Feeling distinctly uncreative this evening, I decided to steal the title of this post from Artisanal Toad. I also wouldn’t claim to care too much about Dalrock’s latest womanly whining, except for the fact that Jason is currently being skewered in the sewer which is Dalrock’s comment section.

Just for fun, I’ll include some of the weepings, wailings and gnashings of teeth. Bear in mind that these are only a small sample of the Cruxtoid curses that have been leveled at Jason from Dalrock’s mediocrities. I’m sure there are others, but I’m not going to spend more time in that stinkhole than necessary.

PokeSalad, a true masochist, only ever seems to appear when people are slinging insults. As such, I believe he embodies the archetypical psychic vampire that he, ironically, whines about here.

I don’t know why Oscar is jumping into the fray. In the past I always found him reasonable. Jason is describing the general AMOG attitude extant on Dalrock’s goon-blog, and Oscar is personalizing it and whining about it. That’s not a particularly manly tact. I suppose this speaks to the allure of painting oneself as some sort of “victim” whenever there’s a disagreement on the internet.

And then there are all the usual spankards…

Billy spends most of his time spreading his own misery around to others. I can feel sorry for his situation, but that hardly excuses his endless nonsense.

Cane Caldo, (Dalrock’s No. 1 asslicker,) begins with a typical passive-aggressive accusation that Jason is lying about himself. Thus begins a process which may end with Cane and Dalrock accusing their latest target of being a sex pervert. They tend to target people who are more intelligent, better adjusted, and more successful than they, making all their antics immediately suspect. Envy, it’s said, is a sin, but Dalrock and Cane have never paid much mind to that part of their scriptures. Lying is also a sin, but Dalrock and Cane do that regularly also.

There’s another guy that these whiners like to bee-yatch about, which is closer to the point I wanted to touch upon today.

Digging into the source, It becomes immediately apparent that Dalrock’s latest opponent is at least one standard deviation more intelligent than he is. The dude I’m talking about goes by the name Bnonn. I’ve been reading his blog.

For those of you who don’t like him, I am curious as to your motivations. He seems demonstrably more honest than Dalrock, and at least as familiar with your religious texts. He also strikes me as a guy who cares deeply about men (at least those of the Christian variety).

Personally, I find Bnonn irritating for the shortsighted advice he gives (he wants us all to use our real names as we mock internet feminists). I also find him unforgivably lazy. Here’s an example:

The problem with Bnonn’s article here is complex, but one of my points can be illustrated by an analogy.

I often debate white racial nationalists on the internet. I do this not because I dislike them personally (I don’t know them), and I’m also not motivated by any sort of personal angst. Certainly I don’t hate white people (I’m whiter than nearly all the white nationalists I argue with). I debate them because I know that their ideological edifice is a dead-end.

The best way to debate white racial nationalists is to be as charitable as possible, and to argue against the best theorists I can find in this regard. I could pick out some slackjawed, drooling, losers, who don’t understand basic logical concepts, but that sort of nuking fish in a barrel isn’t really productive.

Rather than debating a slackjawed, drooling halfwit like Cane Caldo, who doesn’t understand the problems with affirming the consequent, why doesn’t Bnonn pick out a more skillful opponent? His blog suggests he can certainly prevail in such a contest, and as such, my assumption is apathy on his part.

Yes, you can win an argument with Cane Caldo. I’ve won arguments with him. Jason is winning an argument with him now. Such a match is akin to slapping the snot out of some random retard’s nose as he steps offa the short bus.

Tonight, I finally dug into what Dalrock has been doing for the past several weeks. I am not favorably impressed. Bnonn Tennant is simply toying with Dalrock, and halfheartedly at that. Bnonn is winning all of the arguments Dalrock starts with him, and the usual suspects are too clueless to understand what’s going on.

More blood in the gutter, and me without my spoon.

It is sadly common for men to become despondent in this day and age. I wish I could write something that was adequate for those who are stuck in a deep, all-consuming depression. I can’t. Those men ought to seek out advice from a qualified psychoanalyst or medical professional. I am neither. That disclaimer out of the way, I thought it might help to explore the topic here.

Inasmuch as depression is a universal problem, the effects of the problem as it exhibits in the lives of men admit a masculine solution. I argue that a significant factor in depression is the feeling of helplessness, and this is rooted in a constellation of inborn traits which are suppressed by industrial society: namely, the masculine drive to overcome.

Men possess a need to feel as though they are succeeding in a hostile world. In this society, where bodily survival is as simple as signing on the dole, the physiological work of surviving is short-circuited to such an extent as to make the psychological reward nonexistent.

One of the commonly constructed byproducts of overcoming, which has been appropriated by advanced industrial society, is acceptance by women. In earlier generations, the most common token of this type was marriage, signified by a ring and a title. Marriage, having now been shorn of all its inherent meaning, is in the process of being replaced by playa culture. Today’s token of overcoming is as likely displayed by having lots of sexy conquests.

As a corollary, this is why I scoff at the cruxtoids and their fake boomer morality, which is often pointed at young brothers, in a cynical attempt to AMOG. The critics of Roosh’s young disciples were part and parcel of the redefinition of the social contract. These faggots now pretend to look down their noses at young men, who have no other way to overcome, thanks to the social changes they spearheaded.

A young man enters playa culture — fucking lots of hoez — because there is now no other way this young man can feel like a man.

• He can’t get married without losing his life’s work.
• He can’t join a men’s club, because none exist.
• He can’t start a business, without hiring a quota of wimminz.
• He can’t “go west” and be left alone.
• He can’t even join the military any longer, without being forced into close quarters with wimminz of the skankiest and least worthy variety.

Thus playa culture is the only way that many young men can overcome despair. It’s a cheap and meaningless fix, but it does work.

What else might work? Well, I’ve found that work works!

If a man declares: “I have worked hard but have not found success,” don’t believe him.

If a man declares: “I have not exerted myself, and I have found success,” don’t believe him.

If a man declares: “I worked as hard as I could and I have become successful”, believe him!

(Babylonian Talmud)

When I find myself becoming depressed, I try to pinpoint the cause of such. While I recognize that some brothers may have medical problems, I find that all my own depression is based upon psychological stressors. Moreover, they all reduce to the feeling of hopelessness that is rooted in my failure to overcome.

In the past, I resigned myself in thinking that some things simply were out of my power to change. Whether this misconception was due to laziness or lack of intelligence, I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter.

Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.

(King James Bible)

Some things might seem insurmountable. Suppose a man had a habit of driving drunk, and, at some point in the past, that man’s negligence killed a school bus full of children. If this were to happen, he would probably feel deeply depressed for the rest of his life.

It would be true that such a person would have no ability to turn back time, and prevent the deaths he caused. It might also satisfy us to think that such a man deserves to live as a psychological cripple. In fact, keeping such a man in such a state would simultaneously keep him from repaying the debt he owes to the social order. It wouldn’t benefit anyone.

This is an extreme example, but it’s safe to say that each one of us has some guilt over past mistakes. If we succumb to a sort of paralysis over such stuff, then it seems like we are missing the point.

And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

(King James Bible)

One can not overcome things that have already happened, but if we escalate the memory of such things to a reified object, one will find that he can overcome the guilt, and in the process, help to cleanse the world. The mistakes we have made in the past serve to teach us lessons, and give us the means to overcome mistakes in the now.

Care, for the world and for ourselves, is convincingly argued as the fulfillment of an examined life.

The perfectio of human being: becoming what one can be, in being free for one’s ownmost possibilities, is an accomplishment of care; but, equiprimordially, care determines the fundamental mode of this being, according to which it is delivered over to the world taken care of. The ambiguity of care entails a single constitution in a twofold instantiation…

(Being and Time)

To conclude…

It is impossible to care without work, inasmuch as work is the outward manifestation of care. Moreover, work is the means of overcoming. A failure to overcome no longer means physical death, but today it leads to psychological depression and counterproductive libertinism. As such, work may be an antidote to feelings of despondency and depression.

You are not helpless. Life is not hopeless. Get up and overcome.

Two months ago, Tom Leykis interviewed Paul Elam. Check it out…

During the interview, Tom pointedly asked Elam about register her, the most potentially subversive thing Elam ever came up with. As the old boys may already know, after register her started working, Elam shut it down.

Full disclosure: Paul Elam banned me from all his projects around 2012, after I pointed out his bizarre and counterproductive tendencies. After I was banned, one of his lieutenants (a guy pseudonymmed “Keyster”) accused me of being a prominent female feminist.

Sandman discusses Leykis’ apparent retirement here:

Whatever one might say about Tom Leykis, I will always respect him for all his good work, done long before Elam or anyone else ever spoke up.

Comic stolen from StoneToss, entitled: Happily Never After

I wanted to wait to post this article until the emotions died down.

As all men have a stake in the future of this society, I’m a little bit troubled by the outbursts I’ve seen of late, in and out of the manosphere. This is an example, found on gunner’s excellent blog…

I am curious as to the basis for the “sell out” accusations, and moreover, what such people would have expected in place of the (wildly successful) speech President Trump gave, last week.

I do have some possible assumptions, based on the character of the accusers. It seems like people were hoping or expecting to hear something like:

“Ladies and gentlemen, tonight we take you live to the National Zoo, where we’re dropping Hillary into the leopard enclosure; but first, let me take a moment to redpill you all on the dangers of blacks and Jews…

The lack of such goony nonsense in (arguably) the most successful speech, by any president, in recent memory, and the angst with which his so-called supporters met his very accessible address, says more about the grumblers than it does about the president.

It apparently escapes many denizens of the manosphere that Bibi Netanyahu isn’t pals with George Soros, and even if these types ever managed to grasp that reality, they probably still wouldn’t realize that a billionaire who managed to become president, despite the best efforts of mass media and all political parties, isn’t well served by taking orders from anonymous internet malcontents.

[Editor: The following is a response to Lori Alexander‘s comments surrounding her (ever controversial) post on how men prefer debt-free virgins. It was penned by our brother Necro. Visit his blog here.]

Hi Lori

 

I appreciate very much you had the integrity of character to publish my comment, but you avoided the salient point of my concern.

 

Your main argument in your article here is the disparaging view you hold towards men, in that the only basis for couples moving in together is to meet the so called “boyfriends” sexual needs, and for someone to cook and clean for him….you portray men as opportunistic sexual fiends who use women for sex without the need for a serious commitment to them, i.e “marriage”

 

Now this might be or might not be the case with some couples but to entirely omit a WOMAN’S manifold reasons for moving in together, based on HER motives and reasoning’s, is not only disingenuous but shows an inherent bias on your part, which I feel needs to be addressed by you in all honesty, after all, you do claim to stand on the side of truth!

 

Throwing this at me, and I quote…… ” Here are a bunch of Bible verses about what God thinks about fornication (having sex outside of marriage)”

Like I said I fail to see how that addresses my concerns that I raised?

 

There were well over 100 verses quoted in that list on fornication you gave me! (Lori sent me a link here of the standard right wing conservative position of “fornication” and how it is wrong)

 

Something for you to consider though in your continual stand for the truth

 

1: Not one of them mentions the word “fornication”…….I thought those verses were meant to be about the actual term involved?
Those verses mention the term “sexual immorality” but NOT fornication. Sexual Immorality is a very broad term that not only is entirely subjective, based on one’s own definition of what constitutes “morality”, but it also means simply sexual activity that is not moral, and this is used regardless of the person’s married state or not, so it certainly cannot be used as proof texts against your phrase “sex before marriage”

 

2: The bible is indeed against “Fornication”, make no mistake about it, but YOU have assumed the term is defined as sex outside or before marriage, but be careful Lori, the scriptures are not so clear cut on this issue as you may think
For e.g, one of the biblical definitions of “Fornication”, and I’m substituting your term of “sexual Immorality” here, is the practice of SODOMY….see Jude 1:7
Also, see 1st Corinthians 6:13-18 where Fornication is very narrowly defined as sex with a harlot/prostitute, and this is regardless of the person’s marriage state, ….so to categorically go around and tell others that Fornication is sleeping with your boyfriend/girlfriend before you’re married, as you do here in your article, is not only untruthful but showing an ignorance of HOW the bible defines it’s own terms….Instead what we’ve done is to insert our own theological and cultural bias into the term “Fornication” without understanding what the actual word really means as God defines it

 

3: One of the strongest arguments that Fornication cannot possibly mean sex before marriage, as Conservative Christians use that term, is the passage in Matthew 19:9 where Jesus described a situation where putting away your WIFE should not happen, UNLESS she commits Fornication
Question: How is it possible to have sex BEFORE marriage, once you’re already married? Answer: It isn’t possible!!, so the term Fornication CANNOT mean an action that occurs before you get married, because Jesus said that a wife can commit the act of Fornication while she IS married, present tense!, and we know that is not referring to a time in the betrothal period, because Jesus used the specific term γυνή meaning WIFE

 

Anyway these few verses I’ve provided should provide sufficient proof that the term “Fornication” certainly DOES NOT mean sex before marriage in every case, so at the end of the day, the question remains, should we be condemning others for committing the so called sin of Fornication when 1: we don’t define the term how God defines it, and 2: there is dispute for what the actual term means

 

Also, Lori, I’m not too sure if you’ve considered this, but we can’t go around condemning others for sleeping together before marriage, unless we define what the bible defines as “marriage” and believe me that’s a topic for a whole other day! lol

 

Once again, I do thank you Lori, for allowing me to comment here in your blog, and I hope this comment here will provide an impetus for challenging and inspired discussion for everyone here who reads these comments!

 

I welcome everyone’s thoughts here, and I am certainly open to being corrected if I’m wrong, and I will be back to see how this plays out lol

 

Thanks Lori

 

God bless

 

From a fellow lover of truth

Lori apparently deleted this post and refused to publish subsequent commentary. In the interest of free-expression and in the spirit of open debate, a response is being published here.

Lori

 

Looks like I was wrong about you having any sort of “integrity” as you conveniently chose to NOT publish my comment.  I thought that was a bit odd so I did more research on who you are, and it confirmed my worst fears about you

 

Many sincere, Godly Christians have been exposing you in their blogs, social media platforms etc, and they ALL paint the picture of you as an incredibly insecure,  oft times heartless, and self righteous, narcissistic  woman who simply will not allow any critique of your views or allow any dissenting comments to be allowed on your channels.  You are simply too full of pride to allow correction and reproof

 

And to be honest Lori, I agree with those views about you wholeheartedly.  I find your veiled disparaging views against men disgusting, and I attempted to pull you up on it, and I used scripture to refute and gently admonish your views on Fornication, all to no avail

 

It must be nice to sit in your little echo chamber, in your little enclosed bubble, while you vomit out your self righteous, sanctimonious, far right garbage, whilst deliberately avoiding any censure or rebuke from others who try to reprove you as the scriptures command  2Ti 4:2  Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

 

You claim to stand for the truth, but you conveniently run and hide from any criticism, you cowardly block any comments that pull you up on your errors, you harshly condemn others with no compassion or love in your judgment of them, you show an inherent bias against men whilst pretending to be against feminism, so my question to you Lori is, where is the Godly fruit being evidenced in your so called ministry?

 

There is not even any repentance by you as your latest blog post: https://thetransformedwife.com/why-men-want-their-wives-to-work/ yet again reveals more of your disgusting and veiled disparaging views on men, as you attempt to blame them for apparently wanting their wives to go out to work, instead of holding women accountable for their OWN DECISIONS to work outside the home

 

To be honest Lori, I find your sneaky, belittling attacks on men disgusting….but you disguise it very well, as you seek to come across to the world as a Transformed wife”…..No you’re not, you’re a self absorbed, narcissistic, feminist with the Spirit of Jezebel controlling you, I don’t find you submissive or Godly at all.  I think it’s time you stop teaching, which by the way is forbidden for women to teach anyway see: 1Ti_2:12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

 

Please go back under the headship of your husband, submit entirely to him in everything, and then seek to make reconciliation to all the people you’ve hurt over the years by taking down your sinful blogs

 

Knowing what a coward you are Lori, this comment will not see the light of day, and either your husband, or one of your dedicated worshipers will delete this comment before you get to see it, but God will see it, and what is concealed in the darkness will be brought to the light

 

You are a disgrace to womanhood everywhere, and you are direct proof why the bible forbids women to have any teaching role or authority over men, because the result is just disastrous and wickedly sinful as your cowardly attempt to hide from the truth demonstrates.

YHBT by Heidi and Dave: Feminist Scum Owned Hard!

I’m a Figment of Your Imagination: Or, My Husband Doesn’t Post Often, But When He Does He Stirs Up Trouble

I have no opinion on this yet. Watch it and see what you think.

https://youtu.be/Ag9Ain6a2pc

imagine being this self-absorbed…

I found a new youtuber for y’all to check out. Gen-X, African-American, appears to have been married, might actually be a coach.

Let me know what you think of this character. Start the following at 1:45 to get to the meat of the issue…

https://youtu.be/PmGACJ221os

So, over on Dalrock, we have a long line of simps complaining that the author isn’t putting his real name, home and work addresses, and telephone numbers up on the internet. First in the queue is a rather strange guy named “bnonn.”

Forging a holy masculine identity is not easy, especially in a feminized world, especially online. Yet the Bible sets out a model for our conduct that makes it simple (not easy) to move in the right direction. Here’s a somewhat chiastic description of some key principles:

1. Don’t be anonymous. The prophets, the apostles, Jesus himself risked a great deal by open discourse. Everyone knew their names. Everyone knew their faces. Have you yet resisted to the point of shedding blood? Don’t be weak. Don’t be a coward. Don’t be anonymous.

I’m not here to contend that cowardice does not exist. I believe that it does exist. It is quantifiable, and it varies from person to person. Is Dalrock a coward? I don’t know. My opinion is that he’s not a coward simply for remaining anonymous.

Bear in mind that discarding his anonymity would not necessarily be an unprofitable trade-off for a writer like him. He’s an excellent rhetorician, and thus the ideological apparatus would likely cut him a good deal to start leading folks astray. I bet my readers can name a number of countercultural figures who, once they achieved a certain level of notoriety, were co-opted by the system in just such a fashion.

Next in line is a man from an outfit I’ve never heard of, specifically Warhorn Media.

It does trouble me that you are denying your readers the chance to examine your life—what sort of man you are, how you practice what you preach, and what authority you speak from. These are not insignificant question, and they’re not inappropriate to ask. Jesus and the Apostle Paul was never afraid to engage in “ad hominem.” Who a person is does matter. Not just their arguments taken in the abstract. That being said, I’m not sure I disagree with your choice. I just question it. However, I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking it through.

The Jesus character had the luxury of speaking truth to power and fighting in the open, because he was an immortal god-man, who could miracle himself anything he needed, from one second to the next.

St. Paul started raising hell in the open because he was a Roman citizen, and his enemies were not. There are allusions in the New Testament to the pharisees trying to get him beaten up and killed; but, such things were impossible without a conviction in front of a Roman judge, and no such judicial authority gave a damn about the whines and moans of his enemies.

The young brothers who read this blog are not Jesus. They’re not St. Paul, either. The establishment is in the pockets of our enemies, and it hates us.

It’s true that none of us are really anonymous. I recently got an e-mail that hit pretty close to my own identity. That doesn’t mean that you boys should open up your personal lives to the whim of the mob. I have a father, nephews, cousins, and they don’t need to be accosted by random bulldykes at the grocery store, just because Uncle Boxer made fun of feminists on the internet.

Your first obligation, as a man, is to your family. Causing these others to be hassled simply to stroke your own ego with internet-fame isn’t bravery. It’s not masculine. It’s just stupid.