Texts from classical antiquity and popular contemporary stories both tout the notion of the heroine. This is understandable, and as a literary archetype, the female hero is completely legitimate. From time to time, humanity kicks out a woman who is both willing and uniquely qualified to solve some social problem. Such women are heroines, thus the promotion of the heroic ideal understandable, even to a hateful misogynist like me.

I was re-reading Aeneid over the past few days, in anticipation of writing an article about the political future of the United States, when I had a much more interesting epiphany. This week’s conspiracy theory involves feminists using mass-media to subvert the heroine archetype into a promotion of lesbianism, promiscuity, and degeneracy.

One go-to example is my generation’s fictional pop-culture heroine, depicted in Xena: Warrior Princess. For those who were lucky enough to miss this farce, it was a low-budget tee-vee show that came out in the 1990s, and Xena rapidly became the icon for my generation’s yougogrrrlz.

While I never followed the program in my youth, I am familiar with some of the characters. As part of a quick brush-up, I figured I would do some background reading about the history and development of the television drama, and what I found confirmed my every suspicion.

The blocked quotes are all from Wikipedia’s summary of Lucy Lawless, the actress who played the protagonist Xena:

In 1994, Lawless appeared in Hercules and the Amazon Women, a Pacific Renaissance Pictures made-for-television film that became the television pilot for Hercules: The Legendary Journeys. In that episode, she played a man-hating Amazon named Lysia. She went on to play another character, Lyla, in the first-season episode “As Darkness Falls.”

A “man-hating Amazon” is an interesting character to appear in a program targeting young people. In any case, Hercules and the Amazon Women was successful as a pilot, not for launching a tee-vee program about Hercules, but for taking a bit-part and elevating it into the lead.

Lawless received her best-known role when she was asked to play a heroic warrior woman named Xena in the episode “The Warrior Princess,” which aired in March 1995 (R. J. Stewart, one of Pacific Renaissance Pictures’s in-house writers, dramatised the teleplay from a story that Robert G. “Rob” Tapert commissioned John Schulian to write). The character proved to be very successful among fans of the show.

Vanessa Angel was originally cast in the role, but she fell ill and was unable to travel to New Zealand for shooting. To differentiate between Xena and the similar Lysia, Lawless’ hair, previously an ash blonde, was dyed black. She also wore a much darker costume. Lawless subsequently returned as Xena in two more episodes of the first season of Hercules, which portrayed her turn from villainess to a good, heroic character.

So, Lawless’ “Xena” character went from being an evil, man-hating Amazon, to a good, man-hating Amazon.

Lucy Lawless gave an interview about a character she played to some of her fans, in which she described her role as “a real, three-dimensional character… the best role for a woman… ever!”

Part of my interest in the program is the memory of my own reaction to its gradual slide into degeneracy. It seems like I watched it as a kid with waning enthusiasm. Even as the tits-and-ass appeal of it increased, the stupidity of the story and the numerous plot holes kept me from ever getting into it. Moreover, it seemed to have an increasing amount of filthy degeneracy as the series progressed, to the point that any legitimate interest in the characters became impossible.

Am I a biased observer? Lawless herself is a married mother of at least one kid. Even so, she has gone on record stating that she was promoting a degenerate lezbo lifestyle with her role in the series, e.g.:

Xena’s ambiguous romantic relationship with travelling companion Gabrielle (Renee O’Connor) led to Lawless becoming a lesbian icon, a role she has said she’s proud of. She has said that during the years she was playing the role, she had been undecided on the nature of the relationship, but in a 2003 interview with Lesbian News magazine, she said that after viewing the series finale, she had come to see Xena and Gabrielle’s relationship as definitely gay, adding “they’re married, man.”

This reputation became cemented after her “graphic lesbian sex scenes” in Spartacus: Gods of the Arena. She has appeared at gay pride events such as the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

In fact, the show did such a great job encouraging young people to adopt perverse lifestyles that she got all manner of honors and awards from fag and dyke organizations.

For her strong support of LGBT rights, including her public support for same-sex marriage, in 2017 Lawless was given the Star 100–Ally of the Year award at the Australian LGBTI Awards ceremony.

I don’t think Xena: Warrior Princess was anomalous. We can see the same feminist pattern writ large in any number of contemporary literary and cinematic situations. If I could codify my conspiracy theory, it’d be something like this:

1. Adoption of a legitimate archetype (like the literary heroine) and casting the specific character as a goodlookin’ man-basher.
2. Gradual replacement of a coherent story with endless, fractal examples of applied feminism and similar hatred.
3. Re-casting the the general archetype as actually standing for feminist ideology.

Men are naturally attracted to what might be called “alpha females,” and the heroine is a token of this type. By getting young boys and men attracted to a character which at first seems semi-normal, but which increasingly promotes degeneracy and insanity, feminists succeed not only in promoting their cause-du-jour, but also in sullying the countless examples of this type that came before. This increases the sense of hopelessness in both men and women, as the viewer is forcibly deracinated from noble ideas via the medium of a filthy bulldyke, shaking her ass on the television.

As a normal, healthy family man, Mike Pence strikes terror into the hearts of perverts. Example: Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar.

As a flaming faggot, Queen Leo felt the need to rub his anal marriage in the face of our vice-president, so he made sure that his fag boyfriend came along on a state visit.

Naturally, he documented the whole thing on twitter.

Fags enjoy making normal men uncomfortable, for many of the same reasons wimminz do. Filled with hatred for his absent father, the flaming queen projects his displaced rage at any man who seems to embody the masculine archetype.

In this case, Queen Leo thought he was “owning” all of us backward bigots in the U.S., by disrespecting our representative. In reality, he was disrespecting his “partner” (who didn’t seem too excited to be used as a pawn in Queen Leo’s weird psychodrama) and he increased our collective disgust toward fags everywhere. Mike Pence sat quietly, while laughing inside, at the pathetic drama surrounding this prissy homo. Why the Irish ever elected this fool, I can’t imagine. He might even tops Trudeau as a pathetic embarrassment to his nation.

The governmental authorities of every country have rules which are to be followed by passengers on commercial airliners. One rule, common to every jurisdiction I’ve ever flown in or through, is that the passengers must wear clothes. This is important, both as a safety standard as well as to ensure the comfort of all aboard.

As a wimminz, Emily O’Connor (of Solihull, England) assumed that the rules did not apply to her. Rules are only for men. Wimminz are exempt. This is somewhat understandable, as that is the nonstop message her feminist society drills into the public consciousness.

Most traumatic for Emily is the memory of some man, who was allowed to voice disproval of Emily’s attempt to fly naked. Emily simply can’t believe that there isn’t some rule against men disapproving of filthy wimminz, who try to invade polite spaces clad only in their underwear. Surely the four flight attendants should have carted that subhuman man off in chains.

Poor Emily. She was forced to follow the rules that everyone else understood implicitly.

Only a couple of years ago, ya boy Boxer defended the rights of dissidents to speak their minds (anonymously or not). I was roundly shouted down in places like the Dalrock comment section. (Hi Gunner!) It gives me no real schadenfreude to see Dalrock now labeled all sorts of nasty things, the same way I was on his blog, by people who are indulging in his own game of attempting to identify and “out” their ideological enemies as dangerous criminals, embarrass them in their neighborhoods, and get them canned from their jobs.

I still read Jack Donovan’s books, and I still read Weev’s blog, and I would read Lyn87’s biblical exegesis, if he were still online. Unfortunately, Dalrock, Cane Caldo and his friends were successful in driving that man from the internet. Of course I don’t agree with absolutely everything these people write. I’m not a Christian (like Lyn87) and I’m not a pagan (like Jack) and I’m not an esoteric white nationalist who hacks computers (like Weev). The difference between me and a faggot like Cane Caldo is that I don’t want anyone silenced. I want everyone to speak their minds — including feminists and furries. I’m confident that my ideas can compete, and if they can’t, then I deserve the opportunity to be schooled and improve my arguments.

This whole phenomenon is now being masterfully dissected on national media. I apologize for the ads in this video, but I encourage you all to watch it, before Youtube censors the shit out of it. In his program, Tucker Carlson names the SPLC and Media Matters as the foremost censors in American society.

https://youtu.be/n-tXvSARSnc

Of late in the news is a scheme, allegedly cooked up by one Rick Singer. Singer is now cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice, and says he plans to plead guilty to all charges, so I guess the “allegedly” in the last sentence is sorta silly.

The scam was apparently multifaceted; but, basically, if you were in the top tiers of the upper middle-class, you could pay old Singer to rig the admissions process at schools like USC (known, in my day, as University of Spoiled Children …) and Yale (home of the pseudosatanic frat house Skull and Bones which boasted the George Bush dynasty as members).

So, if you have a million (or two) dollars you can spread around, and a useless cunt of a daughter, who needs to get a gold-collar sinecure someplace, this is how you get her out of your house.

Singer had multiple ways of getting the idiot kids of the UMC admitted to ritzy schools. He was friends with various coaches, who would waive little Janie into school for her supposed athletic merits. Janie would never play a single game on the women’s volleyball team, of course. Once admitted, she’d immediately quit the athletic club, and be allowed to stay on as a student, with no questions asked.

In some cases, Singer hired smarter kids to take the standardized admissions tests in place of his clients. He’d also hire physicians to sign notes, so that his customers got extra time on the exam. Hoaxed high school records were also a possibility.

Skank-ho wimminz and their thot daughters used to be less of a problem, since women got married early, and were expected to stay married to their husbands. This particular young woman is quite attractive and could have found a simp easily; but, marriage is no longer fashionable. She had to have a good (low effort) job, at a good salary, to “find herself” (by riding hundreds of cocks). That gold collar job is only available after a stint at a prestigious academic institution. Singer’s con was the means to this end.

A few thoughts:

1. While the UMC is a problem, a similar problem also exists with the American ruling class. George Bush Jr.’s daughters were drunken whores. Guess where one of them went? (That’d be Yale University, where many of Singer’s clients got in.) You can bet that Barbara Pierce Bush didn’t need to cheat to be admitted. Her daddy simply ordered the college to open their doors. The same surely happened with Malia Obama, who spent her college years at Harvard embarrassing her family and acting like a common skank.
2. This scam would have been impossible only ten years ago. Believe it or not, when I started teaching, it was common for idiot kids who somehow found their way into university to be failed out in short order. Part of the problem is the increasing trend of treating students as “consumers,” and being pressured to pass kids, even if they don’t merit the honor of a “C”.
3. Some of the fallout from this scandal may be pressure to deprecate or do away with standardized tests. That would be a disaster. I’m sure I’m a minority in the manosphere, but diversity is a good thing. Competence is also a good thing. Very few university students enter their school with the skills necessary to succeed, but the SAT ensures that most of them have the ability to pick up those skills. Scrapping the tests leaves us no way of identifying people who will benefit from a bachelor’s degree, or screening out people who would be happier doing something else. There are kids from poor and minority families who would do well at USC and Yale, and the SAT is how we find them.

In the end, this is just more evidence of the corrosive effect of uncontrolled female sluttery on society. All the little skank-hoez in training who got the Singer scholarship stole slots that would have been better filled by the sons of working men.

Someone pointed me to this comment, which seems to mesh well with Derek’s local commentary.

Credit to Dalrock for not deleting this comment. I realize he’s doing it merely to bait the usual suckers into dogpiling, but it’s still admirable to allow your critics a voice.

Vox Day, a character best known for filing frivolous lawsuits when people make fun of him on the internet, is apparently some sort of hero to the goons on Dalrock’s comment section. Vox Day’s accomplishments including losing a debate to a goony net-nazi, and writing an insipid, whining screed about Jordan Peterson’s success. Vox Day would never allow anyone to disagree with him on gab, much less on his own blog, so why he should be treated as some sort of authority is an unanswered question.

It strikes me that Warhorn Media has actually treated Dalrock far better than he has treated many of his own contributors. It’s also becoming something of a farce to see this argument continue to steamroll on, though I’m sure it’s successful in driving traffic to both camps.

Thanks to Jack Dorsey’s unwavering support for this blog, I’m back on twitter. One of the first stories I ran across on that open sewer was the sad tale of rape victim Martha McSally, the CONservative republican senator from Arizona. McSally ran as a Trump supporting politician, and makes a number of hot-button issues a feature in her political life.

Those hot button issues include feminism.

And McSally has also made a rape accusation against a superior officer.

It is notable that Senator McSally has refused to identify the man that she claims has raped her. Why would a sitting U.S. senator protect a dangerous criminal with a history of raping defenseless subordinates? We have to wonder.

Of course, thanks to feminists like McSally, we don’t really know what ‘rape’ means, since the lexical range of that word has been widened to include things like smiling and nodding at some dumb wimminz on an elevator, or holding the door for an elderly granny. Nearly every interaction with any wimminz can be spun into a rape, at this point, and that is how feminists like McSally want it.

More generally, what was McSally doing in the U.S. Air Force? If anything, this sad tale ought to be a reason to expel every wimminz from military service immediately.

According to the senator, the armed forces are being used as a rape camp by degenerates. This wimminz, now a powerful political figure, and friends with the president, is in the perfect position to investigate and push for changes. Why is she doing nothing about this dreadful problem?

Lots of fellas around the manosphere insist that the feminist rot is restricted to Anglo-American wimminz. These same fools will tell wild stories about emigrating to Latin America, where the women are all sweet and respectful. This video is for those dolts.

For those who don’t speak Spanish, here’s the story:

1. Bitch lures her boyfriend to a cheap motel, where she stabs him repeatedly in the chest.
2. Dude somehow escapes the scene of his murder, stumbles into the street, where passersby start calling the cops.
3. Bitch runs out, pretends to be distraught, starts alluding to him being attacked by others.
4. Someone starts documenting the incident. Apparently the owners of the hotel fingered the wimminz as the killer, and the camerawoman claims she has photos of the knife.
5. Bitch starts holding “her love” while wailing dramatically. In reality, she’s trying to open his wounds and kill him before the ambulancia arrives (it’s late, and this is a tense video).
6. Throughout it all, bitch puts on an incredibly convincing show of being a “victim”.

This story really shouldn’t be funny…

From Faux News:

A jaguar won’t be punished for a woman whose selfie went horribly wrong.

 

The jaguar that attacked an Arizona woman — who jumped a barrier to snap a selfie with the feline — will not be euthanized, zoo officials said Sunday.

 

Wildlife World Zoo officials told social media users the jaguar “won’t be put down” after a woman in her 30s suffered injuries to her arm following the Saturday incident. The woman jumped a barrier at the Litchfield Park zoo and reached out to take a selfie when the big cat dug her claws into the visitor’s hand.

If you hop the protective barriers at the zoo, you might get attacked by the wild animals. I had no idea!

[Editor: I was going to write some more shit about Dalrock’s laughable entitlement complex, but Derek beat me to it. Because I’m a lazy fucker, I’ll just cut and paste his work into the front page. Take it away…]

So here we are again lads. Dalrock is complaining again. In light of the absurdity of it all, I’m going full snark on this review. You’ve been warned.

Dalrock states the following:

“Nathan’s edited version of the exchange leaves out our agreement to have a back and forth exchange, and it leaves out the part where Nathan wrote:”

Ah ha! Surely we have him here! The very best evidence so far of the Warhorn duplicity worth half a dozen posts! Pitchforks out boys!

“I’d like to sincerely understand and present your point of view, even where our camp diverges.”

Wow. Devastating.

Let’s put our learning hats on and do a little analysis, shall we? Let’s see what Nathan wanted to do:

1) To understand Dalrock’s point-of-view.
2) To present said point-of-view.

In other words, “I want to understand your point-of-view so I don’t misrepresent it.” Gah! My eyes!

Nathan made his best attempt at understanding Dalrock. The point of the discussion was to make a best-effort to get it right, but that didn’t mean he couldn’t have gotten it wrong. So, did Nathan present what he viewed Dalrock’s point-of-view to be? Yes, of course he did. He even presented what he thought Dalrock’s full point-of-view was by posting the transcript of the email exchange which he referenced in the podcast (!!).

What’s that you say? Nathan didn’t talk about every topic that was available from the email interview in full detail on a time-limited, tacky-humored podcast? Oh no!

Okay, so in all seriousness, Dalrock is upset that he didn’t get enough airtime on someone else’s show. He’s upset that the editorial discretion of the podcast edited out the majority of content of the interview. He can couch this in terms of “he lied to me” but that’s not a rational conclusion.

Lastly, consider now much time he has now spent not engaging in back-and-forth debate.