The great people over at the Gospel Coalition have posted a glowing review of the feminist cartoon Frozen. I had to reply:

Thank you so much for this wonderful review. Frozen is a fantastically empowering movie, which sends Jesus’ message to young women, that they shouldn’t be constrained by the patriarchy. As a Christian media outlet, Disney/ABC is fighting the good fight for children and families.

 

I’m so glad that Christians are finally coming around to the true message in the text of the bible. For over a thousand years, Christians have inverted the message in the text, which empowers single mothers, celebrates fatherless children, and redefines marriage around the scriptural “child support” model.

 

This biblical model of family has never been fully appreciated, much less implemented; but, thanks to true Christians like those at Disney and The Gospel Coalition, we are finally seeing positive changes!

Visit the faggots at The Gospel Coalition (here)

If you must screen “Frozen,” please consider getting it from a torrent server. Don’t send any of these feminists more money.

Because he knows that so many of you brothers are itching to get into a long-term relationship, and because he has a knack for finding the most eligible and marriage-worthy females, our brother Red Pill Latecomer (on Dalrock) has found this ad. Thank him here. (link)

She begins by telling all you fellas that she hates her life, going on to explain that she’s about 6 months pregnant with her third child, and that she made life so intolerable that even the father of the upcoming baby has left.

She sure sounds like a prize catch of a wimminz! Fortunately, this wonderful wimminz does not “believe in casual sex” but she insists that she does “believe in marriage and lots of sex after.” Aren’t any of you brothers jumping at your chains to become her “best friend… protector… love…” ?

Contact our empowered single mom here if you want to pay her bills and raise her bastards. (link)

Marxists like to predict the destruction of the status quo by talking about “internal contradictions in the superstructure”… Our anarchist brothers have different terms to say similar things. In any case, our job is to start building the infrastructure of the new society, rather than trying (in vain) to topple this one. It’s falling of its own accord anyway.

A truly excellent list of theoretical red flags. Show the author some love at Sigma Frame (soon to be in my sidebar).

List of Slut Tells

…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.