…and a message for all the young brothers.

I have sort of a love-hate relationship with American Dad of late. (link) Not that trash tee-vee cartoon, but the blog. The author is a guy who does great work tweaking the tails of feminists and their enablers, though he’s also a guy who is incredibly short-sighted, with a history of telling my brothers to drop the crepe shield of internet pseudonymity, and use their real names. I covered that a couple of days ago, and Scott was gracious enough to respond with good points on his blog.

First Scott wrote:

Yesterday, Boxer posted this commentary on his blog. I am not a part of the meme squad. I am not a subversive.

Then, shortly after a laundry-list of caricatures,  he wrote:

The reason I stopped featuring dads just being dads? Nobody got it. It is a testament to how far fatherhood has fallen in the eyes of the broader culture (and even fathers themselves!) that when asked most men see such a pro-father idea as “anti-woman.” They did not want their fathering to be honored because “my wife is the real hero”and other blue-pill white knighting garbage. Fucking vomit. Honoring fatherhood for its own sake is “anti-woman.” This means masculinity is on the ropes.

Scott first decries my description of him as a subversive, and then goes on to say that he wrote a series of articles that were so subversive that they effectively shattered the apparatus through which even the subjects of his articles were interpreting the world. That is the definition of “critique of ideology” in practice

Honoring fathers, simply for doing what fathers do, is far more subversive than anything that ya boy Boxer does, on or off the internet. Fatherhood has been effectively criminalized by the North American “family court” system for three full generations, and the notion of fatherhood is daily vilified, by both the culture industry, and its supposed critics on the tradcon right.

Scott continues (emphasis his):

I am a little suspicious and annoyed by all the anonymity. 

Obviously I disagree with him on this, and would warn any younger brothers against sharing their real name or other identifying information on any blog, which is in any way associated with antifeminist activity. Even innocuous comments are being used against people by PR hacks and HR drones, and an accusation of being an “abuser” or a “sexist” is enough to end your career.

Scott is somewhat insulated from the fallout of all this, as he is (I believe) retired, and can say what he wants. Most of the rest of us have no such liberty.

To his detriment, he has also been marked by our enemies. The feminist is a vengeful and petty nutcase, the likes of which a normal man finds hard to fathom. Now they have his name. They probably can’t succeed in driving him into the poorhouse, but that doesn’t matter. The minute he becomes too noticeable, I’m sure they’ll start harassing him, his wife, his kids, and his friends. It’s not that I wish him ill, mind you. That’s just what these idiots do.

Scott then went on to write:

Its not that I don’t care about being called a coward–of course I do. I am a man, and “coward” hits any man right where it counts. But in this case, it didn’t bother me at all. Why? Because how can the word “coward” have any meaning in a totally virtual world where no one ever sees each other face to face?

For the record, I’ve never met Scott, and have never made any statement about his courage or moral fitness. My understanding is that he’s a military officer, so an accusation of cowardice is a bit silly (without a documented conviction for running away from his post, or whatever). Even so, I’ll apologize and retract if anything I wrote was taken that way. And, I’ll agree and amplify his main contention, that nothing on the internet should be taken too seriously.

At this stage of our historical development, we should be working alone and in small groups, rather than trying to take political power for ourselves. In time, the tides of history will shift, the weltgeist will take a new shape, and we can come together and reclaim what’s ours. Until then, my boys, you are partisans. Your job is not to show yourselves in the open. Your job is not to do big stuff. Your job is to do small things, which will prepare the way for those who will come later.

In the words of somebody who knew:

18. All warfare is based on deception.

 

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

 

20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

 

21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.

Read The Art of War by Sun Tzu (here)

Scott’s blog (link) is currently being trolled (link) by people who are apparently angry at him, for reasons I won’t pretend to understand. Scott’s blog used to be one of the most subversive blogs on the internet. It featured regular articles praising regular guys for doing regular father stuff, which is probably the most powerful countercultural signal one can send in our degenerate epoch. Lately it has become a popular place for wimminz to gather and seek attention from men. Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with this; but, if I’m far less interested in it now than I used to be — and I am — this is the primary reason.

Coincidentally, I had a scare at work a couple of weeks ago. One of the IT snoops sent an email to my boss, asking her (it is a her) why it is that Y’r Boy Boxer was writing hateful misogyny on company time. This was brought to my attention by boss-lady in a very cordial but curious way, and I didn’t hesitate in answering her.

As an aside, fear is a funny thing. It often paralyzes people rather than compelling them to act. There is a biological explanation for deer being easy prey for illegal spotlight poachers — and there is a similar explanation for human beings tendency to freeze up under questioning.

Had I not practiced my answer, I probably would have panicked, and after a longer-than-acceptable delay, said some nonsense like:

“I was hacked!”

Of course, she could have bounced this explanation back to the IT guy, who probably would have pointed out that some of my browsing and commenting was being done while logged into work at odd hours. Cross checking the key logs for the building I was in would have revealed my personal key had opened the door to the office from whence the offensive stuff was posted. Moreover, there were only a few people logged in at some of these times, most of whom were wimminz, and the rest of whom were a couple of flaming homosexuals. There’s also the issue of the fact that while I was posting hateful misogyny, I was also logged in, in a different window, to the firm’s site doing job-related stuff. Was someone else doing my legitimate work, also? No, that excuse wouldn’t fly.

I might also have become defensive, and started squawking about academic freedom, and other such tripe. In fact, that would have marked me as an asshole who would be on the short list to be replaced. Such people who chant such mantras tend to bring lawsuits, and they’re usually a pain in the ass.

What I ended up doing was what I always planned on doing. Rather than being defensive, I simply cocked an eyebrow, and asked “what is it, specifically, that I posted?”

Of course she didn’t know. This leads me to an inescapable conclusion. Some SJW faggot who was scouring network logs just noticed places like Dalrock, Heartiste and the like, and decided to look up the originating IP and meddle. I asked her a second question.

“Do you think I’m a misogynist?”

This is actually a loaded query. If she answered in the affirmative, she would open herself up to trouble. (Not to mention the fact that she’d be forced to explain why she hired such a hateful hater). Of course she laughed, and I laughed, and the whole thing was, if not forgotten, tabled indefinitely.

Even so, I’ve been a bit more circumspect in my browsing habits from the office of late, and this blog has suffered.

Back to Scott, who is an interesting case of someone who is my ideological opposite in nearly every way. I wonder why people are so compelled to troll his blog (allegedly, people are trying to cause trouble in his home life, and are insulting his wife, or something). Scott’s a good example of someone who clearly doesn’t like me personally, but who does a good job trolling feminists. Scott is a member of what I’d call the Caldosphere. He often writes about his real-world excursions with Cane Caldo.

Cane Caldo is best known to me as the individual who, for no discernible reason, started spreading the rumor (with a much less intelligent confederate) that I was a homosexual pedophile. (link) When such stuff didn’t work on me, he started spreading the meme that another individual was a homosexual, who had faked his war record. (link) An accusation of stolen valor is, if not worse than an accusation of pedophilia, one which is equally dangerous. The same veteran who selflessly gave up all of life’s lucrative opportunities to serve our state, so that people like Caldo could waste time on the internet, gets to retire and have his service nullified by dishonorable losers.

In any event, anyone who would hang out with Cane Caldo is, to me, suspect, which brings me to my final illustration.

No, my name is not “jake.” Jake LaMotta was a boxer. I’m far scrawnier and slower than he was; though I took his name on gmail as an allusion to my pseudonym.

I don’t know exactly why, in 2015, Scott was so interested in learning my real identity. I won’t pretend to know why he described getting people to post identifiably as his “biggest passion.” I only know that had I given him my real name, back in 2015, I would not have been grilled by boss lady a couple of weeks ago. Such a grilling would have been impossible, because my real name would have been publicized by Scott’s pal Cane Caldo, months prior, and my career would have ended long ago.

The moral of this story I’ve tried to weave (out of lots of disparate elements) is that we’re behind enemy lines. There is a reason that I delete comments that people leave, using their work emails and what look to be real names. Unlike Scott, I don’t want to know who you are. I don’t blog to socialize, with wimminz or with men. I don’t blog to fight with nobodies like Cane Caldo, or to insult people’s wives, or for any other petty reason. I blog to fight feminism. This is a fight to the death; and fighting, at this stage in our historical development, is best done anonymously.

That’s a shaved Lenin, wearing a wig, posing for a fake Finnish passport. He was in a fight to the death, and he knew how to keep his mouth shut. Lenin prepared to be interrogated, practicing answers months before the questions were ever asked. Lenin didn’t give his name out to all and sundry. Lenin won. Be like Lenin.

Just so there’s no misunderstanding: If you present yourself as a wimminz here, and you violate the rules, your expulsion is immediate, permanent, and non-negotiable. Understand one thing:

This Is A Male Privilege Zone.

I do not mind women commenting, but this is meant to be a male-space, and wimminz who comment need to follow the well established and easily read rules. Men who violate the rules may (at my discretion) have an appeal process. Wimminz never will. You must either be male, or become male through some sort of surgery, to beg leniency. Pre-op trannies will not be included.

I thought this was simultaneously sickening and humorous. Male Feminists like Louis CK make jokes about pedo-necrophilia, and then get on stage, to lecture normal men (who find such stuff both revolting and depressing) for things that only male-feminists are obsessed with.

To the last one, all the degenerates now being exposed for degenerate acts in Hollywood have been regular features on feminist media, where they have spent years scolding regular men, who would never even consider the sorts of abnormal nonsense they have all indulged in.

Check the video out and see what you think.

https://youtu.be/5sP7Me8FL9E

Scott’s “American Dad” blog used to be a subversive site honoring specific, individual fathers. It has morphed into something else recently. Even so, this is interesting feedback my readers might like. I read this wimminz as in the early stages of justifying her upcoming divorce? What do you boys think? Discuss…

 

Pukeko has a blog entitled Dark Brightness. In a recent article he quotes ya boy Boxer, who wondered out loud, over on Dalrock, why Episcopalians gave up so easily.

Most of the difficulty people imagine in such an endeavor is illusory. The chief problem among Christian men is their proclivity to devolve into petty bitch fighting (note the endless squabbles on Dalrock for an example). The task would probably take 1-3 years. Assuming one could gather four or five solid men who could go that temporal distance, the takeover of an Episcopal diocese ought to be relatively straightforward. The church was set up by none other than Benjamin Franklin, and is largely controlled and managed by its members, and is so depopulated at this point, that democratic control could be established with just a few decent families in strategic positions.

Pukeko’s blog doesn’t allow me to comment. Whether this is by design or accident, I know not, but I added him to my sidebar, and wish him well as he strategizes the second renaissance into becoming.

 

I’m swamped with work, and also just swamped. For the last couple of years I’ve lived in a semi-tropical area, where it gets simultaneously hot as hell and rainy as hell and just miserable to go outside in the fall. Winter is the nice season here, where one can actually walk around outside without feeling smothered or sweating through his clothes, and I eagerly await it.

Since I’m looking forward to hiking in a dry 70f climate (that’ll happen in late November) I’m trying to get ahead on some things now. Sadly, this blog is going to continue to be neglected. Fortunately, I have lots of free researchers to help you folks find fun stuff to read.

Over on Wimminz, there’s a sobering discussion about the technology’s increasing role in killing folks. Go read viva las vegas.

Tim Finnegan has a short piece on the appreciation of the bawdy which is worth reading.

My nigga Artisanal Toad is honing his thesis on marriage.

Courtesy of my man honeycomb, we find our favorite elderly prostitute “Shahrazad” (or whatever in the fuck she’s calling herself this week) complaining about servicing fat dudes. I sorta sympathize, but hey, that’s your job, bitch!

The Anarchist Notebook is one of my favorite blogs. The author has a short piece on the inherent brutal truths encoded in traditional fairy tales. This whole blog is worth a gander. His work on what he calls “blood and soil libertarianism” is really old hat, and just another name (in my opinion) for Marxist-Leninist philosophy. The original nationalist libertarians were in the USSR; and Ayn Rand was a Leninist.

Dalrock has another brilliant takedown of a fake Christian named Doug Wilson, who feels like he has to inject a bit of feminist gender theory into his sermons. Read Abigails Daughters and see what you think.

What are you fellas reading lately? High quality links always appreciated in the comments.

This morning, my nigga honeycomb alerted me to the fact that the “proud slut” who goes by the stage name “Shahrazad” had pulled her latest video. It is common for trashy hoez to get just enough self-awareness to become embarrassed after playing the jackass, and I assumed this is what had happened. Sadly, I was mistaken.

It seems that the shameful censors over at google have decided that we shouldn’t be entertained by this aging slattern. I do have mixed feelings about this clear violation of net neutrality. “Shahrazad” was willfully vulgar and constantly obscene; however, her profane solicitude was not merely served up for its own sake. Whether she knew it or not, “Shahrazad” was offering rare glimpses into the female psyche.

“Shahrazad” explains that the censors pulled her channel after giving her numerous warnings about content…

I had been reticent to post this, given that one of the few rules at Casa Boxer is absolute anonymity; but I have been suitably convinced that the name she uses is as fake as Kardashian’s tits. With this in mind, and given the sad fact that she’s being silenced by a large corporation, I decided to dig up a promotion. In case any of you brothers are actually needy enough to pay big dollaz in order to fulfill your granny fetish, here she is in all her glory.

Aside from the fact that she has worked for a school district, “Shahrazad” does give us an interesting glimpse into her background. She is, apparently, the daughter of Iranian immigrants to Germany. She, herself, moved to the U.S. as a child. She has abandoned her ancestor’s honorable Muslim faith, in order to chase enlightenment in a new-age (rhymes with sewage) kooky cult. (That’s very San Diego.) She is, unsurprisingly, a divorced hoe, and any reasonable person can safely assume that it is not her exorbitant “fees” which support her, but that she continues to ride the coattails of whatever unfortunate man was silly enough to wife her up, cashing his alimony checks monthly, for the rest of his life, as is the custom in California.

Thus we see the deracinated, alienated, rootless consumer in action. She has no culture and no homeland. She has no sense of community, and no sense of decorum, self-respect, shame or understatement. She is the perfect citizen of our global plantation.

Her stated fees on her web page run her professional time at 300/hr, or 6000/day. I have never hired a professional prostitute before, and I’m forced to wonder if this is realistic. Maybe one of the MGTOW bros could school me.

Note that I have hired attorneys before; and I can get one of the better attorneys in my town, with his paralegal, to do a day’s work (including piecemeal office staff work on the back end) for 2000.00. With this in mind, it’s difficult to believe that anyone has ever actually paid “Shahrazad” 6000.00 for a day of her “labor.”

She has profiles available on several of the prostitution sites. Here is a satisfied customer, who apparently paid at least three c-notes.

Here is another one, almost precisely similar to the first. While the original was written by “Panchito,” this one is ostensibly penned by “Man 4821”. He describes her as a “gem.” These reviews are so solicitous, I wonder if she didn’t sock up and write them for self-promotion.

And here is a sample of her photos.

Objectively, I suppose we can admit that she looks better than her age (she claims to be about 55).

As I dredged up this stuff this morning, I couldn’t help but feel a bit of regret on her behalf. Here is an old woman who ought to be enjoying time with her dozen Muslim grandchildren, living the reward of years of fidelity to her husband. She should be swinging around with him on the dance floor, traveling, writing books about gardening or cooking, and basking in the respect and dignity of an examined life. Instead, she’s peddling her saggy ass on the internet, begging strangers to part with a couple of hundred bucks, in return for her spreading her well-worn meat flaps. She’s writing books about being a trashy sex worker, and embarrassing her family on a youtube channel so vulgar that google couldn’t stomach it.

I decided not to link to her web page, because my interested viewers can simply type it in from one of the screenshots, and, well, it’s even too crass for ya boy Boxer. Such is the state of the world we live in.

Note: An implicit copyright of some or all of the preceding work is duly noted. This review is published as a transformative work, in order to 1. educate the public, 2. parody the material, 3. comment upon general social trends. My impression is that the author is being unfairly censored. Be that as it may, if “Shahrazad” or her agent would like to respond or request a retraction, the comment box is the place to do it. 

Back in April, we met “Shahrazad,” who explained that “the more men I f*ck, the greater is my value.”

https://youtu.be/0i36r9qN8jc

Now she’s back, to peddle her new book, entitled (unsurprisingly) The F*ck List. She goes on to explain that she doesn’t have sex with just anyone. She seeks out young, fit, good looking men to bang, and she boasts that her “schedule” along with her job (she claims to be an escort) often necessitates servicing multiple cocks per day.

https://youtu.be/XJz7Sf3RjpQ

Personally, I think she’s lying, both about her job, and about being so discriminating. As she speaks, check out the crazy eyes, the turkey neck, the weird, high cheekbones in her wrinkly, wall-hitting face.

Brothers, was there ever a time that you’d shell out good money, just to bang this sad old bag?

I didn’t think so.

Red Pill Latecomer, one of the champions of the Dalrock research team, found the second video and the old fruitbat’s book. Check out his review here, and show him some love.

Jesus Christ. How embarrassing.

Over on Dalrock, there is scuttlebutt about a new commandment by the Christian god, that all Christian men must marry.

Cane Caldo explains:

there is a command is for each man and each woman to marry, but that concessions–exceptions–might and should be made in specific cases for specific reasons.

Later on, BillyS agrees and amplifies:

God said it was not good for a man to be alone and made a woman for him. That is the baseline principle. Exceptions, such as Paul, exist, but they are just that, exceptions. Review the Scriptures I already posted.

The problem that Cane and Billy have is a simple one. There is no “Thou shalt marry” commandment, anywhere in the new testament. So, Cane and Billy are fabricating new commandments, and weaving justification for their new commandments from minor allusions found here and there in the text.

Astute readers will remember that Artisanal Toad seemed to do something precisely similar. When asked where the “Thou shalt marry multiple women” and “Thou shalt let thine wives dyke out in weird lesbo group sex orgies” commandments were, he’d go on a long, dull tirade, about how ya boy Boxer was too worldly and too stupid to get the hidden meaning in the text.

Now Billy and Cane are asserting that the Christian god says something which he clearly doesn’t say. Their motivations for making this assertion are unclear, and don’t matter anyway. Let’s assume that both Cane and Billy are perfectly sincere in their beliefs, and are not trying to lead anyone astray for the sake of any ulterior motive. Since their beliefs neither correspond nor cohere with the propositions in the New Testament, there are a finite number of possibilities available to explain the disparity.

• The Christian god has given a new commandment, by revelation, through internet bloggers.
• Cane and Billy are starting a new, post-Christian religious movement.
• Cane and Billy are reading the text through the lens of ideology.

While all of these are plausible scenarios, the first doesn’t seem likely. The text itself warns against false prophets, and implies that it constitutes both the completeness of the theory and a final revelation. It also pronounces a curse on anyone who claims to have had a subsequent revelation (Galatians 1:8-9). Billy and Cane both study the New Testament, so they know this themselves.

The second also doesn’t seem likely. Neither Billy nor Cane has ever denounced any of the central tenets of Christianity, nor have I ever seen either of them claim to be anything other than a sincere Christian.

So, assuming (as I do) that these guys aren’t purposely lying to people, I am left with the final scenario as the one that seems most likely to be the case. They are reading the New Testament through the lens of ideology.

What is ideology, and what does it mean to read a text through the lens of ideology?

Ideology is a Marxist term which (like most weighty philosophical items) takes some effort to unpack. We might say that it is a social phenomenon, which originates in the false state of consciousness, arising out of the mode of being prevalent in our particular historical epoch. Marx would point out that the mode-of-being in the epoch is brought into being by the mode-of-production, but we’re not going to go that far. The bare concept is itself hard to understand.

We live in a world that prioritizes certain things (fame, money, status, women) and thus we adopt certain inherent biases that color any new sense data we are exposed to. When sense data hits our eyes, our brain instantly begins working to translate such stuff into intelligible information. It does this by making associations through a conditioned structure. That’s part of ideology.

The warm fuzzies that the wimminz get when they see a lavish wedding, or the sympathy that a man feels when he sees a suffering child… some of that may be inborn, but most of it is ideology. We have each been conditioned and socialized to respond in certain ways, and the conditioning is at least partly subconscious.

The Marxist term is usually considered a subset of what Hegel called a world-spirit (weltgeist). We theorize about history, that is about our place in society, as we navigate all the currents that brought us to the now, in terms that our place in society offers us. To some extent, we are limited by language and pop culture to certain channels of thought, whereas other possibilities are closed off to us.

So what does it mean to speculate that some people read texts through the lens of ideology? In truth, we all do. This is why so many texts can be interpreted in such a variety of different ways.

The truth of this statement often gives way for linguistic relativism, and an idea that nothing inherently means anything: that in the war between text and subtext, context is the only winner. While students of ideology should examine the truths available from a variety of interpretations, we should also be careful about adopting the view that the interpretation is everything. If meaning is chiefly interpretive, then text is deprecated.

In an answer to the bizarre assertions of Cane Caldo, I had to ask:

Where is this command that each man marry? Chapter and verse, please.

Of course, Cane had no answer. Neither did anyone on his side of the argument. I did get a few replies, though. My man Earl said:

It’s not there. There are commands on what you are supposed to do when you get married…and what you are supposed to do if you are not married (the common theme for both is sexual morality)…but there is no command that states you are to get married.

That’s the way I read the text also. Of course, I read the text at face value, and try to keep my Marxist critique-of-ideology shades on, whenever I turn a new page in it.

One thing many of my secular readers might not appreciate are the differences between the Christian god, and the Mormon god. These are, despite all the protests to the contrary (by Christians and Mormons both) very different gods. Mormons have a specific commandment to play up our similarities when among Christians, but in private we tell our children the score. We can pass as Christians, but we are not Christians.

One of the differences between the Mormon god and the Christian god is what each calls his people to do. The Christian god does not make any specific commandment to marry; but, the Mormon god did command his people to marry.

To obtain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, a man must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (D&C 131 1-4)

The Mormon heaven is only for married people. Mormons who never marry will not be allowed in. Not only this, but the Mormon man or woman who marries in a secular ceremony, will also be counted as an unmarried person after death, and will likewise never be allowed into the Mormon heaven.

If a man marry a wife not by me, their covenant and marriage is not of force when they are dead (D&C 132 15)

Mormons are not only commanded to marry, but they are further commanded to marry other Mormons, in temple ceremonies. Failure to do so precludes a brother from any leadership positions in the church, any sort of benefits or employment within the church, and he will die condemned.

This, in fact, is the greatest example of the superiority of Jesus (the name of the Christian god) and his disciple St. Paul over Elohim (the Mormon god, who definitely has nothing to do with Jesus) and his disciple Joseph Smith. Jesus allows for those of us who may want to choose another vocation to do so.

I will always be a Mormon, and I will always love my people; but I will never bow the knee to the Mormon folk religion, and I encourage my Mormon brothers to explore the truths that can be found in the works of St. Paul, and, for that matter, Karl Marx.