Does male feminist Justin Trudeau, head nancyboy of pozzed out Canuckistan, have a sordid history of sexually assaulting women? Sources say yes. Even so, wimminz make so many complaints about powerful men that this might be wish fulfillment, on the part of some fugly little reporteress. I’d probably be more ready to accept the accusation if the reporter was a man; but, anything is possible.

Full disclosure: one of Trudeau’s alleged victims is from Creston, B.C.. Ya boy Boxer is well known in that town, though I have never heard of the reporter.

From the Creston Valley Advance:

You little hut made of a chain of bones, sewn together with flesh and sinew. Fie upon the evil-smelling body. You cherish those who have another’s limbs. You bag of dung, tied up with skin, you demoness with lumps on your breast. There are nine streams in your body which flow all the time. Your body with its nine streams makes an evil smell and is obstructed by dung. A bhikkhu desiring purity avoids it as one avoids excrement. If any person knew you as I know you, he would avoid you, keeping far away, as one avoids a cess-pit in the rainy season. (Theragāthā 1146– 1208, in Norman 1969: 106–10.)

That place, hard to gain, which is to be attained by the seers, cannot be attained by a woman with two-finger-intelligence (i.e. very little intelligence). What (harm) could the woman’s state do to us, when the mind is well concentrated, when knowledge exists for someone rightly having insight into the doctrine? Everywhere enjoyment of pleasure is defeated; the mass of darkness (of ignorance) is torn asunder; thus know, evil one, you are defeated, death. (Therīgāthā 60–2, in Norman 1971: 9.)

Monks, a woman, even when going along will stop to ensnare the heart of a man; whether standing, sitting or lying down, laughing, talking or singing, weeping, stricken or dying, a woman will stop to ensnare the heart of a man. Monks, if ever one would rightly say: It is wholly a snare of Māra,—verily, speaking rightly, one may say of womanhood: It is wholly a snare of Māra. (Aṅguttara-Nikāya V.55, in Hare 1973: 56.)

See the painted puppet, a heap of sores, a compounded body, diseased, with many (bad) intentions, for which there is no permanent stability. See the painted form, with jewels and earrings; covered with skin and bones, it is resplendent with clothes. The feet are reddened with lac, the face is smeared with powder, enough to delude a fool, but not for one who seeks the far shore. Hair braided eight-fold, eyes smeared with collyrium, enough to delude a fool, but not for one who seeks the far shore. The hunter laid his net; the deer did not come near the snare; having eaten the fodder, let us go while the deer-trapper laments. The hunter’s net is broken; the deer did not come near the snare; having eaten the fodder, let us go while the deer-trapper grieves. (Theragāthā 769–93, in Norman 1969: 74–6.)

Read More:

Theragāthā: Verses of The Elder Monks

Jethro, Cletus and Quantravious just pulled a train your girl. The obvious solution is to apologize, and bake her a cake.

Vasily Kandinsky: Several Circles (1926)

For at least three thousand years, humanity’s greatest thinkers argued for (and against) the existence of God by immediate entailment. These arguments still exist, and some of them are quite compelling. Probably the most familiar modern argument was given in Descartes’ Meditations. Uncle René wanted to ask a fundamental epistemological question: “What kinds of things do I know?” One of his counterexamples included a theoretical devil, who was bored and powerful enough to convince him of falsehoods. What he concluded was that even if this were the case, the devil didn’t create him. And someone must have created him, because he was the “thinking thing” that was coming up with all these thought experiments. Given that it was indubitable that he was thinking, it followed that there was a “he” that thought. And given that “he” existed, there must be He who created. Such is the origin of the saying:

cogito ergo svm

which means “I think, therefore, I exist…” Simply by doubting, the skeptic has immediate knowledge of his existence, and therefore, he has knowledge of the possibility of a creator.

Aside from being a Christian theologian and Epistemologist, Descartes was a country doctor. When Descartes was about fifty, he met a brilliant young thinker on his rounds who was terribly ill. Descartes had a sort of unique bedside manner, and the story I heard includes the idea that he saved his young patient’s life by arguing with him. The boy, about 20, was named Blaise Pascal. Pascal went on to embrace the mystery of the faith, partly thanks to the pointed arguments of his clinician.

Pascal gave his own reasons to take the leap of faith that made him a skeptical Christian. In doing so, he humanized the pursuit of faith, and made an authentic relationship with God available to millions of people today.

We take calculated risks every time we make a choice. We may take the freeway home or the backstreets, based upon our experience with traffic patterns. We may decide to skip a certain restaurant, because the health department published a roach problem in the paper, a month prior. We might hold on 13 in a card game. We might eject early when we meet a new girl, simply based on some slight errata in her behavior. Of course, we might waste our time, lose our money, miss out on really good tacos, or fail to meet a really good piece of ass. This is the way life goes.

Pascal tells us that theology is really no different. The average intelligent person, then and now, was more-or-less agnostic. Sure, I exist, and if I exist, as Descartes suggests, there must be some state-of-affairs that brought me into existence. But I really don’t have enough information to make a rational judgment as to what sort of creature He is, or what He wants me to do.

Thus every thoughtful man is at the card table. He is compelled to bet (and, remember, if you choose not to bet, at this particular game, you still have placed a bet). Any clever gambler wants to risk as little as possible, while maximizing the payout potential.

Let’s say Gambler No. 1 bets on the existence of God. By placing this bet he will have to spend some time and energy doing what God says. What does God say? Well, his book gives us a lot of rules, but most thoughtful people would agree that most of the rules are beneficial. For example: Don’t kill anyone without justification. Don’t fuck married wimminz. Don’t rob people. Breaking any of these rules puts a brother at risk of immediate consequences, and really, most of us don’t violate them anyway.

Let’s now posit the existence of Gambler No. 2, who bets on the non-existence of God. All the rules above still apply to him, if he lives in any sort of functional society. So, he really doesn’t gain anything by betting this way.

Now, let’s say God exists. By choosing to have faith in God, Gambler No. 1 is afforded the possibility of a pleasant afterlife. Gambler No. 2 runs the risk of not being able to enjoy all the fruits of paradise, and he might risk eternal punishment, if he’s been especially blasphemous or disrespectful.

But what if God doesn’t exist? In that case, the afterlife payoff is zero either way.

With this sort of payoff matrix, Pascal gives us a practical reason to take the leap of faith, even if we can’t force ourselves into some sort of false state-of-consciousness, where we pretend that we “know” God exists.

Should we really take people who claim to “know” God seriously? There are some serious reasons not to. As Kierkegaard suggested, if God wanted us to be sure of his existence, He’d probably just knock on our doors and introduce himself. The beauty in bible stories is illustrated by the faith of men who didn’t know, but acted out of conviction anyway. Abraham sacrificing his son is the prime example.

It stands to reason that God doesn’t expect us to have any sort of belief in Him. Even so, He wants us to take the leap of faith, and promises us a reward for doing so.

Read More:

Blaise Pascal: Pensées

Søren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

So, you’ve met some sweet thing a couple months back. You’ve gone out with her a few times, maybe fucked. On the surface, your girl seems almost perfect. She cooks for you, she’s sweet and respectful, she’s fun to be around. You’ve done your due-diligence. She’s not too much of a ho’, and she seems to have decent relationships with her family.

Maybe you like the idea of having kids, or are just a traditional-leaning brother who doesn’t want to shack-up long term. Is this woman wife material? In order to judge, we’ll have to ferret out some answers to some very serious questions.

Some of these questions may seem intrusive, even outrageous, but every young brother who reads this site had best believe you need to get straight answers before buying that ring. Lets get to the bottom of a few character traits which will spell danger for a long-term coupling.

1. How much debt do you have?

Has your belle taken out massive student loans? Has she financed the illusion of solvency with credit cards? Does she own a home? Every financial liability immediately becomes your worry, the minute you sign that marriage contract.

2. Have you ever had an abortion?

This is tricky, because most legal structures feature confidentiality laws which prohibit prospective spouses from seeing the medical records of their affianced. Women are also excellent liars. Even so, it’s a crucial piece of information. If she had one abortion, she’ll have no problem having a few more. You don’t want the next baby she hacks to death to be yours.

3. Have you ever had an STD?

According to the American Sexual Health Association, most American women are filled with diseases at an early age, thanks to promiscuity and illegal drugs. Getting married and having children entails unprotected sex. It shouldn’t include a life of unsightly warts and herpes sores. Paying for a full panel STD test is a wise investment; but, again, you might have to be clever if you want the unvarnished truth. The medical community is in league with feminists, in keeping this data from you.

4. Have you ever had a problem with drugs or alcohol?

You down for bailing this bitch out of jail? I didn’t think so. Any signs of this, and you need to cut ties immediately.

5. How do you feel about your dad?

Her father is more than just a man. He’s a psychological archetype, that she either submits to or rebels against. Guess who will embody that archetype, the minute you set up house together? That’s right. If she says anything crude or disrespectful about her dad, you dump her dumb ass and move on.

6. How do you feel about my family?

Marriage is about more than just giving some dumb bitch a wedding. It’s about the creation of a bridge between two families. A bit of angst about one’s mother-in-law is natural; but bad feelings will fester, eventually erupting into total chaos. If there’s someone she doesn’t want to deal with now, then she needs to hit the bricks.

7. How do you feel about DNA testing our kids?

Chances are she’s not a virgin; but, even if she is, it doesn’t matter. Rings don’t plug any holes. Don’t be blamed for a child that’s not yours, dummy.

Thanks to anonymous_ng over on Dalrock and John Eliot over on Intellectual Takeout for inspiring this gem. If anyone else has ideas as to how to keep a marriage minded brother from disaster, shout it out.

The skank-ho above is Nadia Bolz-Weber. She is the founder of “All Sinners and Saints” Church, in Denver, Colorado. I posted her collection of boring videos yesterday. She has a blog here. What surprises me most is the fact that while she’s a very tedious and childish speaker, she’s not a terrible writer.

I come to a number of conclusions through this fact. The most important being that she has the ability to do something far less damaging, and more lucrative, than her present career. Why has she chosen to become a Christian priestess, rather than start a business? My own suspicion is that she has consciously made financial and personal sacrifices in order to sully the aesthetic of the traditional Christian church. By all accounts, she is succeeding.

One third of her congregation is gay, lesbian or transgender. And they celebrate that fact. There is even a “Minister of Fabulousness”, a drag queen called Stuart.

“Here’s why if you don’t have a drag queen in your congregation you should get one,” Bolz Weber says.

“Because when we were talking about what’s called stewardship, which is kind of the financial reality of our church and people giving and stuff, we were trying to figure out ways to encourage people to help fund the community they’re part of, Stuart goes: ‘Oh I know what we’re going to do. We’re going to get a T-Shirt and on the front it will say This Shit Ain’t Free, and then on the back it’s going to say So You Better Tithe, Bitches!’ You see what I’m saying? It just makes church so much better.”

(BBC News)

We should always recognize the pathological wreckers among us. I’m not talking about the average middlebrow hacks, who have no aesthetic sensibility. They aren’t nearly this destructive.

There are people of considerable talent, who are filled with hatred for anything that is beautiful, noteworthy or uplifting. These broken, empty shells are driven by a passion to reduce everyone else to their own level, and spread their own misery around to their neighbors. I believe skank-ho Nadia is one of these.

Note her characteristics well, that you might know the wreckers. Keep them away from you and yours.

v5k2c2: Where We’re Proud Cultural Marxists

Various conversations elsewhere suggest that there’s some interest in analyzing speech acts. By speech acts, I refer specifically to Jordan Peterson’s argument that there exist “two ways to use language” (0:09), the first use is “a psychopathic goal in some ways” (0:25) inasmuch as “the individual [listener] doesn’t matter” (0:30). This “instrumental language” (1:14) is inherently unethical, in that the speaker has “a goal in mind, which is [his] goal, and… [he] is willing to say anything to obtain that goal” (2:15).

Peterson is usually a very careful speaker; but in this presentation there was some slippage, especially around the term “psychopathic.” I had to look up “psychopath” in the DSM-IV, to make sure I wasn’t missing his point, and I think I understand him. While I don’t think Peterson is going so far as to diagnose everyone he criticizes with a medical problem, I think it’s safe to say that he is criticizing crass PUA types by alluding to psychopathic traits they adopt for the purposes of their game. I think this is a fair assessment. Most people who use pickup lines are adopting a persona which entails shallow emotions, lack of interest in the feelings of others, and getting one’s own needs met, even if these little victories are achieved at the expense of society. Playas really ought to accept this, because our behavior in pursuing wimminz makes such charges generally accurate. Moreover, unlike the wimminz we pursue, who also act this way, we are men, and it is in our nature to accept the reality of our situations, without a lot of stupid rationalization.

Attempts at a critical analysis of Peterson’s point have failed, and the link at top takes the reader to one example. This is not entirely the audience’s fault, inasmuch as Peterson is talking about language, at the same time he’s failing to make a clear point with language. His ambiguity is somewhat surprising, in that Peterson is typically a very clear communicator. At the same time, I am sympathetic, because this is a notion in linguistics, and Peterson has no background or authority in that subject.

Guess who does teach this topic at a big public university?

With this in mind, I hope to clarify Peterson’s point. I also think that there are some important mistakes Peterson is making, which other critics have yet to point out. I’ll attempt to clarify the content of his presentation, and its problems, right now.

By “instrumental language,” Peterson is precisely describing the notion of the perlocutionary speech act, first defined by J.L. Austin, and popularized by (my fellow cultural Marxist, and member of Frankfurt school) Jürgen Habermas. I’ll just call this the Austin-Habermas conjecture.

What do we mean by speech acts? Austin’s work was a reaction to the logical positivists, who argued, somewhat naïvely, that we speak to disclose information. In fact, as Austin points out, the majority of things we say don’t reduce to propositions, with a well-defined truth value. For example:

I want some popcorn,

and

You can borrow my camera if you want to,

and

I think it’s going to rain tomorrow,

Are all examples of speech acts. We don’t say these things to communicate a conjunction of true or false propositions. We say such things to express modal claims, and usually to elicit responses as well.

Let’s suppose one of my readers just watched his new baby being born. After the happy event, the attending physician fills out the birth certificate. The doctor asks the reader to sum up two numbers to get the baby’s weight right. (It’s been a long night, and while he’s an excellent surgeon, he’s horrible with arithmetic.) The reader replies:

Five and three are eight.

In making this statement, my reader has communicated a true proposition, but his utterance didn’t have any metaphysical import. The next question that the doctor asks requires a fundamentally different response, and my reader replies:

I name him Bob.

My making that statement, my reader has not communicated a true or false proposition. He has, instead, caused something to happen. His little boy suddenly has an identifier. In fact, the baby can now be said to be set into an equivalence relation with the word ‘Bob.’ This is the meaning of a speech act. Simply by saying something, the speaker has made it so.

At this point, we should be comfortable conceding at least part of Jordan Peterson’s point, that there a multiplicity of ways to use language. Peterson claims there are two. Austin claims there are at least three distinct speech acts. The most general is called locutionary. A locutionary speech act is the performance of an utterance. It is safe to say that all meaningful statements — true or otherwise — are locutionary. An illocutionary speech act is not the utterance, but is the underlying semantic import of the utterance. The naming of the child, for example, implies that from that day forward, the community is to equate the child with the name.

There is a further subset, called the perlocutionary speech act. This is, in my estimation, what Jordan Peterson refers to by “instrumental language.”

All perlocutionary speech acts carry an illocutionary mood; but very few illocutionary speech acts are perlocutionary speech acts. Let’s analyze a typical perlocutionary speech act, of the type I would use if I were a crass PUA, and if met a new wimminz which I found attractive.

You have such beautiful jugs. Who was the plastic surgeon?

This is a meaningful utterance which doesn’t express a truth value. The illocutionary dimension of this utterance is something along the lines of:

I find your breasts attractive, and wonder if they are real.

The perlocutionary dimension, in contrast, wouldn’t be some communicative particle. It’d be related to a material response, in the world, which I was intending to elicit. This is the sort of “neg” that Peterson describes as psychopathic. He rightly argues that what I’m really communicating is:

Come back to my place and fuck me.

For the record, and as an aside, I know these sorts of trashy negs can be very effective. Even so, I don’t use them, because they really aren’t necessary, and because the women on which they are most effective tend to be the least interesting skanks on offer. Be that as it may, Peterson joins Habermas in describing this sort of communicative praxis as psychopathic. He goes further, implying that an utterance “has to serve every part of an integrated unit… it has to serve enlightenment… it has to serve tradition… and if it isn’t doing any of those things, it’s not the truth” (6:04).

Here our colleague from the psychology department runs into trouble. Peterson conflates perlocutionary speech acts with truth-bearing propositions. In fact, these are not disjoint sets, but they don’t share much intersect space. In our example above, our comment about beautiful jugs doesn’t carry any information that is strictly true. It may be that I find someone’s breasts beautiful, but that doesn’t mean they are beautiful. In the second place, there are many perlocutionary speech acts which are ethically inert. Let’s examine the following utterance:

I sure wish I had a jug of water.

This has no well-defined truth value, but it does have semantic content, so it’s a locutionary speech act. It’s an illocutionary speech act, because depending upon context, it likely means something slightly different than the face value meaning. If I say it in one context, it could mean:

I’m thirsty.

But if I said it in a slightly different context, it could mean:

My car is overheating.

What does the perlocutionary speech act entail? I’m probably eliciting the same underlying response, regardless of context. Namely:

Get me some water.

There are, in fact, a whole lot of ways to use “instrumental language” that don’t make the speaker a likely candidate for the diagnosis of psychopathic personality disorder. We communicate in order to politely ask for things all the time.

In the end, the one thing that I can agree with Peterson about is the need to choose one’s words wisely, and to think about the ethical consequences of getting what he asks for.

Read More:

Jürgen Habermas: The Theory of Communicative Action

J.L. Austin: How to Do Things with Words

NSFW: Contains links to boring lectures, which are infused with audible profanity. One of them also contains adult images. (Trust me, you don’t want to see this old ho’s cleavage.)

You can find this feminist Christian priestess here. Skank ho tatts are a fitting touch.

Credit to Rollo Tomassi, over on Dalrock. Show him some love on his blog.

Paul Klee: Le Feu le Soir (1929)

Down below, Wayne wrote:

Havr you heard of the fungus theory?

This is an open-ended question which has a couple of mutually exclusive entailments. In the first place, Wayne seems to wonder if I know the history of the Salem Witch Trials. In the second, he seems to be asking a philosophical question about lessened responsibility in people who are intoxicated. I think that both of these are excellent, interesting questions, so I’ll try to answer the first one today, and the second one tomorrow.

When I pretend to be a historian (occasionally at work I have to do this) I generally work with 19th Century American history. I am peripherally familiar with earlier stuff, and I’m always interested in learning new things. Unfortunately, this is such a loaded issue that it is difficult to get a fair reading of it.

Feminist hack Kristin J Sollee has authored a poor excuse for a book, entitled Witches, Sluts, Feminists: Conjuring the Sex Positive. This is an example of the “serious historical literature” surrounding the subject. Some of it is freely available on Google Books, and while I can heartily recommend it as an example of incredibly poor scholarship, its real value is its inadvertent comedy.

The so-called expert who wrote this title? That’s the headcase, on the right. You just can’t make this shit up. This is what I mean by attempting a fair reading of the history behind the witchcraft phenomenon. On the other side you have superstitious religious people, who like to scare each other with spook stories, so it’s difficult to get any sort of level historical interpretation of the goings on in that era.

Fortunately, the original transcripts are all online. As I was reading through them, last week, I marveled as to how wimminz never really change. An overwhelming trend in witchcraft accusations were wimminz who made false criminal complaints against other people, offering up self-inflicted damage as evidence. We all know that never happens, right?

I went back over to virginia dot edu, this morning, and picked a random court transcript in the sidebar. I ended up with the trial of the witch, Sarah Bibber. I think this is representative of the other huge trend in witchcraft accusations.

In the Bibber case, Joseph Fowler testified that:

Goodman Bibber & his wife, Lived at my house, and I did observe and take notice, that Goodwife Bibber was a woman, who was very idle in her calling

Skank-ho princess wanted to sit around home all day, and be waited upon, while her husband busted ass. This never happens among wimminz today, does it?

And very much given to tatling & tale Bareing makeing mischeif amongst her neighbo’rs,

Bitch was a troublemaker, who spread unfalsifiable rumors, given to causing a series of dramatic spectacles, when she should have been tending the kids. Yeah, that never happens today, either.

& very much given to speak bad words

Skank-ho had a foul mouth. Very unusual among modern wimminz.

and would call her husband bad names & was a woman of a very turbulent unruly spirit

Bitch abused her husband. Quelle surprise.

Sarah Bibber was convicted and publicly humiliated for her shit behavior. It doesn’t give details, but I imagine she was chained up in the town square for a couple of days, to be pelted with rotten eggs and old fruit.

She doesn’t appear to have been charged again, which suggests that her punishment was both just and sufficient. Today, of course, we just take all these outward manifestations of witchcraft as second-nature, and let wimminz get away with this crap, and much worse.

Attempts have always been made to blame wimminz’ misbehavior on the devil, demons, and other unnatural concepts. This is a contemporary example, pulled from Dalrock:

The film referred to is a Quentin Tarantino feature, which was released in 2015. I saw it, and found it to be typical of a Tarantino film. It is overly reliant on shock value, with constant use of racial slurs, and unrealistic amounts of blood and gore. It also goes on for about an hour longer than it ought to. As such, I can’t really recommend it to anyone over the mental age of fifteen.

More interesting than the cinematic narrative is the example of a bunch of supposedly woke men, on a blog like Dalrock, reverting to the feminist tactic of shifting the blame for wimminz onto imaginary agents. The female antagonist in The Hateful Eight isn’t possessed by a demon. She’s depicted as just a typical wimminz, who bears false witness against men, attempts to poison her enemies, and alternates between crying tears and showing her tits in a vain attempt to manipulate everyone around her.

Let’s put that aside for a moment. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that the devil, demons, ghosts and other spooks exist. Now, even as we make this ontological commitment, let’s also assume that these spooks are so numerous, and so bored, that they regularly meddle in the lives of regular people. Even if this imaginary state-of-affairs were true, in order to lay culpability at the feet of the devil, we would have to go even further, and posit that these spooks had the power to control people.

Even the most superstitious Christian, who has an ontological commitment to these devils, and who believes that these supernatural spooks have nothing better to do than to follow him around, will generally not hold the proposition that the devils can force him to do anything. If he ventures that far, then he’s immediately forced to confront the possibility that these spooks are more powerful than his God. If that’s the case, then one really should cut out the middleman, and start praying to the devils and demons, since they seem to be in charge of things.

If the devil, demons, ghosts and spooks can not make an individual behave badly, but can only tempt such an individual, then the individual retains the moral responsibility to resist the temptation. As such, it remains the fault of the individual when s/he behaves badly. The existence of the devil may give an individual more opportunity to behave badly. Perhaps the devil might give an individual tips on how to be as malicious as possible; but, the actual agent in the misbehavior is the individual, who acts on this advice.

If some asshole at work tells me about stacks of cash that are left in an unlocked office, and I stay late and steal the money, then it’s me who will be indicted for burglary or embezzlement. I can try to lay some of the blame at the feet of the asshole who tickled my ear with the knowledge, but ultimately, I’ll be the guy sitting in the prison cell.

The University of Virginia has transcribed the court records for the Salem Witch Trials and made the raw facts available for public examination. No doubt they were partly motivated by a desire to spread sympathy for the wimminz involved; but, what they accomplished is precisely the opposite. I invite all the brothers who read my site to go check it out. What you read is nothing like the “Fanny clasped her hands together and made the Smythe family fall down dead” caricature that looney wiccans will insist took place. Instead, you read stories of wimminz doing all the same shit that wimminz do today. For example:

• The wimminz who self-inflicted injuries, then blamed someone else,
• The wimminz who fucked various married men,
• The wimminz who poisoned children in her care,
• The wimminz who lied under oath, merely to spread community chaos,

and on, and on, and on.

A large number of men were also tried for witchcraft, and they’re depicted as being the typical enabling simps, which we now know (and hate) as male-feminists. Occasionally, a man was convicted because he abandoned his wife and family for one of these troublemaking whores. On other occasions, a man would be convicted for sharing in the profits of whatever scam the wimminz were running.

A witch is not a poor victim, who has been led astray by the devil. A witch is a wimminz, who behaves like a typical wimminz.

In a healthier era, we put wimminz (and their simp enablers) in the stocks, or occasionally executed them, in order to maintain civilization. Today, we let them run around unchecked, and we pay the natural consequences for this, every single day.