Should I, or shouldn’t I? Comments welcome…

Heartiste has a discussion of the cuck lifestyle up on his blog. You can read his comments here. Unlike the Heartiste author, I’m not ready to limit my comments to mocking and deriding the victims of such stuff, so this article will be sufficiently different even to appeal to his readers (most of whom are idiots).

In the first place, when I stumble across such stuff, I find it (relatively) incredibly likely that the author will be Indian or Pakistani. I really don’t know what’s going on over there, but if there’s a subcontinental in the audience who would like to clarify or comment, he’d be welcome. The author of Heartiste’s takedown is named “Sharma.” Here’s “Sandeep,” writing in a totally different forum, to give us a different look…

Sandeep seems to get a kick out of his wife’s exploitation of her students. A quick read also reveals that Sandeep also enjoys fucking his wife’s “bull” in the ass. We can hope the young African-American “bull” wises up, and sues both of these degenerates into penury, but in this troubled world, we know he won’t.

However you look at it, the cuck phenomenon is a deeply dysfunctional trend, and men should resist it by any means necessary.

So, getting back to Quora, we find Sharma giving advice to some married skank as to how best to “open” her marriage (along with her legs).

Your new relationship needs new rules. Make it very clear that if he follows rules he gets rewarded; if he breaks them, he gets punished. The rules imposed should be designed to remind him of your dominance in the relationship. Start with just a few rules (so he can get used to it) and then build them up and up. Common first-time rules are as follows: he must do whatever you tell him, he cannot orgasm without permission, he cannot ask for sexual interactions with you, he must address you as Mistress or Goddess to show your dominant role.

I always try to refrain from passing judgment upon how a brother runs his house. If some man finds it thrilling to let his wife dominate him, then I suppose I’ve got nothing to say about it. It is important, however, to identify the tools a filthy wimminz will use to subvert a healthy man’s masculine ego.

It is your goal to get your husband to gradually relinquish his manliness. Give him a boyish or a feminine name. For example, if he is called Christian, you could rename him, Chrissy or Christine. You should command him to begin wearing female clothing too. He can start by wearing female underwear.

Allowing your wife this level of disrespect begins to cross the line into public nuisance. Your father gave you a name. If the bitch wants to name you something else, then perhaps she should simply be addressed as “hey cunt” until she gets a clue.

Let him know, constantly, that you no longer view him as a real man, more of a girl. His “manhood” is too small to make him a real man. Therefore, you no longer allow him to have sexual relations with you. The most you let him do is, perhaps, perform oral – as a woman would.

Every wimminz I’ve ever fucked has been fine with my tiny penis; however, if I ever did get a complaint, I’d probably retort with something like…

Bitch, you’ve taken so much cock that a bull elephant would feel small to you. Now shut the fuck up and start sucking these nuts.

The greatest power you wield over your husband is your sexuality. When you take sexual relations away from him, he will want it all the more. To make him want it even more, you can dress sexy, work out, and act in a more sexual manner, and flirt with other men to remind your husband of your sexuality and his position in the relationship. As rewards for good behavior, you can reward your husband with threats of a sexual nature, but never allow him penetrative interactions.

Actually, your skank-ho wife has no power in this regard. She pissed it straight down the sink when she started running her mouth about the size of your johnson.

Make no mistake: The minute a wimminz withhold sex from you, she is inviting you to get your needs met elsewhere. That means it’s time to fire up the Tinder app, read my operating instructions, and start playing the field. Whores like your skank wife are easily replaced, and within a week you will be banging tons of new wimminz, all of whom will be more pleasant than the bitch you’ve been dealing with.

It is imperative for you to be strict. Never weaken your positive by giving in to demands. Take away all of the things in life that give your husband pleasure and ONLY return some of them when he earns them. And, thus, take them away as punishments. Be strict in all your interactions. Do not be afraid to shout at him or put him over your knee for a spanking.

You asked yourself “how to cuckold my husband” and these are the most common steps to doing just that.

Make sure you document any physical abuse that your skank-ho wife attempts to inflict. There will be no “putting you over her knee,” and if she tries any shit like that, it will come out in divorce court.

In the end, articles like these are just more evidence that we live in a deeply troubled society. No man should put up with any of this shit, and every wimminz should know the consequences of attempting it.

Now that the horse has been beaten to a brown stain on the side of the highway, I figured I’d zoom out and make a few observations.

Bayly’s angst about “the manosphere” is largely a reflection of his feelings about his own evangelical movement. Bayly suspects, at an emotional level, that Christianity is a historical failure: a cul-de-sac, a dying project. The difference between Bayly and us is that we knows that Christianity is a corpse, and some of us are attempting to revive it (or at least to save the Christian men within its ranks). For this good deed, Bayly and his crew hates us.

Bayly is a very shallow thinker. Like most people, he feels that something is terribly wrong, yet, as so many of his Christian brothers, he doesn’t understand the underlying currents which lead to the blossoming forth of so many aesthetic horrors.

Bayly can not handle honest criticism, even on the very website he laughably labels as “the reformation,” in which he begs for “discussion.” He runs his web page like he runs his church, no doubt: permanently detached from everyday reality. He criticizes people for their anonymity, when it’s clear he has none of what Taleb calls skin in the game himself.

Dalrock has, at least in the past, gone to bat for Christianity against the feminist enemy. Bayly resents this because he’s the same type of real-world failure I have occasionally seen in my day-to-day life. We all know that one guy who seems to desperately need help, and who simultaneously lashes out at anyone who tries to help him.

An effort to help such a person is wasted. In the attempt, the good samaritan exposes the flaws and failings of the poor sap to the light of day, where his own ego must confront them. The confrontation illustrates to everyone (and most importantly, to the patient himself) his complicity in his own failure. It’s easier for such people to just keep failing, than to face the fact that what they’re doing isn’t working.

Bayly and his gaggle of losers prefer feminists to us, because this doesn’t threaten the illusion of Christian hegemony (not to mention the ego of each whiner). If Bayly and his crew of miscreants weren’t total losers, they’d ignore Dalrock (and us) and spend their energies mocking our common enemies.

One can listen to as many warhorn media podcasts as he likes, and I’ll bet he’ll never find these cretins lampooning single mothers or abortionists, the way they sneer at us. This is not a coincidence.

As men with a goal of a healthy, patriarchal society, our first instinct is to build bridges and form coalitions (even temporary ones) with disparate peoples and groups. Unfortunately, Christians are at best unreliable, and usually treacherous. People like these will never be part of anything healthy or useful. As Nietzsche might remind us, they’re masochists who are centered on death and negativity, who cling to a slave morality. Such creatures have nothing positive to offer.

(Bolton UK) Crazed slut Carla Couperthwaite, 22, chased random men through the streets, waving a sharp knife. When detained by police, the crazy wimminz explained that she had been motivated by the idea that these men had been “looking at her.”

The attack occurred at 6.45pm on February 4 after a full day of binge drinking. Bitch was seen attempting to batter down the door of a quickie-mart to get to the first man, before turning her attention to another man who was innocently walking past her, minding his own business and bothering nobody.

From Metro News (no link for this tabloid trash)

The bitch managed to tackle this poor schlub, and hold a knife to his throat while screaming and “frothing at the mouth.” When the cops arrived, bitch admitted that “she had been drinking heavily before going on the rampage and said the way the first man had been looking at her was ‘troubling’.”

Welcome to the new normal, fellas.

He stayed for his children…

https://www.bitchute.com/video/egprcKSyMXo/

Here’s to American wimminz! Watch now as some meddling American cunt tries to kidnap the children of poor refugee family. She got the phony accent slapped right out of her.

Entertainer R. Kelly is now in the Cook County Jail, not for robbing, raping or killing, but merely because he couldn’t give his bitch ex-wife enough of his dough.

I thought we had a revolution over all this debtor’s prison nonsense. The question remains, what has his bitch done to deserve a hundred sixty large?

From CNN (no link, because they suck)

It must be nice to be a uterus-american, where one can get paid just for breathing.

Here’s another great story. Did you boys hear about this guy?

As we recently saw, Johnny Depp got hit with a false accusation of violent assault. For some reason, Shawn thought he wouldn’t get the same treatment. You boys really need to be smarter than this. Document all your interactions with skanks. Failure to be vigilant may result in the destruction of your life.

Oh, and in case you were gonna hit the cinema this week, you know which movie not to see…

And then there’s more warnings from those brothers who have gone before…

It might seem rough, but I have no sympathy for Steve. Unless you work at a nightclub, you shouldn’t be chatting up bitches on company time. Just don’t go there.

There are other things you shouldn’t do. Buying a bitch dinner is benevolent sexism. Spending money on a wimminz is the equivalent of raping that woman. Just ask your local bulldyke professor in the gender studies department. She’ll back my play on this.

Boys in this post code don’t feel sorry for that simp, either. He got what he deserved.

Remember, be the guy who eats for free. Don’t be the guy who buys the meal.

An 18th c. photo of John Jay, anonymous shitpoaster.

Down below, Derek writes that “Authority and leadership are antithetical with anonymity.” Is this true? I don’t think so, but honestly, I don’t know, since Derek continuously refuses to well-define the term ‘authority.’

We’ll set aside, for now, the implicit second claim in this conjunction, given that my position on leadership was established two years ago.

Authority is a word that has a wide lexical range. I’ll try and define some of its most popular senses here, and explain why Derek is wrong in his sweeping declaration.

Authority in its barest form simply means authorship. It seems obvious that ‘Nick Adams, of Wye Mills, Maryland, is capable of authoring articles. It’s equally clear that ‘Boxer’ is just as capable, given that he’s been doing exactly that, here on this blog, at least as far back as 2017 (see photo above).

Derek will, of course, claim that this isn’t the sense in which he’s using the word. That’s fine. We can get as specific as we like.

Normative authority implies that there are certain ideal norms which govern right conduct. Since I occasionally cite the New Testament and the U.S. Constitution, it’s fair to assume that these are two norms that I accept. It seems that I can cite such norms independent of divulging my identity to any third party, and it also seems that I can accept those two norms without knowing who the original authors might have been. In the case of the New Testament, this is obviously true. I mean, I think Saul of Tarsus might have had something to do with that book, but I really don’t know, and can’t ever know. The text is prehistoric, and the identity of the author is lost to us forever.

Theoretical authority is the ability I have to discuss the definition of ‘authority’. I have a degree that says I’m qualified to do this. Over the course of my career, I’ve taught propositional logic and foundations of advanced mathematics. Those are philosophy and mathematics courses (and, as a fun little bit of trivia, despite being in two disciplines, over half of the content of those courses is identical). I wouldn’t ever be pulled to teach a biology course, or an English course, or a class in law or medicine, because I have no authority to teach such stuff, and I make it a point never to pretend to speak on my own authority about legal matters on this blog. Though I often discuss the law, I do so as a novice, who shouts from the cheap seats. If you want serious advice about such stuff, you have to go find someone with a master’s or doctorate in those disciplines, and ask him.

This is the only sense in which Derek’s point might be valid, since this sort of authority comes down from other scholars (specifically, the people on your thesis defense committees) and it’s something like the notion of apostolic succession. I’ve never heard of a graduate scholar who gets a degree under a throwaway pseudonym. Even so, it doesn’t seem like Derek uses this sense of the word when he bandies it about.

Political authority seems to be what Derek is talking about, in that political authority is not only the ability to prescribe right conduct, but to compel compliance, even in the unwilling.

Derek is obviously wrong about authority when he uses the word in this sense. Do you know the man who wrote the tax laws in your state? I don’t either. Try to evade your taxes, and see how much it matters. Much of the political authority wielded, not only in our society, but in every society, is nameless, faceless, and anonymous.

Political groups like the IRA and Viet Cong were almost completely anonymous, and yet they compelled obedience in the territories they influenced. They did so with violence, same as the I.R.S. does today.

In “Hail Nereus!“, Boxer asked what difference giving up anonymity would make…

“Suppose I out myself tomorrow? What would the difference be?”

…to which I replied:

Authority and leadership are antithetical with anonymity. Formally stated, if A is “anonymous” and B is “has authority or is a leader”, then the following is true:

“A → ¬B”

However, the question above asks whether the inverse is true:

“¬A → B”

From the laws of logic, we know that the inverse is not a logical consequence of a proposition. For it to be true, the inverse’s contrapositive would also have to be true:

“¬B → A”

That is, “if you don’t have have authority and are not a leader, then you are anonymous.” This is plainly false, therefore ¬A → B is false, so expecting a difference outcome because you out yourself is not logically justified. Revealing your identity is only a prerequisite to leadership and authority.

If you are not a Christian (i.e. under additional obligations) and not seeking leadership/authority, then my argument does not preclude anonymity.

Boxer responded simply:

Since we are agreeing to cite this Wikipedia article for this casual formal argument, let’s consider the argument to see if it makes my argument logically unsound. The argument can be stated like this:

We can demonstrate historically (e.g. Federalist Papers) that anonymity is associated with authority and leadership, therefore they are not antithetical.

I have multiple responses to this claim. Let’s consider some selected quotes.

“At the time of publication, the authors of The Federalist Papers attempted to hide their identities for fear of prosecution. Astute observers, however, correctly discerned the identities of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.”

First. The authors were not truly anonymous. They were at least understood to be the anonymous identities of a small group of known individuals. They were not random individuals. This association alone gave them implied authority through their implied group identity. Furthermore, some observers were even able to deduce who they were specifically, granting them explicit authority. Therefore, the Federalist Papers are not sufficient evidence to show that any authority wielded was derived from anonymous content rather than their presumed or deduced identities.

In anticipation of a counter-argument, consider the case where the real identity of the non-anonymous source wields leadership and authority (e.g. ghost written books by politicians; hoaxes; Texan family man persona). These have authority granted based off the strength of their perceived identity. That identity could be incorrect (or questioned), but it proves that identity is still required for authority. Mistaken identity is still identity. This is why authority is instantly lost if a hoax identity is revealed.

“The Federalist Papers were written to support the ratification of the Constitution, specifically in New York. Whether they succeeded in this mission is questionable.”

Second. It is not established that the Federalist Papers were treated with the level of leadership and authority claimed. Indeed, it is likely that the anonymity is the reason why the success of the goal is questionable. In other words, anonymity impeded authority and leadership. Therefore, this is evidence in favor of my proposition, not evidence against it.

Third. I’ve noted a difference between pure anonymity and pseudonymity in our previous discussions. The Federalist Papers qualify as pure anonymity in that their content is divorced from personal anecdotes and appeals to personal authority. Compare this to someone, like Dalrock, with a carefully crafted personal persona that may or may not be real and is referenced in the content. The perceived identity is use to legitimize authority, but it’s necessarily shaky and thus ineffective. If there is a possible counter to my argument it is pure anonymity, but there are still significant hurdles against this view.

Fourth. Let’s ignore everything above and say that the Federalist Papers are a rare exception to the rule, aberrations of the norm. This changes the formal deductive argument into an inductive logic / probability argument. If you go back and assign probabilities to the propositions, perhaps you could make a claim like this:

”Authority and leadership are antithetical with anonymity 99.9% of the time.”

I’d be comfortable with this inductive inference. It adds some nuance to the argument, rather than being pure black and white, but it doesn’t really change the practical outcome much. Taking it into the probability realm favors my argument, as…

…the overwhelming historical standard for authority and leadership is identity.

There are very few cases where anonymous works were granted permanent authority based solely on their content.

“Go home, bitch!”

Watch it at World*Star Hip Hop