I enjoy the Anarchist Notebook, because I often find articles like the one penned on New Year’s Eve, entitled Political Warfare.

While there’s a clear trajectory towards more totalitarianism of a Leftist flavor (and a possible Reactionary response), history is less linear than it is cyclical. At some point, a return to the natural state of things will happen, but that could take many years. The Soviet Union lasted from roughly 1917 to 1991, even though its economic policies made it doomed from the start. The right global or national event may trigger a similar destruction of the heavily concentrated power found within Western countries today.

The economic policies of the USSR were identical to those of its erstwhile client state, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The Vietnamese constitution is a cut-and-paste of the Soviet constitution. Why is the USSR gone, while Vietnam is getting wealthier by the year? The author gives us a hint in the very same article.

 This is all relevant within the context of the modern states which govern countries such as the United States of America. It is a political jurisdiction that is too large, too diverse, and too divided in order to be anything that one might regard as united (or American, for that matter). In prior times, the degree of tension and conflict within the USA would have produced a revolution, rebellion, or secession movement well before now.

The USSR dissolved not because of its economic policies, but because of what guys like Sloterdijk and Fukuyama call scale. Jamming disparate populations together increases complexity which thereby increases social atomization, which thereby increases all the derivative problems that result from it. In the end, the USSR dissolved for the same reason the USA will likely spin to pieces within the next few generations. Vietnam doesn’t have this problem. Its ethnic minorities live in their own autonomous enclaves. Moreover, it’s a small, geographically contiguous country, unlike our own.

Real Americans are a nation with no country and no government they can call their own; they are an occupied, conquered people – subjugated not through military force, but their own foolishness and subversive elements. Most of them are ignorant of this or in denial about it.

Whenever I see the phrase real American I know who the author is talking about: people who agree with him. For a white nationalist, a real American is not merely another white dude from the USA, it’s another white nationalist, who agrees with him. To the white multiculturalist, a real American is not the white nationalist, above.

The one thing that leftists at least attempt to do, which rightists don’t, is think and apply the consequences of thought to the real world. They make an honest effort to grapple with material conditions in situ. They don’t always do this well, but they do make an attempt. This is why you see leftish types in the USA coming up with laughably complicated, abstract theories about the status quo, while rightist types just retreat into mouthing meaningless buzz-words like “liberty,” “free markets” and such.

If I argue with an American liberal, I know that he’ll at least understand me. What American leftish types usually do is concede that scale is an issue, but insist that the benefits of scale will someday outweigh the problems. It’s a vulgar plagiarism of the objective historicism of Marx and Hegel, but at least they’re intelligible. Rightists just look flummoxed when I bring these things up. Eventually they’ll start muttering something about “states rights” or “the constitution”. That’s why everyone thinks they’re morons. Go read Proposition Nation Starter Kit for a funny and accessible introduction to rightist idiocy. The average neoconservative flag-waver on the American right actually believes such stuff.

In an era when “fascist” is simply a buzzword to describe anyone to the right of the accuser, and the subsequent vanishing of the distinction between citizen and radical, we can still think, and we should. When elections are openly faked, when people mistrust the state and each other, when governments struggle in vain to reclaim a legitimacy that has long since dissolved due to their own ineptitude, we can take comfort in the fact that we are at least allowed to think our own thoughts.

The phenomenon of scale has concentrated our system’s wealth in the hands of its rulers, and to this end, scale will be its own undoing. Life as an end is qualitatively superior to life as a means.

Over on Dalrock, there was an entire article devoted to someone — no one knows who — simply because he was related to someone that the author doesn’t like. That sort of tastelessness offends my sensibilities, and I expressed as much a couple of days ago.

Naturally, all the usual suspects were immediately activated, jumping into the fray. First on the scene was Cane Caldo…

The fact that Cane Caldo is libeling someone with zero evidence (no one even knows their target’s first name) shouldn’t come as a surprise. He’s made his internet career doing similar scroungy things, a couple of examples have been archived here.

Some time later, God is Laughing showed up to agree and amplify…

If someone is spreading “moral rot” then (of course) they are fair game. We should troll such people mercilessly and with abandon. The problem, in this instance, is that no one can point to the target with anything substantive, suggesting he has ever done anything at all… with the exception of being related to someone they don’t like.

There are a group of people who regularly harass and threaten the family members of those others they disagree with. I’m talking about feminists and their allies, both CONservative and SJW liberal.

There is no reason for anyone on our side to stoop to this level. In the first place, such a descent would injure the dignity of a normal man. In the second, these tactics rarely work. To attack someone’s uninvolved family members is to invite all and sundry to see you as an unhinged internet kook, rather than someone who has a legitimate argument.

In any case, since God is Laughing scoffed at the idea of ethics in trolling, I thought I’d throw some thoughts up here. Ya boy Boxer grew up in the golden era of usenet, and cut his virtual teeth in places like rec.pets.cats. These are the rules I learned way back then, and I still try to follow them:

1. Do not troll any forum with “support” or “recovery” in its title.
   Hassling the despondent is the sign of a very weak troll.
2. Do not “go real life.”
   This rule includes what is now termed doxxing, but it includes looking up people’s relatives and neighbors, in an attempt to harass, threaten or otherwise bother them. That’s what began to happen over at Dalrock, and it was disturbing to see it.
3. If the forum’s owner/moderator asks you to leave, do so immediately and without drama.
   This is just common politeness. If someone came to your house and pissed on your rug, you’d probably order him out.
4. When engaging with a target, keep your sense of humor.
   The difference between a troll and a kook is basically predicated here. You can be hostile, but if you’re not being simultaneously funny or interesting, then you’re just a bore.

I have been banned from too many places to count, including David Futrelle’s Manboobz, WF Price/Welmer’s The Spearhead, and, my favorite, Catholic Answers. I have never kicked up a fuss about being asked to leave any of these places. A troll will come to expect that his account won’t last forever. Even so, sometimes it’s fair to question who is the actual “owner” of a forum. I’m speaking specifically of Twitter, which is run by a billion dollar transnational corporation, and which claims to be a public utility.

Thus there is a certain measure of exception to rule three. Aside from Twitter, I’d also put Facebook in this category. Being suspended from one of these platforms is something that can be fairly ignored (though if someone has a private page on one of these frontends, and he asks me to leave his own tiny segment, I’d respect his wishes.)

Protip: One can use Google Voice and GMail to facilitate the creation of a new Twitter account. Never stop playing one huge, faceless, corporate monstrosity against another. Rinse and repeat as necessary.

Edit 1: Dalrock has penned a good-natured rebuttal to the points I’ve raised here. I’m copying his reply below. I suppose we’ve both made our positions clear, and tomorrow is a new day to put the screws to our common feminist enemas, so without further comment…

Edit 2: As of Sunday, 7 January, Dalrock has deleted all comments which include the legal names of the family members of the combatants. I am personally grateful to him for a wise decision. This conversation is now closed, and we’ll all move on to better things.

Whenever our God Emperor President, Donald Trump, is surrounded by controversy in the mainstream press, I always like to scan the back pages. I was suspicious about all the smoke surrounding the most recent fire-in-the-dumpster. By that I mean that I suspected that Steve Bannon and Donald Trump may have been in cahoots, generating a bunch of meaningless buzz with looney insults, in order to cover up something more interesting. This has happened in the past, and it appears it’s happening now.

From Carlos Slim’s Blog:

’round about the time of the Ferguson riots, the President Butt Nekkid Obama administration hatched a plan to evacuate all the undesirables from the newly gentrified inner-cities, using your tax dollars to finance this beautification project. I guess you guys in the hinterlands will have to wait a few extra years to meet your new neighbor: Shaniqua, who was set to move in down the street with twelve of her kids and two of her babydaddies. Her eldest, born when she was fifteen, is already at the state penitentiary. Young Tarqueefious, one of the otherwise unidentifiable middle kids, is following his footsteps, and has just been released from juvenile detention for purse snatching.

By delaying and postponing, Trump accomplishes two things. He further puts the screws to the white trash rich people, who hate him regardless of what he does. Had he reversed or repealed, instead of delayed and postponed, there would have been an avalanche of frivolous court actions, filed by these same scumbags. He also gets leverage in the next election (y’all had better vote Trump, or your neighborhoods are going to become a lot less safe!).

The next time there’s a lot of high-profile insults, flying to and fro, remember what ya boy Boxer told you, and scan the back pages, to see what’s really going on!

In every human society, wimminz are the same. Woman good, man bad. Cunt good, penis bad.

About a month ago, Washington Post gleefully reported that: “The royal family welcomes a divorced, biracial American. That’s a huge change.” (Read the original article here)

What our masters in the media want you to associate here is the race angle with the fact that Mizz Markle is a skank ho divorcée. We must stand and cheer for this “biracial” American. (Her dad was a white dude, who knocked up her blackchick mom, but more on that later). This is a sinister bit of subterfuge, which keeps people from complaining, or even investigating further, for fear of being called “racist.”

Here at Chez Boxer, we know that all white people are racist by default, so we’re neither worried about the judgments of the shitlibs, nor about the virtue signaling of the establishment CONservatives. Moving on, we read that Mizz Markle is already being fêted as a feminist hero.

In an US Weekly exclusive, Karla Rodriguez reports that Mizz Markle is planning to have her mother walk her down the aisle in her latest wedding. (Read the original article here.)

Pro-tip: When you see a black chick sporting both the bulldyking cornrows, and the resting-bitch face, there’s a 100% chance she’s a feminist cunt.

Correction: This day is ultimately about her and what she wants to do.

Vanity Fair corroborated the US Weekly story, shortly after it broke, with a glowing article entitled “How Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s Wedding Promises to Break Tradition.” (Read the article here.)

Boosting her feminist street cred is important to Mizz Markle, who, a year ago, boasted about her greatest childhood accomplishment: bullyciding a big corporation (Proctor and Gamble) into removing a marketing campaign with relentless cries of “sexism.”

As we all know, it’s perfectly normal for 11-year old girls to mount political and press campaigns. I’m sure she thought of that one, all on her own. (One can read more about this nonsense here.)

We read in the Washington Post article (linked above) that Mizz Markle has had recurrent difficulties getting along with her paternal family, including her elder sisters (by daddy’s first wife) and her grandparents. This is utterly unsurprising. Her dad had jungle fever. Those of us who like to date black chicks know the score. Your parents might tolerate a bit of dabbling in the darker hues, but they don’t want you marrying them, and they certainly don’t want you siring children with them. I’m guessing they uninvited their son from their home and lives when they heard the news.

We read further that daddy was already a divorcé and a father, with two older children of his own, when he met Mizz Markle’s mother. Mizz Markle’s mom and dad themselves divorced, when she was six or seven years old — the details on this are unsurprisingly murky. I’m guessing that dates are fuzzy because ma and pa may have met before dad’s first divorce was final, and perhaps they lived together, off and on, after the filing. (Read more about these two characters at Good Housekeeping here.)

In short, what do we have? A skank-ho feminist divorcée, who was raised by a skank-ho feminist divorcée, and a male-feminist pseudo-playa, in degenerate Hollywood. The notion of family, in the traditional sense, is completely alien to this woman. She’s been raised by a couple of hippies who “did what they wanted” without regard to norms or values. She is now all grown up in this toxic milieu, and set to ascend the throne and assume the title of “princess.”

Over on Dalrock, our brother Anon shares his theory about why this is all happening:

I think the royals did a DNA test and found that he is not the son of Charles, but can’t admit that publicly. That is why a) Princess Katherine has been instructed to rapidly pop out at least 3 kids asap, so as to eliminate any chance of Harry being King, and b) they don’t really care that he is marrying someone entirely unsuitable to be the wife of anyone first, second, third, or even fourth in line. He isn’t of royal blood anyway.

I’ve often harbored similar suspicions, as have many others. Harry’s mother, the late Princess Diana, was herself a feminist icon, appearing in public semi-nude, and adopting a number of “activist” poses for the camera.

Diana herself married when she was a virginal teenager, but she proved to be the very epitome of the nu-marriage aesthetic, as she took lovers (both domestic and foreign) before and after her messy, public divorce from Prince Charles.

So, why is this happening? It’s a fair question, and I believe the answer partly has to do with the changing demographic face of the world, and of the UK in particular. It is no longer shameful to be a divorcée, and this marriage, like many others, is more-or-less a stage-op, for public consumption. The royal family is celebrated as “changing with the times,” though there is very little change to be seen. Like his mother, Prince Harry is already a fuckup of monstrous proportions.

As the UK has been scuzzified, the common British subject has grown ever closer to the behavioral norms of their royalty, and simultaneously, the royal family has dropped its mask of moral preening ever further to appeal to the populace. It’s an infinite feedback loop of degeneracy.

There will be a high-profile wedding, probably televised internationally, and the scumbags will all continue having their private passionate follies, as they’ve always done. This marriage will last even less long than mummy and daddy’s, and Mizz Markle will get a big divorce payout as Diana did. Like his (possible) father, this marriage will be Harry’s first, but not his last. Diana’s life should come as a cautionary tale for Mizz Markle.

As for our starstruck feminist heroine, she’s oblivious, and really has no idea who she’s fucking (with) here.

I had a few weeks off for the holidays, so I had to see the much (over)hyped Star Wars film, which was released a couple of weeks ago. I’ll cop to the fact that I’m sorta culturally illiterate at this point, so these are some minor and meaningless thoughts, typed in haste.

1. As the franchise has become more feminized, it has become more feminine.

While the original films offered a clear view of the sociopolitical situation, through which well-defined narrative developed the original characters we all know and love, the latest offering is hopelessly ambiguous. Star Wars now has all the depth and world-building of a trashy Spanish novela.

In this feature, we find Luke Skywalker’s character hiding out (from what? Child support? A false rape accusation?) on a miserable sort of ghetto planet. The “hero” in this film is a purple-haired Tumblr tranny.

There is a literary and cinematic place for complex plot-weaves, in which we are forced to feel empathy for the devil; but, this was never what made Star Wars a great story.

2. The aerodynamics of space travel is annoying.

While it’s common for Star Wars movies to feature space-pilots who can pull a 5 million G acceleration without passing out, all the prior movies were entertaining enough to allow the suspension of disbelief. This one isn’t. We’re treated to views of bombs dropping with the help of gravity-in-space, cannons screaming thanks to noise-in-a-vacuum, and a moxie-filled elderly feminist surviving a few minutes in the cold and empty blackness of the void, unprotected except for what looks to be a cheeseball evening gown.

Again, there are films in which similar things happen. Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey comes to mind immediately. That was a great film, and the technical unbelievability gave way to an interest in the story. This is not a great movie, and thus such things stand out.

3. A New Hope: The Porg.

I saw this movie just after the opening weekend. The cinema I saw this film in wasn’t empty, but it wasn’t full either. At two points during the feature, the entire audience stopped talking and giggling among themselves to pay attention. The first example was when a penguin-like creature was roasted and eaten by Chewbacca. The second being when the surviving pal of said space penguin was riding shotgun in the Millennium Falcon.

If the screenwriters had any self-awareness, they’d jettison plans to pack the future films with trannies, faggots and wimminz, and just concentrate on the Porg. These tiny creatures managed to inject some legitimate emotion into a couple of brief scenes, and by the time the credits rolled, they stood out as an example of the only characters my audience was compelled to care about.

So, why?

Disney had forty years of history to draw upon, with a half dozen films, thousands of fan-fiction stories, and hundreds of already-developed characters along for the ride. There’s really no reason for them to make a bad Star Wars film, other than a desire to shit on American men and their collective childhood heroes. The Last Jedi has no coherent narrative arc to follow, no real heroism, and no cathartic ending. It was full of jarring, unfunny slapstick, stupid scenes and ham-fisted acting. It has nothing to offer anyone, and it was specifically designed that way.

The fact that critics are uniformly praising this movie to the stars (lol) is just more evidence of the grand, global disconnect between urban liberals from the core audience of the original Star Wars films, which was the average American.

In short: if you don’t mind suspending disbelief about standard physics in the cinema, check out an old Tarkovski movie. If you want to feel sympathy for the bad guy, read Cormac McCarthy. Even if you really love Star Wars, don’t bother shelling out cash to see this dumper. Get it on the torrents.

See other realtalking reviews of this film at Anarchist Notebook or Matt Forney.

I found this comment over at Spawny’s Space.

Emily McCombs is a bigwig over at HuffPost, so it should come as no surprise (not to anyone in postal code V5K 2C2, anyway) that she’s a flaming nutter.

With the exception of Fathers For Justice, there isn’t really any meaningful organized resistance to feminists. If you’re in the UK, and you aren’t supporting these men (at least in an anonymous financial / moral sense) then you aren’t doing your job. They’re out nearly every day, mocking your oppressors. Show them some love.

Their analysis is sound here, as expected. Kooky Emily’s outburst violates the Twitter rules de facto. The second set of books will keep her spewing hate. One will note the shadow-suspension of @herbiemarcuse on twitter – when ya boy Boxer never said anything as remotely actionable as this headcase.

Speaking of headcases, there are few things that make me as thankful to have been born a Mormon, rather than a Christian, than photos like these…

The epidemic of bull-dykes, larping as Mormon bishops and stake presidents, is something that I can see appearing on the horizon, but only after the Catholics are fully assimilated. Who is this bespectacled bitch, anyway, with her gay Star-Wars toy, preaching the gospel of Luke and Leia from the pulpit?

Happy New Year!

It’s a drinking holiday in Canada, the land where hoez are least tactful and most disgraceful. Canadian women are worse than American bitches. That’s a fact. I often tell this truth to you Americano brothers, and you never seem to believe me, despite evidence that is merely a click away. Since you guys needed a reminder, I have two or three.

Are you sure you wouldn’t like to move to Canuckistan, and help Mallory raise her bastard kid? She’s a binge drinker. That’s, like, super attractive.

She’s 35, and “doesn’t have kids but wants them…” I think that ship has probably already sailed away, dear… just like the chump you’re in search of.

“Wait, Boxer,” I hear you protest. “I could go to Canada and find a chaste, nice, first-gen immigrant.”

That’s true. Maybe a sweet Canadian-Muslim chickie, who loves God, and has inherited good religious values from her traditional parents.

Here’s Ayesha. She says she has a husband, but she’s on tinder because she’s “bored as fuk” (maybe that’s hoespeak for ‘looking for dicks to sit on’).

I bet you’re jealous of the man who has to pay the bills of this prize catch of a traditional wife, who is now cheating on tinder. Me too!

And lest the Americano brothers feel left out…

Meet Abbigail. The desperation is palpable.

Jazmin doesn’t say very much. For example, she doesn’t tell us whether her husband is going to be deployed when we meet for our one-night stand, or whether he’ll be on the stool in the corner, or whether he’s going to be joining the two of you for some bisexual kink. Personally, I’m inclined to assume that the photo is her way of advertising “no strings attached,” and “please don’t tell hubby.” Whatever her motivations, it’s pretty disturbing.

Added to the sidebar is Cail Corishev – go read his good work. Whether or not you’re religious, I wish you a happy holiday, and a prosperous 2018.

Down below, Renee asks a poignant question.

Sir I understand the blog for men. But how can a woman avoid being a skank ho especially if she is about to hit the wall or is post wall and tired of being a virgin?

As Aristotle would remind us, whenever an individual starts becoming a source of money or solutions to another’s problems, a certain dialectic is reached, in which each party becomes important to the other. Generally (again, I’m plagiarizing Aristotle’s ethics): The mentor in the relationship cares more about his charge than vice-versa. The man who pays, in money or time or information, tends to also be the one who feels more invested in the dialectic. Even so, as a source of solutions, the mentor also becomes important to the pupil, who tends to increasingly rely upon his benefactor as time goes on. This mode-of-being isn’t really noticed until some novel situation erupts, usually in the form of a dispute between mentor and pupil. Suddenly, the mentor’s decisions matter, as there’s an underlying assumption that the money/time/information might suddenly quit flowing.

Aristotle: Pupil of Plato in Childhood, Mentor to Alexander the Great as An Adult

Since the 1960s, at least in North America, most women have voluntarily dropped out of this dialectic. The average American female has no interest in meeting the needs of anyone but herself. Her energy has largely been redirected into behaviors which are generally useless, and serve only to enrich the ruling class at the expense of her family and community. A great example was brought up by Anonymous and Honeycomb in previous comments, where they discuss the phenomenon of women eschewing marriage in order to pursue sex with strangers, careers in paper-shuffling, and credentialism (i.e. getting degrees in subjects that are generally useless, or in subjects in which they will never pursue full-time work). While I disagreed that this was some sort of top-down plan by the elite to wreck society, there’s no denying that it is a general trend that has become increasingly widespread.

Many women ignore those behaviors that come with being either a mentor or a pupil, at least in the traditional sense, and seem to have no interest in behaving either as a wife or a mother. Moreover, these same women seem to have no interest in any sort of family-centered behavior (they aren’t competent daughters, neighbors or sisters, for example, either). While nearly all women will dabble in marriage or childbirth (Dalrock has stats suggesting that nearly 90 percent of women will, at some point, marry; and, the remainder of those will largely become skank-ho single moms), they instead act as though these are meaningless status indicators, and instead focus on careers and credentialism, while ignoring their husbands’ needs and putting their children in a day-care, to be raised (usually neglected) by strangers.

The average woman who goes down this path eventually finds herself surprised at how unhappy she is. The feminists promised her that she would “have it all” if she could only balance a career and a family. The feminists were and are liars, consumed with what Freud called “penis envy” (Read Freud’s work on this subject here).

Not only do such women not find their office jobs satisfying, but they also find themselves totally disempowered at home, as strangers raise their kids, and their husbands eventually seek out emotional (and sometimes sexual) intimacy elsewhere. Either their husbands will sublimate these needs into dumb hobbies (watching sports, drinking with friends, watching sleazy internet porn) or they will embark on a series of affairs. In short, the feminist “career woman” who is promised, by feminists, that she can “have it all” finds herself having nothing at all. Her only option at the end of the road is to get a divorce, but that will leave her even worse off than she already is, as a skank-ho single mom, who gets a monthly check. As such, she assumes an even lower status than she enjoyed previously.

Anyone can avoid this fate by following Uncle Ari’s advice: deliberating at length, and then acting decisively. Agnes Callard has a very good paper which begins with a description of the master’s teachings:

Aristotle’s theory of deliberation (bouleusis) is immediately familiar as a theory of what we, too, would call deliberation: a conscious, rational mental processes deployed by an agent in order to solve practical problems.  He thinks, as we do, that deliberation is a form of thought that takes time, proceeds systematically rather than haphazardly, and ends by putting the agent in a position to choose rationally. Deliberation, for Aristotle as for us, is thought that answers the question, “what should I do?”

Read the whole paper (here).

Any man or woman can avoid the unhappiness of following the feminist model by appreciating his (or her) own limitations. One can not “have it all”. A family is, by nature, a unit which is greater than the sum of its parts. With this in mind, one can start to journal his or her daily thoughts. Once clarified, write down your own goals. Keep track of the daily actions that make such goals manifest. If you observe some religious discipline, prayer or meditation can help. If you don’t, then taking fifteen minutes “off the grid” (phones off, no television, etc.) in quiet contemplation is a must. Dale Carnegie used to recommend this. Shift your focus from the momentary and fleeting nonsense of the now and begin envisioning yourself in the role you want, working backwards to your present situation, analyzing what you have to do to approach the end result you seek.

If you’re a woman who does not want marriage and family, I think that’s fine, but you should consciously make peace with the fact that you’re going to forge another path, and hold yourself to the same standards as a traditional man would, regarding honor, discipline, and mastery of your chosen craft. I happen to know women who made this choice early, and I respect them. If you do want to have a husband and family, then focus the vast majority of your attention on that. Proficiency in that area includes a husband who feels totally loved, completely respected, and safe to leave his home every day, knowing that his wife is competently tending to his financial, sexual, and emotional needs while he’s away (that means no cheating and no “girls night out”). It also means properly educating and socializing your children. Sending kids to the local public school is fine, but if a mother isn’t waiting at home, then most of their teacher’s efforts will be for nothing.

The career woman has responsibility for her work and authority over her subordinates. The married woman has responsibility for her husband and authority over her children. One can not serve two masters (now I’m plagiarizing St. Paul.) In short, responsibility and authority go hand-in-hand.