Y’all guess what it stands for.

…as told by Anonymous on /pol/

This is [name removed], your typical millennial woman, who will be 30-years old next year. At 18, she found that she was suddenly treated like God’s gift to the world. Everyone laughed at her jokes, and followed her social media feeds. People hung on her every word. Doors were held, drinks bought, and space made for her.

But then, as she entered her late 20’s, things began to change. Her youth began to fade, and with it went the attention, the social priority, the sense of value. Desperately, she clung to what remained, resenting younger women and the men whose glances, little by little, stopped falling upon her. Like many women of her generation, she had no boyfriend and was childless. So, she doubled down, and tried to maintain the carefree party that is being a 20-something girl in a big city.

But she’s almost 30 now, and the drinks and the nights out aren’t quite as exciting as they once were, so she nods off early. One by one, her BFFs got off the subway, so now she rides alone. Her tinder date never showed up, so she just got a pizza to share with herself, and like her gradually fading youth, it’s slowly slipping away. While it hasn’t quite touched the floor yet, still separated by some wax paper, an onlooker is forced to ask: “Is any of this actually worth saving?”

I Want Answers and I Want Them Now on Wimminz

From Gizmos to Paperwork on Heartiste

Girlfriends as Structural Necessities on Omega Virgin Revolt

Surrender on Rational Male

Bespoke Epistles on Dalrock

Over at Uncommen dot org, a Fake Christian named TJ Todd writes the following nonsense…

 

I’m not going to link to the article directly, because I’m currently trying to troll the author into talking to me. Will this cuck take the bait? It’s a waiting game…

There is a discussion on this article over at Dalrock. Join in (here)

Over on Dalrock, I’m getting some heat about my allegiance to what the brainiacs would call the S-Structure in literature. For example: Richard P writes:

Of all folks who populate this corner, Boxer has surprised me the most with immediately going to the Old English of the King James instead of the original words in the original languages in the original cultures.

Not to be outdone, Swanny River writes:

You brought out a side of Boxer I don’t remember seeing. You seem similar to Art Toad or Dasgamer and Boxer was defending one or both of their logical validity and sourcing, but not so you. If you care to say Boxer, and if my summation is agreeable, could you say why the more rough handling of Derek?

Most linguists and philosophers of language agree that there are two (or more) grammatical structures at play whenever we communicate. The guy who wrote the definitive text on this, in the beginning, was Gottlob Frege, back in 1891. I believe (and it has been a good long while since I’ve read him) that his example in Sense and Reference was ‘the morning star’ and ‘the evening star’.

If I were to speak those two noun-phrases in succession, the listener would realize instantly that both of them had the same referent: the planet Venus. Even so, they are two different senses of the same thing. The first one is Venus when we see it at sunrise, and the second is Venus at night.

The next big name who tried to come along and unify this strange dichotomy was Bertrand Russell. Uncle Bert was big on uncovering the grammatical nature of truth claims, so he unified Frege’s ambiguity, but in the process, he created one of his own, by differentiating between language and metalanguage. Russell was into logicism, and so we’ve got an S-Structure when I speak a sentence, and we’ve got a D-Structure underlying it, that is written in unambiguous logical language.

S and D stand for ‘Surface’ and ‘Deep’, respectively.

This was not the end of the story. Saul Kripke overturned Russell, and he was himself overturned by guys like Quine and Field and Chomsky. No matter the argument, there will always be a difference between the words we use when we say something, and the meaning we express with them.

And so the nice Christian gents find themselves on Dalrock, arguing with the Southern Baptists, who have recently re-written the Bible, to make the words of great philosophers like Rabbi Saul of Tarsus seem like they were endorsing gay marriage and dyke priests. This in itself is irksome to many Christian dudes, who have grown up with a particular conception of God, which doesn’t include him being a weird purple-haired tranny, the likes we would find in a dive bar in San Francisco.

Of course, the baptists will excuse their changes by citing the D-Structure. The original word for God in the Greek, they’ll tell us, is properly translated into the word “trans-sexual weirdo.”

The problem with all this from my perspective is that, even if it were true, it still doesn’t matter. Christian guys in 20th century America grew up with the King James Version. That’s a book written in plain English. Moreover, this book, written in English, has already proven itself worthwhile.

It doesn’t matter if one discovers the English differs from the original Greek. Hell, it doesn’t matter if the English is not technically true. Someone could come along with conclusive historical evidence that there was a historical Jesus, and he was a flaming homosexual, or that he was a militant feminist, or that he was a bull dyke. There is, in fact, no evidence that any such person as Jesus ever existed at all. That’s all irrelevant. The Christian dudes in contemporary America aren’t reading the bible as history (even if they claim to believe in its historicity). They’re reading it as a manual for the self-organization of their society.

Jesus and Moses are, in fact, a lot like the numbers five and ten. Guys like Hartry Field will tell us that numbers don’t exist. This is hard to argue with. If the number five existed, someone would have to tell us where it is located, what color it is, etc.

Hardcore students of semantics will often argue, then, that mathematical statements like ‘five plus three equals eight’ are not true. Five, three and eight do not refer to anything, and thus they can’t have a truth value at all.

These are, of course, interesting little debates; but, to guys who merely want to solve problems, none of it matters. The bible is full of stories that are quite useful… same as your real analysis textbook. These things may be fictions, but they help real people solve real problems in the real world.

The Southern Baptists have a con-job that’s only a little way removed from this. They are telling you that five isn’t really five, it’s actually eight. And ten isn’t really ten, it’s actually thirteen. In fact, all those numbers you learned, they’re actually three units less than their “true” values.

Of course, one could make all these changes, and all the familiar arithmetic he learned would still work perfectly. That’s not the point, claim the Baptists. The point is that you need to buy all new books (from the Baptists, coincidentally) and give us yet more money. We have the way, the truth and the light.

Everyone needs to visit The Edges, a blog authored by a fake Christian named Timothy Willard, for some truly bizarre displays of masochism. Note: Tim would like you to know that he has a Ph.D. (fuck’n lol).

His most recent article is entitled “Fighting for My Wife,” (link) and contains a bizarre, sappy, creepy sort of “love dare.”

Naturally, y’r boy Boxer couldn’t help but leave a few choice comments…

The other comments range from silly to creepy to bitter.

Amy Denton sounds like a prize catch of a wimminz, doesn’t she? Make sure to marry a nice Christian girl, fellas. That’s surely the way to go.

Not to be outdone, Christian scholar Laurie appears to school us on the definition of “Biblical marriage.”

Biblical scholar Jennifer McCoy appears suddenly, scolding those of us naysayers who may not be taking the original article seriously.

And, naturally, there are plenty of white knights, jumping in to defend m’lady, in the hopes of getting a sniff at some whore’s crusty old butthole…

Truly, a good time is being had by all. Stop on by, and tell them Herbie Marcuse sent you!

Note: Props to Oscar, part of the award winning Dalrock research team, for finding this nonsense. Visit the discussion on Herr Doktor Willard’s bizarre article (here). Visit Oscar’s blog (here).

At some point, the Texas divorce courts decided that four-year old Fredricka, seen here, would be much better off living with her unstable skank-ho single mom, than with a normal, healthy family. It will surprise none of my readers to learn that little Fredricka was subsequently murdered.

Needless to say, there is no national outrage. There is no extended media coverage of any kind. This happened in Houston, but outlets in Dallas and San Antonio are not running the story.

There will be no candlelight vigils, nor calls for a “national conversation” on single-motherhood.

Skank-ho mommy is in the jailhouse, due to receive a far lighter sentence than she deserves, and the little girl’s father has been officially erased by the gaystream media.

From KTRK-Houston (link)

The paternal family of Fredricka Allen spoke out to Eyewitness News. The little girl’s grandmother, Willia Allen, said her son first called her Sunday. He was worried about his daughter’s safety.

“Paternal family”? “her son”? How about a statement from the child’s father, or at least some acknowledgement? The best these morons can do is a one-line snippet by the victim’s grandmother (another wimminz, naturally).

This is, of course, a pattern that y’r boy Boxer has noted many times. Like little Victoria in Albuquerque (link), Fredricka had no chance at a decent or stable life, once her skank-ho mommy opened up the doors of the divorce courts.

This is also one more reason that no man should ever marry or have children with an American ho’, without doing some serious soul-searching. The phenomenon is less common than it could be, but it’s still a frighteningly real worst-case scenario that any intelligent man ought to consider carefully.

Special thanks to Red Pill Latecomer, of the award-winning Dalrock Research Team, for finding this article and sharing it. Show him some love here (link).

Feminists are, at their core, hollow beings. Female feminists are obsessed with envy of masculinity. Male feminists are obsessed with rebellion against the primal father. In both cases, the subject’s libidinal feelings are recursive. Rather than a healthy desire to commune with the other, the subject of the neurotic obsession is the self.

It’s all about meeeeeeeeee….

And so we meet “Francesca,” the author of Saint Joseph, Terror of The Cult of Masculinity (link), an article which was published a week ago, at my favorite feminist magazine: Patheos.

Everything that keeps the red pill poppers and alt-right windbags up at night was Saint Joseph’s life. He raised a child that was not his. His marriage was celibate, and he was chaste…

If we are to take the literal as historical, and accept that the text of the New Testament reflects stories of actual events, then we must concede in the first instance that Francesca is technically correct. Joseph was a man who raised up a son who was actually fathered by God himself.

In making this association, what “Francesca” attempts is an analogy. Every skank-ho single mom, she implicitly argues, partakes in the greatness and heroism which is the life of Mary, as recorded. This is silly and actually quite disrespectful to the literary (cum historical) character.

In the second instance, if we are to believe “Francesca”‘s claim that Joseph’s “marriage was celibate, and he was chaste…” then we are stuck with an obvious contradiction. In Mark 6:3, we read:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

(link)

Taking “Francesca” seriously opens up a number of interesting possibilities.

1. Perhaps James, Joses, Juda, Simon and various unnamed sisters are also the physical children of God and Mary. If that were the case, then their own magic tricks and miracles would get equal billing in the text. We never read about Simon raising the dead, nor about Juda turning water into wine, nor about the sisters walking on the surface of various lakes and rivers. So this seems impossible.
2. Perhaps these other people are half-brothers of Jesus through God, with different mothers. Aside from points already raised, we must then wonder where the heroic stories of the virgin births through Jane, Sarah, Trixie, Sally and Bertha might be recorded. Again, this seems impossible.
3. Perhaps “Francesca” has it right, that St. Joseph was celibate throughout his marriage, and he was the chaste husband of the single mom Mary, who banged Joe, Bill, Bob, etc. and had all these children through one or more different mortal fathers. It’s funny how the text makes absolutely no mention of such things, especially when pointing out such carnal shortcomings is a major theme of the entire corpus.

In fact, the only reasonable way to understand this idiotic article is to acknowledge that feminists are generally ignorant of the things they are wont to lecture on. “Francesca” has never read the New Testament, doesn’t know what the life of the Jesus character entails, and has no idea as to the deeper meanings of his story. Moreover: The only sensible way to interpret this nonsense is through Freud’s 1914 work On Narcissism, where we read that such people spend their lives warping great metanarratives in service of their own neurotic desires, to garner attention for themselves.

People like “Francesca” can not be helped, because any attempt to discuss their own motivations for these horrific misinterpretations is met with ego-defensive rage and more dishonest spinning. All we can really do is to point out their lunacy, scoff at them, and hold them up as examples to younger people as how not to turn out.

A screenshot of “Francesca”‘s original article reproduced here, under Fair Use.

Uncle Sig sez: “I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father’s protection” (link)

Fun for aspiring red-pill psychoanalysts, interested in the psychic origins of the false-rape accusation:

Read about Dora’s Case here

Read a synopsis here