Mountainclimbing and filmmaking are hobbies or careers, but they are also masculine pursuits.

If anyone hasn’t seen the feature yet, I’d recommend it.

Over in Oklahoma, 44-year-old first grade school teacher Tasha McCuan had sex with three different underage high school boys (link). The state charged her with three counts of second-degree rape. I’m sure she only had sex with them once each. True to form, the state then gave her the pass and dropped two of the three charges. For rape of three boys one boy she gets 5 years in prison and a $2,200 fine.

Around the same time as Tasha was getting it on with every boy at the high school, 36-year-old high school teacher Jason Argo was starting his 12-year prison sentence for one count of lewd battery and one count of child abuse, after receiving oral sex twice and having intercourse once with a high school student.

It turns out that Argo got off easy—12 years—because he had PTSD. On the other hand, McCuan got off easy—5 years—because she’s a woman.

I try and shy away from posting heady stuff here, because my target audience doesn’t want complicated philosophy lectures. (they want memes, man…) Sometimes I just have to go there.

Down below, Jason (who has an account here, and who has contributed regular articles before) writes some stream-of-consciousness stuph in the comments that’s pretty interesting.

On shifting notions of marriage…

No man in here is married to a woman like this, needless to say…..looks like this. She exists, sure. No doubt….but she isn’t married to you, would never date a man like me and frankly has the time to do this (ie she doesn’t work…..and is married to a man who can comfortably provide on all levels). She isn’t married to the local guy in the church who has a mid level programming job. She is married to an executive.

I’ve seen photos of Derek’s wife. She’s not a huge fat beast, and she’s not ugly. The fact that you or I don’t consider her a hardbody 9/10 doesn’t matter much, because there’s only one man on earth she needs to stay attractive for, and he doesn’t seem to voice any complaints.

I could offer all the hottest skank-ho sluts on Tinder five-hundred bucks to try and seduce Derek for a night of no-strings fun, and I would bet money that he would laugh in their faces. Even if Hugh Hefner wouldn’t hire her as a playmate, she’s Derek’s playmate, and in a patriarchal society, that’s all that matters.

I could argue that in 1960 this was more common…..not because “feminism” or “chivalry” ruined everything….but an average guy who finished high school in 1955 after his two years service in the military could come back….get a half decent job in the local carpet mill, manufacturing plant, apprentice in the trades, or off to college / university (if he indeed was in the top 20% academic wise in high school)and marry a woman like this and provide for her. The cost of living was much lower, the US economy was growing at a whopping 10-12% a year (and we cheer today about how great things are if it grows at 3% a year)

Jason takes the classically Marxist position, that historical events are a direct result of economic factors. In this particular example, I agree that there has been a change in the meaning of marriage, and I don’t think he’s far off the mark, but I think it is shortsighted to shotgun all social problems as ultimately financial.

Consider the phenomenon of wimminz social praxis. Note that in 1960, there was a significant sense of shame attached to divorcing your man. People in that era who divorced each other (men and women alike) were seen as pathetic losers, irresponsible morons, and untrustworthy philanderers. A wimminz in 1960 would be shunned by all her friends, the day after she went down to the divorce court. A wimminz in 2019 is celebrated by these same useless cunts, and the few married females in these social circles are goaded and egged on to cash out and join the party.

Jason seems to contend that females in 1960 were more willing to marry a diesel mechanic because the average wage of a diesel mechanic could provide more disposable income and consumer goods to a woman. I’d argue that a significant factor is (again) social feedback from wimminz’ peers. In 1960, the 19-year old female who wasn’t married was considered a loser. In 2019, the 19-year old female who is married is considered a loser.

The woman in this picture…..her husband is not working as an auto mechanic at the local Ford dealer. No way. Her husband is not a carpenter. My dad was a lifelong Union carpenter, and a certified millwright, foreman for large jobs in the Upstate New York region….and a sought out craftsman for cabinets. The house I grew up in, he built in 1970. He even poured the foundation. The house btw sold for almost a million dollars in depressed rural northern New York State…….that’s how customized and well built it was.

To be clear, I don’t know the woman in the photograph. Apparently she has an instagram feed where she promotes the sort of traditionalism many in these parts admire. If she’s countercultural enough to do that much, I think it’s entirely possible that she’s married to a working-class guy.

Jason is assuming that all the carpenters and plumbers of 1960 went on welfare or got hooked on Vicodin and are now in the gutter. I think it’s just as likely that these men are now retired contractors. I’ve taught math to welders at community college. My students in that particular course all landed union gigs where they soon made more money than I do. If I could be married (and I’m sure that I could) then there’s no economic reason they can’t be (and many of them are.)

I don’t deny the existence of the social problem lamented by men like Jason. I just don’t buy into the idea of the primacy of economics. If I were able to grant one-hundred married men a million dollars each, it wouldn’t solve their marital problems. In contemporary society, it’d probably just add more incentive to the skanks they married to go down to the divorce courts, and get those papers filed.

I would have liked to have titled this article: The Hilarious Implosion of Joe Biden and The Panic of the Managerial Class, but this blog has its limits. In any event, one proposition entails the other, so I suppose it would be superfluous.

The managerial class was posited by Ehrenreich (John or Barbara, I don’t know which) as a defense mechanism of late-stage capitalism. Post-industrial societies come to be managed by talented members of what used to be the proletarian class, rather than controlled by the owners of the means of production. I think it’s a clever explanation, and if I’m using it to backdrop this illustration of contemporary politics, I’d put my friends at the establishment media outlets as the official organists of the managerial class.

Those same wonderful souls are beginning to screech, and the din is as sweet music to my ears…

The hack pseudojournalists who spend all day telling us that skank-ho wimminz need more rights at the expense of healthy families, and that fathers are superfluous, have apparently woken up to the dreadful reality: their hand-picked candidate, Joe Biden, is too old, unhealthy and stupid to take his place as their doddering figurehead.

The panic is beginning.

One would expect, after four years of lackluster performance by President Trump, that the opposition would be in an excellent position to retake the White House. That reasonable assumption conceals a painful naïveté, because as anyone familiar with American politics ought to know, the Dems are really great at losing. AOC and Tulsi Gabbard are economic populists, and when it comes to things that matter, they agree with the orange devil in the oval office more often than not. Kamala Harris, who would have been a managerialist surrogate, is all washed up (thanks to the aforementioned Tulsi). The Zombie Cunt Hillary, who is currently braying like a jackass on her book tour, may find a way into the race, but that’s looking more and more unlikely. Elizabeth Warren, who is the managerialist’s fake radical (she’s the liberal democrat version of Ted Cruz) is currently scrambling to explain some unusual correspondence she had with a U.S. Marine.

The managerialist press is working overtime these days, and it’s hilarious.

Joe Biden may have once been a reasonable man, but that was a very long time ago. In the last couple of decades he painted himself as the ideologue who convinced Barack Obama to nullify due process for millions of American college boys. He constantly boasts about muscling the (misnamed) Violence Against Women Act through congress, and he played a key role in starting America’s disastrous invasion of Afghanistan, which has left tens of thousands of American men dead and disabled. It’s almost a shame he won’t get the nomination, because nobody deserves to be the target of the Trump war machine more than he does.

Some miserable old cunt writes:

I’m an old, lazy, overweight, skank-ho wimminz, who has spent the last twenty years sucking miles of strange cock, while contributing nothing to society. Seeing photos of a happy wife with a healthy family is unsettling and depressing because I have never been able to attract or keep a quality man of my own. Kindly fuck off and quit posting photos of your normal, decent life on social media, so that I can get back to the comfortable delusion that every other female is an unhappy skank-bitch just like me. kthxbye

[Editor: A guest post by Chronoblip]

In certain mystical circles, creatures in the wild are endowed with various traits, and in figuring out which spirit animal an individual is aligned with as their guide, it will tell them something about themselves as well. Think of it like a more spiritual version of a personality test, or perhaps a more earthbound form of astrology.

There are many different spirit animals that one could be paired up with, and there is even a spirit animal for cucks: Horton the elephant. In a children’s book from 1940 comes a cautionary tale about idealism and manipulation.

“I’m tired and I’m bored and I’ve got kinks in my legs from sitting. Just sitting here day after day, it’s work, how I hate it I’d much rather play. If I could find someone to stay on my nest, if I could find someone, I’d fly away free!”

The story is that this lazy bird wants to be free of her responsibilities. She needs someone to sit on her egg because this was published in 1940 and Roe v. Wade wouldn’t come along to help her out for another 33 years. Instead, Horton the well-intentioned elephant happens upon her predicament and, while initially refusing, he eventually agrees to sit on her egg while she rushes off.

When the other animals make fun of him he stands by his choice, and utters this line as justification:

I said what I meant, and I meant what I said, an elephant’s faithful, one hundred percent.

Eventually elephant hunters come across him, but instead of shooting him, they put him in the circus. An elephant sitting on an egg! A father having custody of his children! The circus eventually ends up in the city that the bird was vacationing in, and when she discovers how much attention Horton has, she demands she be given her egg back.

And despite all his “faithfulness”, Horton is expected to just move on. His sacrifices were not respected or honored, his hard work not appreciated, the significance of his role discarded. Except that, the egg hatches and a half-bird half-elephant creature is born, and then both the newborn and Horton return home, living happily ever after, while Maizy the lazy is left with nothing. Do such fairy tale endings exist for men who are guided by the spirit of Horton?

Modern Maizy just breaks the egg, and even demands her fellow animals pay the bill to clean up the mess so that she can keep on partying. If she does rope herself a Horton, the minute he tries to assert himself at all the custody courts will tear even his biological children away and he’ll end up paying for someone else to raise his offspring.

The Horton mindset was weakly “redeemed” in the story by an ending that is fake and unrealistic, and any young boy who would read that story and think highly of Horton is being set up for failure.

While Horton’s antagonists back in 1940 mocked and ridiculed him, put him on display as an oddity, Horton’s behavior is now expected to be the norm for modern men. Modern men must always keep their commitments, no matter how difficult or painful that commitment is, no matter whether they were lied to or not, no matter their responsibility in creating the current circumstances they find themselves in or not, because otherwise they won’t be seen as faithful.

Horton’s faithfulness changed from a measure of virtue to chains.

What was supposed to be praiseworthy has turned into an avenue for exploitation.

Every personality has an animal guide, or a spirit animal, associated with it and for the men whose idealism about their qualities becomes the means by which they are abused and manipulated, they are simply following their spirit animal’s guidance, in their animal guide’s footsteps.

Don’t be one of those men who pattern themselves after Horton the elephant.

This morning, a skank-ho police-wimminz named Amber Guyger was convicted for murder. Guyger broke into her neighbor’s apartment one evening, found her victim peacefully sitting on his couch (eating a dish of ice cream), and executed him without a single justifiable reason.

After Guyger shot her victim, she refused to render aid, despite having a kit full of first-aid supplies on her person. When her colleagues arrived for clean-up, she concocted a ridiculous story about how she was “disoriented” and supposedly went sleepwalking into this man’s house, thinking it was her own.

Guyger and her victim: Botham Jean

Imagine what would happen if the roles were reversed, and this man had busted into this wimminz house and shot her dead. Had that been the case, we would have had the feminist media baying for his blood on a daily basis, along with opinion pieces suggesting that all men are violent psychopaths.

Since this is a wimminz, the media has gone all out to promote sympathy for the criminal.

One thing that is not being reported: Guyger was an affirmative-action quota hire for the Dallas police department who failed her first polygraph interview. Amazingly, the Dallas police allowed her extra time for coaching, and administered a second polygraph interview, so that they could hire her.

Before she ever applied in Dallas, she had failed an interview for employment with the Fort Worth Police Department, which wisely told her to beat feat out of their candidate pool. Similar failed attempts to become a cop were reported by the DFW airport police, and the Plano police bureau.

The city of Dallas also revealed that Guyger had a history of using illegal drugs, and that Guyger was an instagram ho’, with a number of different social media accounts.

Another result of the trial is the discovery that Guyger was banging one of her married colleagues in the police bureau. Her simp, a man named Martin Rivera, was screwing this bag despite his having a wife and family. Thus the murderer was actively engaged in destroying a number of different men, all while being paid a good wage by the taxpayer.

We salute the jury for making a wise decision, convicting this parasite, and referring her for a prison sentence. As I write this, the hearing regarding sentencing is in progress. Will this skank get cunt-passed out by the judge? I hope not, but the judge is another female, sooooo….

One of the fundamental problems with feminism is its incoherent notion of equality. There is no consistent definition of feminism^[1] that agrees on who or what must be equal vs unequal, nor whether equality must be of opportunity or outcome. This is shown plainly in the women’s suffrage movement.

Women have had the right to vote ever since the passage of the 19th amendment to the United States Constitution in 1920. Voting is not about the individual, but about the group: the group with the most votes carries the day. If the opinions of men and women as a group were equally valid, then there would be no need for women to vote. Suffrage implies that there must be at least some issues upon which women’s opinions are unequal and (implied to be) superior to men’s. Let’s see what their notion of equality looks like.

Lewis Petrinovich and his team performed psychological research on hypothetical moral dilemmas. Trolley problems are not new, but this research took a twist by asking men and women to decide whether to save their own dog or a person. The results show a stunning gender disparity.

The research shows that women are dramatically more likely to let a person die than to let their dog die. Moreover, they show strong intuition that this is the morally right choice. Your sister is approximately 5 times more likely to let you die than you would let her die. If your best friend is a woman, she’s 4 times more likely than you to let you die than let her precious dog die. A woman is approximately 2 times more likely than you are to let an extended family member die.

Other research on gender differences in morality has led to additional interesting conclusions. When justice is carried out against wrongdoers, the brains of men are stimulated in the pleasure centers. For women the pain centers are stimulated. Women do not like when justice is served. Women are sensitive to context, while men are sensitive to principles. This helps explain why women are so frequently given a pass for their misbehavior.

The research shows that women are more empathetic than men, but they develop empathy over time in response to child development. This suggests that women who do not marry and raise a family fail to develop proper empathy to compensate for their lack of principles.^[2] Feminism produces hordes of voting women who shun families for career. Those who lack principles and empathy make natural incoherent feminist soldiers. They are the women who would leave you to die.

Those of us who are not feminists recognize that giving women the right to vote meant giving those with non-principled, context-based moral centers the right to shape our laws. The research shows that women are much more likely to value an animal over human life. For proof, look no farther than the abortion laws and statistics.

As you prepare your 100 year anniversary women’s suffrage celebrations for August 18, 2020, remember that those women voting are significantly more likely to let you die. Men, the next time you have to chose between saving your woman or your dog, remember the feminist mantra of equality and save the dog.^[3]

---

^[1] The best definition most consistent across all flavors of feminism is the promotion of gender inequality favoring women, that is, female supremacy.

^[2] A women’s empathy is more context-based, not principled. Recipients of that empathy will depend on the target and situation. It need not be rational or consistent. For example, women may support empathetic legislation that actively harms people. Or she’ll save the dog and the kids and leave you to die. Don’t expect her to die with you.

^[3] While I’m not serious, this is an excellent example of Dalrock’s Law of Feminism.

I’m constantly reminded of the importance of agitating for more wimminz to be given makework government jobs, where they will be promised a living wage and a generous pension, where they don’t have to submit quality work, and from which they can never be fired.

Currently, there is drama on a national scale, and the cause is…

(drumroll please)

…a hideous old catlady that got her high-paying government job by way of the quota.

Truly, I never would have guessed.