God doesn’t exist? In that case, the afterlife payoff is zero either way.

With this sort of payoff matrix, Pascal gives us a practical reason to take the leap of faith, even if we can’t force ourselves into some sort of false state-of-consciousness, where we pretend that we “know” God exists.

Should we really take people who claim to “know” God seriously? There are some serious reasons not to. As Kierkegaard suggested, if God wanted us to be sure of his existence, He’d probably just knock on our doors and introduce himself. The beauty in bible stories is illustrated by the faith of men who didn’t know, but acted out of conviction anyway. Abraham sacrificing his son is the prime example.

It stands to reason that God doesn’t expect us to have any sort of belief in Him. Even so, He wants us to take the leap of faith, and promises us a reward for doing so.

Read More:

Blaise Pascal: Pensées

Søren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

So, you’ve met some sweet thing a couple months back. You’ve gone out with her a few times, maybe fucked. On the surface, your girl seems almost perfect. She cooks for you, she’s sweet and respectful, she’s fun to be around. You’ve done your due-diligence. She’s not too much of a ho’, and she seems to have decent relationships with her family.

Maybe you like the idea of having kids, or are just a traditional-leaning brother who doesn’t want to shack-up long term. Is this woman wife material? In order to judge, we’ll have to ferret out some answers to some very serious questions.

Some of these questions may seem intrusive, even outrageous, but every young brother who reads this site had best believe you need to get straight answers before buying that ring. Lets get to the bottom of a few character traits which will spell danger for a long-term coupling.

1. How much debt do you have?

Has your belle taken out massive student loans? Has she financed the illusion of solvency with credit cards? Does she own a home? Every financial liability immediately becomes your worry, the minute you sign that marriage contract.

2. Have you ever had an abortion?

This is tricky, because most legal structures feature confidentiality laws which prohibit prospective spouses from seeing the medical records of their affianced. Women are also excellent liars. Even so, it’s a crucial piece of information. If she had one abortion, she’ll have no problem having a few more. You don’t want the next baby she hacks to death to be yours.

3. Have you ever had an STD?

According to the American Sexual Health Association, most American women are filled with diseases at an early age, thanks to promiscuity and illegal drugs. Getting married and having children entails unprotected sex. It shouldn’t include a life of unsightly warts and herpes sores. Paying for a full panel STD test is a wise investment; but, again, you might have to be clever if you want the unvarnished truth. The medical community is in league with feminists, in keeping this data from you.

4. Have you ever had a problem with drugs or alcohol?

You down for bailing this bitch out of jail? I didn’t think so. Any signs of this, and you need to cut ties immediately.

5. How do you feel about your dad?

Her father is more than just a man. He’s a psychological archetype, that she either submits to or rebels against. Guess who will embody that archetype, the minute you set up house together? That’s right. If she says anything crude or disrespectful about her dad, you dump her dumb ass and move on.

6. How do you feel about my family?

Marriage is about more than just giving some dumb bitch a wedding. It’s about the creation of a bridge between two families. A bit of angst about one’s mother-in-law is natural; but bad feelings will fester, eventually erupting into total chaos. If there’s someone she doesn’t want to deal with now, then she needs to hit the bricks.

7. How do you feel about DNA testing our kids?

Chances are she’s not a virgin; but, even if she is, it doesn’t matter. Rings don’t plug any holes. Don’t be blamed for a child that’s not yours, dummy.

Thanks to anonymous_ng over on Dalrock and John Eliot over on Intellectual Takeout for inspiring this gem. If anyone else has ideas as to how to keep a marriage minded brother from disaster, shout it out.