imagine being this self-absorbed…
I found a new youtuber for y’all to check out. Gen-X, African-American, appears to have been married, might actually be a coach.
Let me know what you think of this character. Start the following at 1:45 to get to the meat of the issue…
So, over on Dalrock, we have a long line of simps complaining that the author isn’t putting his real name, home and work addresses, and telephone numbers up on the internet. First in the queue is a rather strange guy named “bnonn.”
Forging a holy masculine identity is not easy, especially in a feminized world, especially online. Yet the Bible sets out a model for our conduct that makes it simple (not easy) to move in the right direction. Here’s a somewhat chiastic description of some key principles:
1. Don’t be anonymous. The prophets, the apostles, Jesus himself risked a great deal by open discourse. Everyone knew their names. Everyone knew their faces. Have you yet resisted to the point of shedding blood? Don’t be weak. Don’t be a coward. Don’t be anonymous.
I’m not here to contend that cowardice does not exist. I believe that it does exist. It is quantifiable, and it varies from person to person. Is Dalrock a coward? I don’t know. My opinion is that he’s not a coward simply for remaining anonymous.
Bear in mind that discarding his anonymity would not necessarily be an unprofitable trade-off for a writer like him. He’s an excellent rhetorician, and thus the ideological apparatus would likely cut him a good deal to start leading folks astray. I bet my readers can name a number of countercultural figures who, once they achieved a certain level of notoriety, were co-opted by the system in just such a fashion.
Next in line is a man from an outfit I’ve never heard of, specifically Warhorn Media.
It does trouble me that you are denying your readers the chance to examine your life—what sort of man you are, how you practice what you preach, and what authority you speak from. These are not insignificant question, and they’re not inappropriate to ask. Jesus and the Apostle Paul was never afraid to engage in “ad hominem.” Who a person is does matter. Not just their arguments taken in the abstract. That being said, I’m not sure I disagree with your choice. I just question it. However, I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking it through.
The Jesus character had the luxury of speaking truth to power and fighting in the open, because he was an immortal god-man, who could miracle himself anything he needed, from one second to the next.
St. Paul started raising hell in the open because he was a Roman citizen, and his enemies were not. There are allusions in the New Testament to the pharisees trying to get him beaten up and killed; but, such things were impossible without a conviction in front of a Roman judge, and no such judicial authority gave a damn about the whines and moans of his enemies.
The young brothers who read this blog are not Jesus. They’re not St. Paul, either. The establishment is in the pockets of our enemies, and it hates us.
It’s true that none of us are really anonymous. I recently got an e-mail that hit pretty close to my own identity. That doesn’t mean that you boys should open up your personal lives to the whim of the mob. I have a father, nephews, cousins, and they don’t need to be accosted by random bulldykes at the grocery store, just because Uncle Boxer made fun of feminists on the internet.
Your first obligation, as a man, is to your family. Causing these others to be hassled simply to stroke your own ego with internet-fame isn’t bravery. It’s not masculine. It’s just stupid.
Matthew Modine – as seen on his LDS mission to Vietnam…
After criticizing the young brothers for their anonymity, Derek writes:
Consider the kids of the Covington Catholic school. They, their families, and anyone perceived to be supporting them were doxxed and attacked by the SJW mob. Now consider how valuable anonymity was for them. Worthless. Absolutely worthless.
Anonymity isn’t all that valuable. For example, the hints for who Boxer are apparently out there, and the only thing preventing that knowledge is the will to search for it. Anonymity doesn’t protect much against the truly determined.
Derek has constructed a slippery slope argument. Nevermind the fact that he’s right about me… my boss knows that I write this blog. While I doubt she’s a regular reader, and while she’s been simultaneously amused (she claims to think the content here is funny) and insulting (she claims that she’s heard worse from random men in passing, since her teenage years) she’s pretty much powerless to do anything about it.
Like Derek, I have a secure job, rooted in a tradition called “academic freedom.” The young brothers who read stuff like this have none of our advantages, and will be fired at will by their employers, the minute those ninnies find their opinions don’t fit established norms.
We have plans to survive, as should every man, whether you are an anonymous blogger or not. I worked hard for my ‘advantages’, they didn’t just drop into my lap.
Derek makes an excellent point in passing, despite the general folly of his bad advice. Men have a positive duty to attempt to survive in this world, which has always been, and shall ever be, hostile to the individual.
In the spirit of this notion, I’m going to put down some general orders that I think nature (or God) has given you, young brothers who might stumble in here, in furtherance of the examined life which Derek (and Socrates) encourage you to live.
1. Get as much education as you can.
2. Make as much money as you can.
3. Have as many options as you can.
Given that Derek’s own biography agrees (in deed) with these general orders, I doubt he’d disagree with them.
In furtherance of these general principles, would your life be easier if you were an out-and-proud antifeminist? I would argue that the answer is likely no. Of course, every man’s situation is different. There are people who have made a career out of being provocateurs, but most of us need to keep a lower profile.
From Jack Donovan’s blog:
The way forward is to encourage competing companies and organizations to come out with counterstatements and to take opposing positions. There is a market here that is being underserved, insulted and alienated. The solution is not to threaten Gillette or the APA with some sort of boycott. They’ve already picked their side. Seek out and empower competing entities that don’t despise men.
Feminism (n):
Feedback welcomed. Is this concise and/or accurate?
If it isn’t yet illegal to talk to wimminz, it can be said to be illegal, at least in Scotland, to talk about talking to wimminz. From the shitty BBC (no link, because we hate them)…
Predatory behavior… mmm… sounds serious.
Given that it’s now a crime to encourage others to give a filthy wimminz the attention she craves, I’ll come right out and say that any of our Scots brothers who are so inclined should lay off. I wouldn’t want to be arrested for, like, encouraging any of you men to be nice to these whores.
Pick ’em up on tinder if you must, fuck and chuck as needed, but don’t chat them up on the streets, and you definitely shouldn’t buy them anything. That’s the equivalent of raping a wimminz. Did you know?
Over on Dalrock’s toilet of a comment box, we see our Brother Earl declare:
One problem in such discussions is the lexical range of words like ‘marriage’. Not only can that word denote a number of different scenarios, but the difference between such scenarios is so punctuated that the word is nearly a floating signifier.
To Johnathan, the word implies the blessings of the state, upon your union. It implies a marriage license, or at least some sort of notarized statement-of-intent, filed at a courthouse someplace.
The problem with this is that people have been coupling up, monogamously, since prehistory. Natural selection required us to pair-bond and raise children together, as it was the only way for us to reproduce, given the helplessness of the modern human baby. Certainly these unions are more in line with the traditional use of the word ‘marriage,’ than a modern anal marriage between two fags, or a lezbo-feminist “self marriage,” or any of the other examples of perversity and diversity we see regularly on display in this decadent society.
Thus the term ‘marriage,’ properly used, denotes a naturally occurring state of affairs, that surely existed millions of years before anyone dreamt up the Jesus story, and millions of years before The State of California built its first county courthouse and started solemnizing this human trait on the steps. The church and the state can claim the authority to define this term, but only a fool would believe either of them. Human beings will marry, long after the last Christian dies out, and certainly after “The United States” ceases to be.
In a world where so many wimminz have decided to pursue an un-natural and anti-human ideology, like feminism, and where the state has reflected these wimminz choices in new legislation, we might rationally say that the word ‘marriage’ no longer reliably signifies the natural process of coupling.
TJ and John both clued me in to Tucker Carlson’s polemic this morning. Carlson begins by citing a wonderfully bright, helpful, all-American op-ed, written by my dearly beloved cousin, Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney does not want America to be great again, because my people do not consider themselves to be any part of America. We are a conquered and colonized people, and we have learned how to wage a war of deception against the rest of you. Mitt Romney sees America as a dying beast, to which Mormons can attach themselves to — as parasites — feeding on the decaying flesh.
That this is not a tenable long-term solution makes no difference. That it makes Mormons to be (if not individually, then collectively) a disgusting and loathsome people is beyond the point. It’s all about easy living for Mitt, and for Mormons in general. The proof is in the fact that Romney was elected by a large majority as a Utah politician, despite never having lived there.
Mitt was at his best (and most concealable) when he had his fellow Mormon and fake enemy, Harry Reid, installed as legislator. They could pretend to adamantly disagree with one another, before acting in tandem… later to meet up in the Celestial Room for hugs as they laughed at the stupid sheep who bought their thespianics.
In other news, Skank-ho princess Meghan is up to her old antics again…
This is what happens when one installs human garbage into his family. We should remember that Markle has already been married in a traditional religious ceremony. She frivolously divorced that unfortunate sap almost immediately. She also went on record stating that she hates her father.
Young men should think about this, the next time they sex up that hot piece of ass who seems to have a surplus of personal and family problems. Marrying one of these sluts has the potential to destroy generations of your descendants. Harry has the money and resources to ditch this ho’ (and he will) but you will not have his connections.
So I flew a few hours on an airplane yesterday. Before the typical USA FAA boilerplate safety information was given, the skank-ho wimminz stewardess announced the names of captain, first officer and navigator, and then introduced herself and the other two wimminz shoveling drinks, and announced (as though it made some magical difference, and in case we hadn’t noticed,) that it was an all-wimminz staffed flight. The self-congratulatory speech met with tepid applause from a bunch of holiday weary travelers, most of whom just wanted to get home. The same 40-something stewardess parked her wrinkly ass near me, fifteen minutes later, and “bought me a drink.” I had scotch, and vowed to write about her — thanks bitch.
Of course, it’s all very wonderful to have all wimminz do things like punch a seven digit code into the computer (built by men) that automates take-off, and in-flight navigation (with the help of satellites and ground-radar, built by men) and an all male-crew ready at our destination to do the heavy lifting and baggage transfer and refueling and de-icing and routine maintenance. Let’s all cheer for Alaska Airlines, which has hired a surplus of wimminz to hit on passengers and loaf around taking credit for various things they really had nothing to do with.
The obvious irony in all this is the precarious state of wimminz in general, and particularly boastful skanks like those I just mentioned. Should society change very slightly — and I don’t mean a societal collapse, but merely the Chinese loaning our masters more money at slightly higher interest rates — then employing these same wimminz will suddenly be untenable. Sure, there might be some wimminz on the plane, but the skank-ho wimminz who rubs her ass in your face and leers at you will be twenty, and not forty-five, and rather than having three wimminz up front to watch the controls, you’ll have one or two capable men.
Human beings enjoy their ideology, but the ideological apparatus which controls the states-of-affairs today is particularly wasteful. Feminism has no future. It’s so inefficient and counterintuitive that it almost seems like a society-wide handicap. We boast about how progressive we are, simply because we (somehow) manage to survive, while wasting so much, on so many people who don’t deserve it at all.
Happy New Year, Gentlemen!
