From National Public Radio (no link, because they’re assholes):

In February, Pope Francis acknowledged a longstanding dirty secret in the Roman Catholic Church — the sexual abuse of nuns by priests.

 

It’s an issue that had long been kept under wraps, but in the #MeToo era, a #NunsToo movement has emerged, and now sexual abuse is more widely discussed.

 

The Vatican’s wall of silence was first broken in Women Church World, a supplement of the official Vatican daily, L’Osservatore Romano. An article in the February issue by editor Lucetta Scaraffia — a history professor, mother and feminist — blamed abuse of women and minors on the clerical culture of the all-powerful priesthood. The piece was based on hundreds of stories she heard from nuns.

 

It’s very hard for a nun to report she has been raped by a priest, says Scaraffia, because of the mindset that, in sex, women can always say no.

 

“These nuns believe they’re the guilty ones for having seduced that holy man into committing sin,” she says, “because that’s what they’ve always been taught.”

 

Adding to the trauma, she says, raped nuns who get pregnant become outcasts from their orders.

I’m sure this happens occasionally, and I’m also sure that the Catholic Church attempts to cover it up when it does; but, does anyone really think this is some sort of epidemic? Are churches and missions run like Bosnian rape camps?

Incidentally, in case any of my readers are wondering as to what these hot nuns look like, here’s another specimen that tells lots of stories about her own irresistibility to the average priest.

Would you sexually assault this wimminz?

I didn’t think so.

I am not a Catholic, but I did my undergrad at a Jesuit school, and I went to mass regularly for about four years, when I lived in a heavily Catholic town. I have known a fair number of priests and nuns, and have some personal observations…

Priests join the priesthood either because they are idealistic strivers, who think they can do some good in the world, or because they are flaming faggots, who think that they can meet other gay men this way. Sadly, the split is about fifty-fifty, and anyone who cares to venture into a few services will rapidly get a clue as to which end of the bell-curve his own local fadda sits.

Nuns join their orders largely because they don’t have other options. A girl becomes a nun because she’s not attractive enough to find and keep a man, and because she’s not ambitious enough to get a degree in chemistry or English, and become a schoolteacher. Again, venture into your local Catholic church and tell me how many hot, bright, smily nuns you meet… All the ones I’ve crossed paths with look like the two wimminz pictured above.

“The Vatican is a world of men,” she says. “Some truly are men of God. Others have been ruined by power. The key to these secrets and silence is … abuse of power. They climb up a career staircase toward evil.”

 

Aubin, who also works on Women Church World, describes women’s treatment inside the male Vatican world this way: “We are unobserved, invisible, ignored and not respected.”

 

The first extensive report on abuse of women in the church was in 1994 by an Irish nun, Sister Maura O’Donohue. Her report covered more than 20 countries — mostly in Africa, but also Ireland, Italy, the Philippines and the United States.

 

In the report, O’Donohue, who died in 2015, linked sexual abuse of nuns in Africa to the AIDS epidemic: Religious sisters were considered less likely to carry the virus.

 

She cited a 1988 case from Malawi, where a bishop dismissed the leaders of a women’s religious order because they complained that 29 nuns had been made pregnant by local priests. She also reported that a priest arranged for a nun to have an abortion; the nun died during the abortion, and the priest then officiated at her funeral.

The nuns in this report are painted as a gaggle of poor victims, but we don’t know the circumstances. While I don’t know what happened, I find it perfectly plausible to imagine that:

1. Sister Skanky flirted with, groped, made eyes at, and eventually spread her legs for any man-of-the-loin-cloth who would give her some dick and attention.

2. Sister Skanky returned to brag to other nuns about how she was fucking every swinging dick in the local parish.

3. Wimminz, competitive creatures that they are, took note, and all the other nuns started competing for sexy time with all the male clergy they had access to.

4. Twenty-nine of the nuns became pregnant. Most begged for abortions, because while they knew they were sluts, they would be horrified to have their sluttery confirmed in the collective consciousness of the community.

5. One nun died because of the voluntary, elective abortion she begged for.

O’Donohue briefed Vatican officials on her findings, but the document was shelved. Its contents were made public only in 2001 by the National Catholic Reporter, which also publicized another report, from 1998, titled “The Problem of the Sexual Abuse of African Religious in Africa and in Rome.”

Again, if this was “sexual abuse,” at least one of the twenty-nine poor victims would have approached the civil authorities in Malawi with a complaint. Forcible rape is a crime there. The fact that this story only got told when some butch dyke talked to the press makes it hard to take at face-value.

Consider the set of all elements that actually exist (as opposed to possibilia and impossibilia) in our particular spatiotemporal reality. According to the axiom of choice, we should be able to order our set, according to whatever well-defined criteria we choose. Let’s choose, for the sake of argument, godliness. It’s not necessary for us to be able to pick out God specifically, using this process, any more than it’s necessary for us to be able to pick the largest natural number in the set: ℕ. We can be certain that there is a largest natural number, and we can name it x, even if we can’t know what it is. Let’s call the most godly element of our set of all actualia: God.

This looks like an informalized math proof with lots of technical nonsense, and maybe it approaches that, but the basic idea was laid down by a geezer named Anselm of Canterbury, long before Georg Cantor was ever conceived. It was part of this argument here. I think it’s a good argument. It’s certainly an interesting one, because people are still talking about it, a thousand years after it was first written.

Down below, Brother Jason wrote:

The Lord said Himself Boxer that “I am the truth, the light, and the way….no one comes to the Father except through me”

I can accept that Jesus said that… Jesus being a literary character, who was talking to a specific group of people (i.e. Christians). Jesus didn’t write it or say it to me.

Some time later, Sharkly wrote:

I have frequently been pointing out that the answer to many questions is the foundational truth, that the Bible never tells us that women are in God’s image, while it repeatedly tells us that men are in his image, using more than one word for man, and in two different languages. Also, the Bible basically tells us women are not the image and glory of God, but the glory of man, in 1 Corinthians 11:7 and surrounding verses.

Women and men are not equal. Men were created first in the image and glory of God, and women were then created from the man as a second class of humans.

What does “made in the image of God” mean? No one knows. When people use it in common parlance, it makes me imagine God as a man, or at least as male. We are tempted to anthropomorphize everything, from Disney’s mice to consumer goods. I think this is a terrible mistake when applied to God.

Nature and simple observation reminds us that both men and women are incomplete alone. Men and women were designed to pair up and mate for life. The individual is not the sum total of our existence. We are social creatures, and the dyad is the basic unit.

MGTOW bros can mock me for telling this basic truth, but really, this whole blog is designed to circumvent the natural order of things, given that survival trumps completion. None of this would be necessary without the prior innovation of divorce courts and violence against women act and child support and cheap abortions.

If God were male, then he would be incomplete, as human men are incomplete. Envisioning God as a male begs the question as to where his female consort is. If he doesn’t have one, then what’s wrong with him? If he does have one, then shouldn’t we be praying to her? If there are two, then neither is the greatest element in our set. There should be something that’s whole in one.

There is a greatest element in our set, and Jesus isn’t it, for the simple matter that Jesus was male.

God is not male. God is far beyond any of our human imperfections.

Not only do we know he’s not a man, we know he’s nothing we can describe or categorize, because every attempt at description limits him in our ontology. Saying that something is x is to say that something is not (not x). The New Testament gives us some descriptions of Jesus. God? Not really.

I have argued strongly and convincingly for the Bible only ever telling us that men are in the image of God, and that 1 Corinthians 11:7 and surrounding passage make it clear to all but the most resistant reader that women are not.

To say that “men are in the image of God” is only meaningful if ‘the image of God’ is well defined, and it’s not. Sharkly seems to be recursively defining this phrase by analogizing it to male hominids. Is that a sound attempt? I suspect not.

The Bible, like all other religious texts, doesn’t strike me as the communication of God to men, anyway. It’s much more likely that it was written by men who were trying their best to ask the big questions about their creator. That doesn’t make it less valuable, but it does make it much more accessible.

If there is a God (and Anselm’s proof suggests there is), then he’s probably as unapproachable to us as ‘the greatest natural number’ or ‘the furthest contiguous clump of matter from the Earth.’ Not only do we not have knowledge of such stuff, we know for a certainty that we never will have knowledge of these things, and we just have to accept our limitations. You are the border collie, sitting on the hill, who will never understand quantum field theory, no matter how studious you might be.

Brother Sharkly has been banned by Dalrock. He requested assistance. I’ll explain how to avoid getting banned using my method.

Start by creating a WordPress blog (see instructions). The purpose of this blog will not be to get readers. It will be to store your really long arguments so you can link to them from other blogs. This is why I started my blog. It doesn’t have to be pretty, it just has to be functional. Name it whatever you like (e.g. eccentric-theology.wordpress.com).

Having setup your blog, create a post on your favorite esoteric, eccentric theology topic. Publish the post and view it. Copy the link from your browser. You’ll need it later.

Next pick the victim blog that you wish to comment on. Many bloggers use moderation for the first post, so write an insightful comment and try not to be controversial. Your goal is to get out of moderation and have people not hate you immediately:

It didn’t tolerate my wife demanding that I do chores. Men who put up with that are so beta. I guess they have no choice, since it takes self-confidence to stand up to that. I’m so alpha it hurts.

If it isn’t explicitly stated in a comment policy, you’ll want to ask about the link policy:

@SeaLiAnon

 

“Do you have evidence to back up that claim?”

 

Yeah, I do on my website. Is it okay to post links on this blog?

As soon as you get approval, you are good to go:

@BrotherAerl

 

“Unless the Catholic church has blessed your marriage, you are fornicating. Full stop.”

 

I don’t agree with that. I think marriage starts when you have sex and no church is required.

You create links in your comments by doing this:

<a href="https://derekramsey.com/2018/02/01/what-constitutes-biblical-marriage/">marriage starts when you have sex</a>

Your goal is to avoid really long comments or having to repeat yourself. Let’s say a month later you want to make the same kind of comment on another post. Just refer back to what you said previously:

@Fighter

 

“There is really nothing wrong with fornicating. It screws the feminists. Literally.”

 

As I said on a comment on the post – True Marriage™ – last month, marriage starts when you have sex. So, fornication is not cool.

This assumes they know what you are talking about. If not, wait for them to ask questions. This allows the conversation to die if they are not interested in pursuing it. You really shouldn’t try to force the issue if no one wants to talk about it. So…

“As I said on a comment on the post  – True Marriage™ – last month, marriage starts when you have sex.”

 

I’m not very bright and don’t know how to search. Can you remind me?

….and you reply…

@Fighter

<blockquote>"Can you remind me?"</blockquote>

Of course. <a href="https://derekramsey.com/2018/02/01/what-constitutes-biblical-marriage/">Here it is</a>. As you can see, fornication is an abomination in God's eyes.

In this example I show the raw code you actually type into the comment box.

You are the guest at their blog. You may be God’s messenger, but you still need to be civil and respectful. Treat them like you’d treat visiting someone in their house in meat-space. Keep long comments to a minimum, moving them to your blog instead and linking to them. Try not to repeat yourself. Trust the strength of your arguments and let your opponent have the last word.

Even if they ignore you, your link sits there always potentially driving traffic to your site. One day someone may read it and be moved by your eccentric prose. They may even comment on it or blog about it.

Just be careful not to link-spam. If you link to something, make it on topic and directly applicable. Don’t derail the discussion with your pet topic. Make sure it applies to the discussion.

This is a work of fiction. A resemblance to real people may be intentional.

Boxer is an incredibly lenient host. It makes me lazy. I don’t actually follow most of the advice here, but he probably wishes I would do so more often. He practically had to force me to become a contributing author on this blog. You don’t really want to do that on a blog with a less tolerant host.

This guest post is part two of a two part series. See part one.

Previously, I discussed how media whoring may bring attention, but does not increase relevance. Now, I’ll show why the manosphere is essentially irrelevant outside its protective bubble and why outside media attention is unlikely to provide any benefit.

I performed a Google search for “Dalrock”, excluding locations and businesses with that name and restricting the search to the last 6 months. There were many irrelevant entries. Out of 16 pages of results, I analyzed the first 8 pages. These are the relevant mentions in order of appearance:

Who is talking about Dalrock? The answer, it turns out, is us. Literally us, right here at this post code. That echo chambered bubble that grants Dalrock his status as leader in the Christian manosphere? It’s us, Warhorn, and Larry Kummer, and others mostly in the manosphere.

I moved from Google search to Google news. Perhaps, I thought, I had merely missed the media coverage of Dalrock. I hadn’t, but what I found was interesting. I found fifteen news items from Fabius Maximus, Larry Kummer’s site. Larry, who criticized Dalrock for whining about Warhorn interview, appears to be a media expert. He also writes about Dalrock often. I also found two from Suzanne Titkemeyer on Patheos. She recently criticized Sigma Frame. Nothing else registered.

So, who is talking about Dalrock outside the manosphere? No one of consequence.

I recently wrote a blog post on the Gillette saga. There I linked to criminal defense lawyer Scott Greenfield’s blog Simple Justice, a blog that is not in the manosphere. His WordPress blog received the pingback and he allowed it. In short, he potentially shared his non-manosphere audience with my blog.

Sigma Frame then updated his own post with a link to the Simple Justice article. The pingback from the Sigma Frame blog was deleted. This is not unusual: external exposure to the manosphere is extremely difficult to achieve.

After Lori Alexander’s post “Men Prefer Debt Free Virgins Without Tattoos” went viral, she made a follow-up post containing quotes from a Dalrock post. She didn’t link to him, calling him “A man who runs a popular blog for men.” Even someone who (presumably) likes Dalrock won’t directly promote him.

A year ago, I got into a debate with atheist Bob Seidensticker on the Wintery Knight blog. Seidensticker, sealioning, demanded evidence for my claims, so I pointed him to my blog. Once there, rather than address my points, he just link spammed to an article—on his blog—whose primary points I had already refuted in the OP. I was irrelevant to him, except as a tool to drive traffic to his site.

Dalrock is well-known inside the echo chamber (or bubble) of the manosphere. Those aware of the ‘sphere, but not part of it, may also know who Dalrock is, but they rarely talk about him. Outside, he is virtually unknown. Few, if any, media outlets even mention Dalrock. Warhorn may be the most notable thing that has ever happened to Dalrock and he bungled it.

When Dalrock makes challenges against his foes, they generally ignore him. Why not? Dalrock is irrelevant to them. The same goes for (almost?) everyone in the manosphere.

The outside world, including the media, looks at the manosphere as an aberration: a bunch of angry kooks. It doesn’t take it seriously and it doesn’t have to. It is irrelevant. What reason is there for this perception to change?

I read the comments of Boxer and others at this old Dalrock post (Archive; PDF). They defended Dalrock’s anonymity as a tool to support his role in the manosphere and his very important work. I don’t think this has aged well.

What’s the point of anonymity if you are irrelevant and no one cares? What’s the point if you don’t have a meaningful impact on what you care most about? If nobody cares, you are not at much personal risk. Only if your message goes viral might you be at significant risk. Anonymity helps protect against going viral, but isn’t going viral exactly what you want to happen in order to spread your message?

The Warhorn interview showed that anonymity is, quite ironically, a significant barrier to information dissemination. It doesn’t matter if we want to be judged solely on our message, because our opinion doesn’t matter. It’s not fair, but it’s the way it is. The media (and society at large) hold all the cards and they are not interested in dealing with those they cannot validate. So the message of the anonymous goes unheard.

Little is gained from seeking media attention or wider cultural influence. If you put your hopes in outside attention, you’ll likely be disappointed. It’s a nice dream, but little more. The manosphere is isolated and flawed. It is a useful echo chamber, but it still has all the limitations characteristic of an echo chamber. We should acknowledge the limitations and irrelevancy of the manosphere and act accordingly—to not think more highly of ourselves than is merited.

The target audience of the manosphere is mostly men who have not (yet) been burnt and broken or bitter men who have been. The manosphere offers them practical and theoretical knowledge and wisdom as well as a sense of community. This is where its primary value lies.

For those that wish the manosphere did more than this—that it truly and meaningfully challenged feminism at large—a different strategy is required. Waiting for the media to pay attention or for our posts to go viral has not been successful. I don’t know what this new strategy looks like. Maybe you do?

This guest post is part one of a two part series. See part two.

The recent Dalrock/Warhorn debacle has brought the manosphere’s interaction with the media into the forefront. Given a media opportunity, Dalrock sought fame and influence. This was never going to happen. Dalrock’s entitlement complex and media whoring blinded him. He was unable or unwilling to distinguish between an interview and a debate. In not handling himself before the media properly, he embarrassed the manosphere itself.

This isn’t the first time a media interview has gone wrong for manosphere. Consider Big John on CNN. That interview did little to nothing to aid the fight against feminism. It was never going to either.

Take a time machine back to late 2002. Newly educated and married—but unemployed and bored—I focused my attention on Wikipedia. I parsed census records and other related public records, processed the data, and created ~33,000 new city and county articles. Over a week, these articles increased the number of Wikipedia articles by ~60%. To make a long story short, this created a firestorm of controversy and marked my place in the history of the largest free repository of human knowledge. I had become instantly famous within the bubble of Wikipedia as part of its history.

It was not until 2005 when I was approached by Wired Magazine for my first media interview. As a software engineer, Wired Magazine was one of the few magazines that I would ever subscribe to. I was discussed specifically and they even included my picture. It was quite an ego trip seeing my name and photo in a nationally published printed magazine.

The attention did not end. My work has been discussed in academic papers, web articles, and at least four published books (including a whole chapter just for myself). My most recent media interview was in 2018.

Eventually I stopped writing Wikipedia articles and turned to photography. I’ve uploaded a couple thousand photos, many acquiring coveted featured picture status. I began to sell licensing rights to my work. My work can be found on thousands of websites and many publications.

As everyone who has interacted with me knows, I’m no stranger to controversy and attention. I’m not one for anonymity or sliding by unnoticed. The Wikipedia stage of my life went by, replaced by another. My wife, who is amazing, wanted to adopt a child with special needs. We eventually adopted three. The print media covered that too.

I moved along to the manosphere and eventually created my own blog. I kept the name “Ram-Man” alongside my real name. It is my “brand”, so why abandon it? My Google PageRank for my name or handle has always been high. Many times over the years they were the number one search result. I have a number of two and three keyword search terms for my blogs that result in first page results. My bilateral tibial hemimelia guide even shows up on page 4 after many links to various legitimate medical resources. My daughter is the first “Images” photo shown for the condition.

Yet for all that, who knows who I am? Who really cares? I’m a nobody.

Consider some of the most common ways available to acquire fame:

1. You become infamous.
2. Someone promotes you.
3. You whore yourself out for attention.

Do you really want to be infamous for something? This is how many people become famous, but it’s normally not positive coverage. I had my defenders on Wikipedia, but the criticism was hot and heavy.

If you have someone who has the resources and ability to promote you, then you can gain importance and influence. Most of us do not and never will have that. Boxer promotes me, but such promotion only expands your influence within the existing echo chamber of the manosphere.

You could become a media whore. You’ll become opportunistic, grabbing attention for impressions and clicks. This leads to entitlement and pride. You’ll inevitably sacrifice your standards and your intellectual freedom. And for what? It does nothing to guarantee that you will change the world for good.

The allure of media coverage is compelling. It is hard to resist. You want a platform for your views to help save the world. This is naive. The original WIRED article? It contained many errors. The Parent Trip interview discussing my family and no one else? Many errors as well. They always get things wrong even when they like you. Imagine how your views will be distorted in a hostile interview situation. It is out of your control. Dalrock learned this the hard way.

It is important not to confuse fame and attention with importance and influence. While the former are relatively easy to achieve, the latter are quite difficult.

Did you see that photo at the top? That’s my most successful stock photo. You could say it is my most famous photo. Except, I didn’t take it, my wife did. Do you know who cares about that? Nobody.

There are many great men—real and imagined—portrayed in the great works of literature. Among these is Solomon, a king of legendary proportions. He had everything a man could want: power, fame, wealth, sex, companionship, comfort, wisdom, and a legacy. Having experienced it all, he wrote the following:

“I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.” [Ecclesiastes 1:14 NIV]

After examining it all, he concluded that there was only one meaningful thing:

“Now all has been heard;
    here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
    for this is the duty of all mankind.” [Ecclesiastes 12:13 NIV]

Whether or not you believe in God, there is great wisdom behind this. The pursuit of self is ultimately meaningless and unfulfilling. Don’t search for fame, importance, or influence. Don’t be a media whore. Instead, focus your attention outward towards others—to God, mankind, perhaps even country.  Don’t set out to try to be famous and change the world. Be humble. Get your hands dirty, like Brother Jason. Go do something useful with your life.

In part two, I’ll discuss why seeking attention from outside your bubble provides only a false hope.

Every MGTOW man reaches a well-defined point when he realizes that he no longer cares enough to trade his dignity for a skank’s diseased cunt.

In the following video, our MGTOW brother finds a super hot black chick on tinder, with perfect hourglass figure. She flakes, fronts, and generally behaves so badly that he loses all attraction.

Texts from classical antiquity and popular contemporary stories both tout the notion of the heroine. This is understandable, and as a literary archetype, the female hero is completely legitimate. From time to time, humanity kicks out a woman who is both willing and uniquely qualified to solve some social problem. Such women are heroines, thus the promotion of the heroic ideal understandable, even to a hateful misogynist like me.

I was re-reading Aeneid over the past few days, in anticipation of writing an article about the political future of the United States, when I had a much more interesting epiphany. This week’s conspiracy theory involves feminists using mass-media to subvert the heroine archetype into a promotion of lesbianism, promiscuity, and degeneracy.

One go-to example is my generation’s fictional pop-culture heroine, depicted in Xena: Warrior Princess. For those who were lucky enough to miss this farce, it was a low-budget tee-vee show that came out in the 1990s, and Xena rapidly became the icon for my generation’s yougogrrrlz.

While I never followed the program in my youth, I am familiar with some of the characters. As part of a quick brush-up, I figured I would do some background reading about the history and development of the television drama, and what I found confirmed my every suspicion.

The blocked quotes are all from Wikipedia’s summary of Lucy Lawless, the actress who played the protagonist Xena:

In 1994, Lawless appeared in Hercules and the Amazon Women, a Pacific Renaissance Pictures made-for-television film that became the television pilot for Hercules: The Legendary Journeys. In that episode, she played a man-hating Amazon named Lysia. She went on to play another character, Lyla, in the first-season episode “As Darkness Falls.”

A “man-hating Amazon” is an interesting character to appear in a program targeting young people. In any case, Hercules and the Amazon Women was successful as a pilot, not for launching a tee-vee program about Hercules, but for taking a bit-part and elevating it into the lead.

Lawless received her best-known role when she was asked to play a heroic warrior woman named Xena in the episode “The Warrior Princess,” which aired in March 1995 (R. J. Stewart, one of Pacific Renaissance Pictures’s in-house writers, dramatised the teleplay from a story that Robert G. “Rob” Tapert commissioned John Schulian to write). The character proved to be very successful among fans of the show.

Vanessa Angel was originally cast in the role, but she fell ill and was unable to travel to New Zealand for shooting. To differentiate between Xena and the similar Lysia, Lawless’ hair, previously an ash blonde, was dyed black. She also wore a much darker costume. Lawless subsequently returned as Xena in two more episodes of the first season of Hercules, which portrayed her turn from villainess to a good, heroic character.

So, Lawless’ “Xena” character went from being an evil, man-hating Amazon, to a good, man-hating Amazon.

Lucy Lawless gave an interview about a character she played to some of her fans, in which she described her role as “a real, three-dimensional character… the best role for a woman… ever!”

Part of my interest in the program is the memory of my own reaction to its gradual slide into degeneracy. It seems like I watched it as a kid with waning enthusiasm. Even as the tits-and-ass appeal of it increased, the stupidity of the story and the numerous plot holes kept me from ever getting into it. Moreover, it seemed to have an increasing amount of filthy degeneracy as the series progressed, to the point that any legitimate interest in the characters became impossible.

Am I a biased observer? Lawless herself is a married mother of at least one kid. Even so, she has gone on record stating that she was promoting a degenerate lezbo lifestyle with her role in the series, e.g.:

Xena’s ambiguous romantic relationship with travelling companion Gabrielle (Renee O’Connor) led to Lawless becoming a lesbian icon, a role she has said she’s proud of. She has said that during the years she was playing the role, she had been undecided on the nature of the relationship, but in a 2003 interview with Lesbian News magazine, she said that after viewing the series finale, she had come to see Xena and Gabrielle’s relationship as definitely gay, adding “they’re married, man.”

This reputation became cemented after her “graphic lesbian sex scenes” in Spartacus: Gods of the Arena. She has appeared at gay pride events such as the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

In fact, the show did such a great job encouraging young people to adopt perverse lifestyles that she got all manner of honors and awards from fag and dyke organizations.

For her strong support of LGBT rights, including her public support for same-sex marriage, in 2017 Lawless was given the Star 100–Ally of the Year award at the Australian LGBTI Awards ceremony.

I don’t think Xena: Warrior Princess was anomalous. We can see the same feminist pattern writ large in any number of contemporary literary and cinematic situations. If I could codify my conspiracy theory, it’d be something like this:

1. Adoption of a legitimate archetype (like the literary heroine) and casting the specific character as a goodlookin’ man-basher.
2. Gradual replacement of a coherent story with endless, fractal examples of applied feminism and similar hatred.
3. Re-casting the the general archetype as actually standing for feminist ideology.

Men are naturally attracted to what might be called “alpha females,” and the heroine is a token of this type. By getting young boys and men attracted to a character which at first seems semi-normal, but which increasingly promotes degeneracy and insanity, feminists succeed not only in promoting their cause-du-jour, but also in sullying the countless examples of this type that came before. This increases the sense of hopelessness in both men and women, as the viewer is forcibly deracinated from noble ideas via the medium of a filthy bulldyke, shaking her ass on the television.

As a normal, healthy family man, Mike Pence strikes terror into the hearts of perverts. Example: Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar.

As a flaming faggot, Queen Leo felt the need to rub his anal marriage in the face of our vice-president, so he made sure that his fag boyfriend came along on a state visit.

Naturally, he documented the whole thing on twitter.

Fags enjoy making normal men uncomfortable, for many of the same reasons wimminz do. Filled with hatred for his absent father, the flaming queen projects his displaced rage at any man who seems to embody the masculine archetype.

In this case, Queen Leo thought he was “owning” all of us backward bigots in the U.S., by disrespecting our representative. In reality, he was disrespecting his “partner” (who didn’t seem too excited to be used as a pawn in Queen Leo’s weird psychodrama) and he increased our collective disgust toward fags everywhere. Mike Pence sat quietly, while laughing inside, at the pathetic drama surrounding this prissy homo. Why the Irish ever elected this fool, I can’t imagine. He might even tops Trudeau as a pathetic embarrassment to his nation.

The governmental authorities of every country have rules which are to be followed by passengers on commercial airliners. One rule, common to every jurisdiction I’ve ever flown in or through, is that the passengers must wear clothes. This is important, both as a safety standard as well as to ensure the comfort of all aboard.

As a wimminz, Emily O’Connor (of Solihull, England) assumed that the rules did not apply to her. Rules are only for men. Wimminz are exempt. This is somewhat understandable, as that is the nonstop message her feminist society drills into the public consciousness.

Most traumatic for Emily is the memory of some man, who was allowed to voice disproval of Emily’s attempt to fly naked. Emily simply can’t believe that there isn’t some rule against men disapproving of filthy wimminz, who try to invade polite spaces clad only in their underwear. Surely the four flight attendants should have carted that subhuman man off in chains.

Poor Emily. She was forced to follow the rules that everyone else understood implicitly.

Only a couple of years ago, ya boy Boxer defended the rights of dissidents to speak their minds (anonymously or not). I was roundly shouted down in places like the Dalrock comment section. (Hi Gunner!) It gives me no real schadenfreude to see Dalrock now labeled all sorts of nasty things, the same way I was on his blog, by people who are indulging in his own game of attempting to identify and “out” their ideological enemies as dangerous criminals, embarrass them in their neighborhoods, and get them canned from their jobs.

I still read Jack Donovan’s books, and I still read Weev’s blog, and I would read Lyn87’s biblical exegesis, if he were still online. Unfortunately, Dalrock, Cane Caldo and his friends were successful in driving that man from the internet. Of course I don’t agree with absolutely everything these people write. I’m not a Christian (like Lyn87) and I’m not a pagan (like Jack) and I’m not an esoteric white nationalist who hacks computers (like Weev). The difference between me and a faggot like Cane Caldo is that I don’t want anyone silenced. I want everyone to speak their minds — including feminists and furries. I’m confident that my ideas can compete, and if they can’t, then I deserve the opportunity to be schooled and improve my arguments.

This whole phenomenon is now being masterfully dissected on national media. I apologize for the ads in this video, but I encourage you all to watch it, before Youtube censors the shit out of it. In his program, Tucker Carlson names the SPLC and Media Matters as the foremost censors in American society.

https://youtu.be/n-tXvSARSnc