Matthew Modine – as seen on his LDS mission to Vietnam…

After criticizing the young brothers for their anonymity, Derek writes:

Consider the kids of the Covington Catholic school. They, their families, and anyone perceived to be supporting them were doxxed and attacked by the SJW mob. Now consider how valuable anonymity was for them. Worthless. Absolutely worthless.

 

Anonymity isn’t all that valuable. For example, the hints for who Boxer are apparently out there, and the only thing preventing that knowledge is the will to search for it. Anonymity doesn’t protect much against the truly determined.

Derek has constructed a slippery slope argument. Nevermind the fact that he’s right about me… my boss knows that I write this blog. While I doubt she’s a regular reader, and while she’s been simultaneously amused (she claims to think the content here is funny) and insulting (she claims that she’s heard worse from random men in passing, since her teenage years) she’s pretty much powerless to do anything about it.

Like Derek, I have a secure job, rooted in a tradition called “academic freedom.” The young brothers who read stuff like this have none of our advantages, and will be fired at will by their employers, the minute those ninnies find their opinions don’t fit established norms.

We have plans to survive, as should every man, whether you are an anonymous blogger or not. I worked hard for my ‘advantages’, they didn’t just drop into my lap.

Derek makes an excellent point in passing, despite the general folly of his bad advice. Men have a positive duty to attempt to survive in this world, which has always been, and shall ever be, hostile to the individual.

In the spirit of this notion, I’m going to put down some general orders that I think nature (or God) has given you, young brothers who might stumble in here, in furtherance of the examined life which Derek (and Socrates) encourage you to live.

1. Get as much education as you can.

2. Make as much money as you can.

3. Have as many options as you can.

Given that Derek’s own biography agrees (in deed) with these general orders, I doubt he’d disagree with them.

In furtherance of these general principles, would your life be easier if you were an out-and-proud antifeminist? I would argue that the answer is likely no. Of course, every man’s situation is different. There are people who have made a career out of being provocateurs, but most of us need to keep a lower profile.

From Jack Donovan’s blog:

The way forward is to encourage competing companies and organizations to come out with counterstatements and to take opposing positions. There is a market here that is being underserved, insulted and alienated. The solution is not to threaten Gillette or the APA with some sort of boycott. They’ve already picked their side. Seek out and empower competing entities that don’t despise men.

Read more here, and then watch this:

Feminism (n):

1. a conspiracy against all men and all nations, to offload the individual and collective responsibility for female misbehavior onto men.
2. an ideology (see Marx) which promotes a false state-of-affairs between men and their material conditions, furthering the support of women at the expense of man and his brothers.

Feedback welcomed. Is this concise and/or accurate?

If it isn’t yet illegal to talk to wimminz, it can be said to be illegal, at least in Scotland, to talk about talking to wimminz. From the shitty BBC (no link, because we hate them)…

Predatory behavior… mmm… sounds serious.

Given that it’s now a crime to encourage others to give a filthy wimminz the attention she craves, I’ll come right out and say that any of our Scots brothers who are so inclined should lay off. I wouldn’t want to be arrested for, like, encouraging any of you men to be nice to these whores.

Pick ’em up on tinder if you must, fuck and chuck as needed, but don’t chat them up on the streets, and you definitely shouldn’t buy them anything. That’s the equivalent of raping a wimminz. Did you know?

Over on Dalrock’s toilet of a comment box, we see our Brother Earl declare:

One problem in such discussions is the lexical range of words like ‘marriage’. Not only can that word denote a number of different scenarios, but the difference between such scenarios is so punctuated that the word is nearly a floating signifier.

To Johnathan, the word implies the blessings of the state, upon your union. It implies a marriage license, or at least some sort of notarized statement-of-intent, filed at a courthouse someplace.

The problem with this is that people have been coupling up, monogamously, since prehistory. Natural selection required us to pair-bond and raise children together, as it was the only way for us to reproduce, given the helplessness of the modern human baby. Certainly these unions are more in line with the traditional use of the word ‘marriage,’ than a modern anal marriage between two fags, or a lezbo-feminist “self marriage,” or any of the other examples of perversity and diversity we see regularly on display in this decadent society.

Thus the term ‘marriage,’ properly used, denotes a naturally occurring state of affairs, that surely existed millions of years before anyone dreamt up the Jesus story, and millions of years before The State of California built its first county courthouse and started solemnizing this human trait on the steps. The church and the state can claim the authority to define this term, but only a fool would believe either of them. Human beings will marry, long after the last Christian dies out, and certainly after “The United States” ceases to be.

In a world where so many wimminz have decided to pursue an un-natural and anti-human ideology, like feminism, and where the state has reflected these wimminz choices in new legislation, we might rationally say that the word ‘marriage’ no longer reliably signifies the natural process of coupling.

From sweet little kid to hateful feminist…

https://youtu.be/5n2pKnvH0V0

TJ and John both clued me in to Tucker Carlson’s polemic this morning. Carlson begins by citing a wonderfully bright, helpful, all-American op-ed, written by my dearly beloved cousin, Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney does not want America to be great again, because my people do not consider themselves to be any part of America. We are a conquered and colonized people, and we have learned how to wage a war of deception against the rest of you. Mitt Romney sees America as a dying beast, to which Mormons can attach themselves to — as parasites — feeding on the decaying flesh.

That this is not a tenable long-term solution makes no difference. That it makes Mormons to be (if not individually, then collectively) a disgusting and loathsome people is beyond the point. It’s all about easy living for Mitt, and for Mormons in general. The proof is in the fact that Romney was elected by a large majority as a Utah politician, despite never having lived there.

Mitt was at his best (and most concealable) when he had his fellow Mormon and fake enemy, Harry Reid, installed as legislator. They could pretend to adamantly disagree with one another, before acting in tandem… later to meet up in the Celestial Room for hugs as they laughed at the stupid sheep who bought their thespianics.

In other news, Skank-ho princess Meghan is up to her old antics again…

This is what happens when one installs human garbage into his family. We should remember that Markle has already been married in a traditional religious ceremony. She frivolously divorced that unfortunate sap almost immediately. She also went on record stating that she hates her father.

Young men should think about this, the next time they sex up that hot piece of ass who seems to have a surplus of personal and family problems. Marrying one of these sluts has the potential to destroy generations of your descendants. Harry has the money and resources to ditch this ho’ (and he will) but you will not have his connections.