Over on Dalrock’s comments, there’s an interesting conversation about the prospect of surrogacy and technology allowing single men to conceive and raise motherless children. Dalrock is a religious blog, and naturally, people look to the New Testament for guidance. It’s particularly murky on this topic, though.

honeycomb sez to Billy…

We disagree .. unless you can show me with scripture that it’s evil.

(Rather than cite a specific source, Billy made a general statement, then alluded to honeycomb being an idiot)

honeycomb retorts…

Ah yes the ole personal attack & no supporting documentation bit.

While I don’t share Billy’s personal sentiments (i.e. I don’t think either honeycomb or AT are idiots), honeycomb is asking for something that no reasonable person would expect to find in the New Testament. The bible is a product of its age, and the thinkers who produced it had no reason to denounce men masturbating into a sex robot, then producing a motherless kid via an artificial placenta.

Lots of things aren’t listed in the bible that would be, if someone was writing it today. (Weird trannies being allowed in the girls’ public toilet, the prevalence of S&M sex play, nose piercings, etc.)

Either honeycomb has adopted AT’s fallacy, that everything not specifically prohibited in the text is explicitly permitted (thoroughly debunked by a guy named Lyn87, over a year ago) or he knows some part of the bible which allows for motherless kids to become a societal norm. I’ve never seen this allowance myself.

So is bringing a motherless child into the world sinful? I don’t personally have an opinion on that. I think it’s for the religious bros to try and work out what qualifies as sin. Is it socially destructive? I think it certainly is. Any kid brought into the world in these circumstances will desperately want the love and example that a decent mother provides her children. S/he will look around at other kids who seem to take this situation for granted, and will feel deeply hurt by the lack of it in his/her own life. That wounding will not go away. It will likely result in deviant behavior. This is almost understandable to me. Why should such a child grow up feeling invested in a society which s/he doesn’t identify with?

Now, guys who promote this have a couple of choices. They can be inverted feminists, and demand that every child be stripped of his/her mother (the way kooky feminists do now, demanding that father’s day be abolished, &c.) They might also try to start a separate society made up only of single fathers (women don’t have the strength or foresight to do this, but I think men might try it). Either way, their kids will ultimately pay the price for their narcissism.

One of my Mormon cousins has a blog which deals with red pill stuff from a traditional LDS perspective. Go show him some love here:

Tales from The Mission Home

I’m also permanently adding Artisanal Toad’s blog. Love him or not, he’s a very interesting character and a skillful writer. Go check out his public denunciation of Dalrock here:

Toad’s Denunciation of Dalrock

Tim Finnegan is posting high quality content from a Catholic perspective over on The Wake. Read his advice to young men here:

Don’t Be Your Own Enemy

The female brain is such that a bitch, when she’s properly motivated, can dream up any scenario, and will not waver from accusing you of doing or saying anything, if it supports whatever makes her feel good in the moment.

This bitch (an unremarkable redhead) suddenly reappeared about a month ago. I had fucked her last summer a couple of times, and subsequently given her the brush with no drama. She wanted some more of Boxer, and Boxer obliged.

So, we met up for a bit of fucking. All seemed to go well. I bounced, and suddenly, she remembered how mean and rude and rudely mean I had been, all those months before. She had to text me about this affront immediately, asking me if I really meant all the mean stuff I said.

I kept blowing her off and deleting the conversations until finally, I offered to make material amends for my crap behavior — provided she could pony up some evidence of same.

Supposedly, I had hurt little princess deeply, by insulting her womanhood, or something. Problem is, I archive all my conversations; and no such squabble ever took place. This nonsense is not at all uncommon, but it does throw the recipient into confusion, if he’s not accustomed to wimminz and their shallow dealings.

How to explain this strange phenomenon? There are a couple of distinct possibilities, which I rank in order of descending probability.

1. Bitch had said squabble with some other dick she was riding last summer.
2. Bitch is a drama queen, and is making shit up for attention.
3. Bitch is genuinely psychotic, living in a dream world.

Scenario 1 is slightly more likely than 2, only because bitch caused no drama whatever last summer. Either bitch got her feelz hurt by someone she has mistaken for me, or she got her feelz hurt by a man and she needs me (a man) to pay the price for hurting those precious feelz.

Naturally, once any bitch has gone down this road, pride precludes a reasonable reversal. No bitch is ever wrong, even when her dumb ass is.

This is an annoying but fairly common scenario, which young brothers should note well. Remember a few things when dealing with a bitch that pulls this sort of nonsense.

1. Never complain, never explain.
2. Don’t apologize, even if you did something resembling what she’s accusing you of.
3. Don’t panic.

This tedious sort of chickie theatre is, in fact, a blessing. Bitch who pulls this sort of line is tipping you off to the fact that she is completely unfit to fill any role other than “former fucktoy” in your life. Next her immediately, and without mercy.

In Chechnya, they are putting the children first.

Authorities in Russia’s Chechnya Republic are claiming success in an unconventional, sweeping campaign to compel people who have divorced to reunite, for the sake of the children — and, they say, to help in the fight against terrorism.

Ramzan A. Kadyrov, the president of the Chechen Republic, has reintroduced the concepts of children’s rights and family values, by retroactively nullifying most of the divorces that happened in his country in the last generation.

Read more at Carlos Slim’s Blog.

Fun commentary here:

https://youtu.be/dO8OX05pqFk

There’s really nothing I can say about this.

Women, who have been refusing to reproduce (at least in developed countries) for the last 50 years, are now slated to be replaced completely.

Motherless babies could be on the horizon after scientists discovered a method of creating offspring without the need for a female egg.

 

The landmark experiment by the University of Bath rewrites 200 years of biology teaching and could pave the way for a baby to be born from the DNA of two men.

 

It was always thought that only a female egg could spark the changes in a sperm required to make a baby, because an egg forms from a special kind of cell division in which just half the number of chromosomes are carried over.

The future apparently consists of male homosexuals, growing male babies, with the help of incubators and artificial placentae. This sounds like a bizarre vision of the world, but remember just a few years ago, before a couple of men could pretend to get married, or extort decent people of the title to their bakeries, for their refusal to pay lip service to such nonsense.

“It has been thought that only an egg cell was capable of reprogramming sperm to allow embryonic development to take place.

 

“Our work challenges that dogma, held since early embryologists first observed mammalian eggs in around 1827 and observed fertilisation 50 years later, that only an egg cell fertilised with a sperm cell can result in a live mammalian birth.

 

“We’re talking about different ways of making embryos. Imagine that you could take skin cells and make embryos from them. This would have all kinds of utility.”

 

For the initial experiments, scientists “tricked” an egg into developing into an embryo using special chemicals which makes the egg think it has been fertilised. Crucially the cells in an embryo copy themselves completely when they divide, and so mirror closely most other cells in the body, such as skin cells.

 

When scientists injected the embryos with sperm, they grew into healthy mice which went on to produce their own litters.

Read More at The Telegraph (link)

Technology’s ability to render a false state of consciousness, putting the world and its contents in a state of reserve, was explored by Heidegger. He called it “enframing.” Old Mart had a rosy view of the future, in which humanity transcended their own delusions.

Read The Question Concerning Technology (here)

These stories just keep on coming. As usual, no comment from the father of this unfortunate little boy, anywhere in the text.

Such great “journalists” we have in America, right folks? Fantastic people.

Predictably, the story paints dad as yet another deadbeat, who must have simply disappeared in the night. When he is mentioned, there are implications that he was an accomplice.

I have a more realistic theory…

ST. GEORGE — A 12-year-old Toquerville boy, whose abuse case sparked worldwide outrage after he was found lying on a filthy bathroom floor, severely malnourished and unable to move because his legs weren’t strong enough, doesn’t remember exactly how long he was kept in his “torture chamber,” as prosecutors called it.

 

But the boy remembers hearing his siblings and parents open Christmas presents. Twice.

This is the child that looked too much like daddy. It’s also likely that “siblings” were sisters. Women have zero empathy for any man, and that includes little ones.

On Monday, a judge imposed the maximum sentence on the boy’s mother, Brandy K. Jaynes, 36, convicted of three counts of intentional child abuse causing serious injury, a second-degree felony. She was sentenced to one to 15 years in the Utah State Prison for each count, with all counts to be served consecutively.

 

Before sentencing her, 5th District Judge Eric Ludlow called the abuse “deplorable” and “appalling.” He made Jaynes look at a picture of the room her son was locked in, where Post-it notes with messages such as “Touch the camera, I will kick your butt with a stick” and “You will act like a human at all times” were duct taped to the wall.

 

“You did not act like a human at all times,” Ludlow told Jaynes. “I’ve never seen anything like this. It’s unbelievable, quite frankly.”

The chucklehead in the black robe can act all shocked-just-shocked now, but his brothers in the legal profession are ultimately responsible for separating this boy from his dad.

Jaynes denied writing the notes, claiming the boy’s twin sister was the culprit.

Did I call it, or what? He was hated because he was a he. That’s often all it takes.

Details of the disturbing case caused a widespread outcry after Jaynes’ arrest in January. Police said the 12-year-old boy was living in a feces-filled bathroom that had been fitted with locks on the outside of the doors. He weighed just 30 pounds when he was found.

 

Before being sentenced Monday, prosecutor Angie Reddish-Day revealed that the boy may have been locked up from four to eight years, based on witness statements and other evidence, including the boy’s physical and mental condition,

 

It started with him being locked in a bedroom with no bed, being forced to lie on wood planks as Jaynes poured water on him, Reddish-Day said. The boy was later moved to a stand-up shower stall where boards were put up to keep him in. Evidence of food where the boy ate was found by investigators in the shower, she said. And later, he was moved to the small bathroom, where because of its size, the boy stopped growing.

 

What really puts this case in a different category is that she had a live feed camera watching him suffer every single day. … She can’t say she didn’t know what was happening because she watched it happening.

As expected, cunt’s lawyer tries to blame the father. The standards based journalists who wrote up the story have no comment from that poor guy at all.

We all know a more plausible scenario, don’t we? At some point, the father of this unfortunate kid stood tall before a divorce-court judge, and begged to be part of his son’s life. The judge ignored him (or, possibly, laughed in his face). Appeals to the courts are futile, and eventually, the poor fellow probably wandered off, after paying what little money was left to attorneys. This tragedy is the predictable end result of our “family court” system.

Read more at KSL dot com (here)

As a result of posts like this one and this one, Folks have recently asked me: “Boxer, how do you get all these bitches to come back to you?”

It’s simple, really. If a ho’ wants to leave, I let her go. No tears, no begging, no drama. The most she gets out of me is “So long and good luck!”

It has been my experience that in about half of such cases. The bitch does not actually want to leave. What she wants is to present the illusion that she’s leaving, to goad or scare a brother into doing what she wants him to do.

I honestly don’t remember what this particular skank-ho wanted, about six weeks ago. Maybe she wanted to be exclusive. Maybe she wanted to move in. Maybe she wanted me to take her out to a fancy place. All of these ploys have been tried on ya boy Boxer, countless times. This scenario plays out with such regularity, and I’m so thoroughly used to it, that I just go off a well-worn script and don’t bother paying attention to the details.

Skank-ho left, sure in the knowledge that I’d start pining away for the lost privilege of penetration. In reality, what often happens is that less than ten minutes after skank-ho hits the bricks, I have replaced her with an alternate, and my life goes on uninterrupted.

Sometimes the alternate is cuter, and sometimes she’s not. Sometimes she’s better as she’s down on all fours, and sometimes she isn’t. What is always true is that the new bitch has yet to bore me with these pathetic theatrics. What is also always true is that it is merely a matter of time before the new bitch becomes the old bitch, and feels comfortable (and entitled) enough to trot out her own list of demands in exchange for the use of her body. Rinse and repeat.

In the interim, skank-ho waits for me to fold. She waits and waits, her confidence growing ever shakier. She has a tinder fling or three, with men who treat her with even less courtesy than I do. Eventually, it is she who breaks. She sends me a “wat up” message.

I’m always polite, but I never behave the way they want me to, and so life goes on, and it never enters the dumb cunt’s dim peanut brain that if she had just been honest about what she wanted, perhaps I’d still retain a minimal sliver of respect for her.

Only a short time ago, we profiled degenerate male feminist Christopher John Goldberg, who became net-famous with his autistic rambling about male privilege, spewed into the faces of anyone in his general vicinity who was in any way normal or healthy (link). As we have already seen, Goldberg had two distinct personae. When he logged off of Twitter and Tumblr, he transitioned seamlessly from supposed feminist crusader into his private life, where he collected and traded volumes of revolting child pornography.

As though we needed yet another example of the pathology of feminism, a woman named Kai Cole has recently penned an article about her relationship with Joss Whedon. Whedon became famous for his role in creating trashy, lowbrow entertainment like “Buffy The Vampire Slayer,” and is widely known as a male-feminist. Whedon met Cole around 1991, and they married in 1995.

A personal friend of such luminaries as Anita Sarkeesian and Meryl Streep, male-feminist Joss Whedon has championed things like rewriting nonsensical fairy tales with female protagonists, and pressuring tech and entertainment companies to hire more women (whether or not those women would actually do anything useful). My masochistic readers can watch a tedious example of his sanctimonious preening on youtube, deceptively entitled “Joss Whedon’s Equality Now Speech” (here).

Kai “Mrs. Whedon” Cole explains that her feminist husband spent several years lying to her, abusing her, and acting like a complete asshole, all while fucking countless third-rate skanks.

Joss admitted that [for a] decade and a half, he hid multiple affairs and a number of inappropriate emotional ones that he had with his actresses, co-workers, fans and friends, while he stayed married to me. He wrote me a letter when our marriage was falling apart, but I still didn’t know the whole truth…

Mrs. Whedon goes on to give us a glimpse of what really motivates male feminists to act out in public, namely: displacement, projection, and similar neurotic attempts at ego-defense.

Despite understanding, on some level, that what he was doing was wrong, he never conceded the hypocrisy of being out in the world preaching feminist ideals, while at the same time, taking away my right to make choices for my life and my body based on the truth. He deceived me for 15 years, so he could have everything he wanted. I believed, everyone believed, that he was one of the good guys, committed to fighting for women’s rights, committed to our marriage, and to the women he worked with. But I now see how he used his relationship with me as a shield, both during and after our marriage, so no one would question his relationships with other women or scrutinize his writing as anything other than feminist.

This is a very valuable insight that all men should internalize. When one sees a male feminist, he is generally looking at a deeply disturbed and degenerate person. Such a man is motivated to become a feminist nuisance not by lofty ideals of equality, but by repressed feelings of guilt and shame. The male feminist finds it easier to criticize others than to improve himself, and he lashes out at anyone around him as a result. It is a particularly pathetic form of escapist stagnation.

Unfortunately, in this case, while Joss Whedon was accusing all and sundry for doing those things that he did himself, he was also causing his wife (one of the few people he should have had some genuine concern for) serious psychological problems.

My entire reality changed overnight, and I went from being a strong, confident woman, to a confused, frightened mess. I was eventually diagnosed with Complex PTSD and for the last five years, I have worked hard to make sense of everything that happened and find my balance again. It has not been easy, because even though in my personal life I have been completely open about what happened, publicly people only know his superficial presentation of us: him as the lovable geek-feminist and me in the background, as his wife and supporter.

We can only extend our sympathies to Mrs. Whedon, for her poor choice in men, which led to the ordeal from which she is, only now, beginning to recover. It’s doubly important for any sisters who have stumbled into this blog to take her warning seriously. Do not date, fuck or marry any outspoken male-feminist. They are always driven to their zealotry by intractable personal problems.

The stories of trash like Schwyzer, Goldberg, Whedon and countless others convince us of an inescapable truth: Male feminists are unworthy of any decent man’s respect, and of any good woman’s time or attention.

Read the entire article by Mrs. Whedon here.

Special thanks to my nigga Anon, part of the award-winning Dalrock research team, for bringing Mrs. Whedon’s story to light. Show him some love here.

The author of Dalrock is finally addressing Artisanal Toad’s new, post-christian religious movement (see here and here). A couple of weeks ago, I started doing the same thing (here). My nigga Toad has advanced a number of propositions which seem (at least to me) to conflict with the text of the New Testament. Such as:

• The permissibility of men to simultaneously marry multiple women (source)
• The permissibility of women to dyke out with lesbian sex (ibid)
• The necessity of mild-to-moderate S&M sexual fetishes (source)

It gives ya boy Boxer a nice ego-boost to think that I’ve goaded Mr. Dalrock into a necessary and interesting debate; though it was probably catalyzed by a mixture of annoyance and boredom. Even so, the argument between Dalrock and Toad is at a sufficiently high level to (so far) be both productive and entertaining, and both sides make their points with wit and humor.

As usual, SirHamster can not abide a civilized debate, and so the stunted halfman has spent the last several days living on the internet, attempting to derail it. Leave it to this untreated Tourette’s patient to respond to funny arguments, not with witty ripostes, but with acres of ponderously dull, yet entirely pointless gibbering.

SirHamster comes to a forum where argument is the rule. He tries (and tries, and tries) to argue, but he’s not smart enough to keep up. He subsequently tries to flame people, but it turns out that he isn’t so good at flaming, either. He ends up getting flamed more effectively in return.  And as if that isn’t bad enough, it turns out that SirHamster can’t take it. He gets back what he tried to dish out, and the moron loses his cool and starts throwing around threats and unhinged accusations. It doesn’t impress anyone, it just confirms what a dull jackass he is.

Given that Toad is capable of both arguing and flamecraft, SirHamster deludes himself with the idea that we’re in cahoots. This would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. There’s no one I have historically disagreed with more consistently (and more vigorously) than The Notorious T.O.A.D.. That both I and Toad are men, who can argue without getting all weepy and upset, is what truly flummoxes this pathetic fake christian. It is beyond his ken to understand that arguing well is a masculine virtue, or that one can learn something from an ideological opponent.

Having been thoroughly humiliated, SirHamster began begging for help from similar simpletons, none of whom wanted to get into his hole. He then began accusing all his critics of high crimes and misdemeanors. His last attempt at justification was to advance the strange theory that his self-imposed humiliation was somehow akin to the martyrdom of a Christian saint.

He is called to indulge in this sort of self-abasement, because it might lead to the “repentance” of his critics.

I’m always amused by squalling idiots who bawl out, “BOXER you meany! You’re a bully! Stop flaming me!” These same people are invariably the ones who started the shit in the first, but when they get overwhelmed, they want out.

Here’s a clue for halfwits everywhere: I’m a fairly easy guy to get along with. If you leave me alone, I will generally extend you the same courtesy. Even if you behave like a raving nutcase, or a slopeheaded moron, I will usually ignore you. There are, in fact, a great number of people in the ‘sphere that I regard as chuckleheads, but because they leave me alone, I respect their boundaries the same way. Once you come at me, you need to be prepared to be reduced to my own private plaything, until I get the impression that you’ve learned your lesson.

Don’t whine to your mommy and daddy, bawling about how mean I am. If you can’t take it, don’t start it.

I just can’t make it any simpler.