Note: This is the second in a series of posts about fake Christians. It may help to read the first here before asking questions.

Back when ya boy Boxer was a teenager, he helped compile a sort of greatest hits list, entitled usenet’s lamest losers. The antics of the last couple of months have become reminiscent of this general trend.

Back on February 24, two losers lost an argument. One of them suddenly descended into insults and lame accusations: specifically that y’r host and humble narrator was a homosexual pedophile. (Note, a bit of the original exchange is here. The entire thread, which is worth a read, is on Dalrock, but may disappear soon.)

Link here.

This week, when the same two looneys lost a similar argument, they started up again. When I noted that I was still laughing at them for their recent antics, they got all indignant, as such human trash creatures will, and claimed I was making the whole thing up.

Link here – one of the liars has a blog, which is here

I find it hard to keep track of all these idiots’ reversals, untruths and excuses without a spreadsheet, so the specifics of it don’t really matter. Even still, it can tell us something.

In the first place, it serves as a warning to any young brothers about dropping his anonymity with these supposed “family values” tradcons on the internet. When kooks attack, they always do it in full SJW mode, and their instinct is to silence you by whatever means might be expedient. As the ill-cited Vox Day has pointed out, after libeling one as a sexual deviant, the next trick this sort of garbage turns to is calling a man’s family and employers, in a lame attempt to get him fired.

It also serves to illuminate the lack of gravity in any internet discourse. All things old are new again. As it was in 1998, so it is now.

That this happens so often, to so many different people, suggests that none of us should take any of this nonsense too seriously. The real fight is in the streets.

Men just entering divorce court: This is must read wisdom from a man who has been where you are now.

The unknown entity.

Having been permanently banned from the pro-abortion and pro-divorce feminist forum at Catholic Answers, I can’t effectively comment on this insightful thread.

Note the third paragraph, where the wife admits that she refuses to fuck her husband, ironically and immediately complaining about “tension.”

In the fourth paragraph, she alludes to being a professional homemaker, then immediately complains that her husband doesn’t come home, after a long day of working for her fat ass, and immediately jump into changing diapers and giving baths.

This sad tale ends with a cry for help from the forum, and a fist upraised in the direction of the Catholic god, who would “rather have us stay married than live my remaining [time] alone…in peace.”

Fortunately, PensMama was on hand to offer up some wonderfully bright, helpful, unsolicited advice.

Pensmama87 fights the good fight, clearing up misconceptions that divorce is frowned upon in Catholic communities. Divorce is “sometimes the only realistic remedy to protect one self” she explains. She then refers the original contributor to the divorce attorney, to get those papers filed.

Within mere moments, DixieEagle chimes in to back her feminist sisters’ play.

There is no problem with members of the Catholic church divorcing, she explains. In fact, getting a divorce is protection from sinning! Who knew?

Unfortunately, our feminist heroines began to be drowned out by a plethora of sound advice, including admonitions to pray, communicate, quit being a cunt, and go see a priest — as in, an actual priest — as opposed to reading the words of strangers LARPing as priests and marriage counselors anonymously, on a pro-abortion and pro-divorce web forum.

All was almost lost until the old guard, led by my favorite Catholic Answers feminist, Xantippe, appeared to whip the crowd into shape.

the fact that the husband is thanklessly busting ass in overtime actually means that he is having an affair. Thank heavens (and it’s catholic god) for geniuses like this, who can see into the most private personal lives of strangers, and pronounce judgment. Feminism wins again!

Black Pill has a number of serious articles on what might be called lumpenproletariat white nationalism. He correctly identifies the loud and proud stormfront types as dishonest, and further deconstructs their ideology as a covert subset of feminism. Lots of people don’t like the author, but he did a great job in explaining the motivations of the most annoying faction.

Of course, not every white nationalist is a looney skinhead, looking for trouble (and another thirty-day stint in jail). Moreover, not everyone that society labels a White Nationalist actually is one. Steve Bannon isn’t a white nationalist, though The Huffington Shitpost has no problem attaching the label to him. I see no evidence that Charles Murray (the author of The Bell Curve) is a white nationalist, though the AP decided to libel him, for propaganda purposes, also. This sort of slant has distorted the lexical range of the term so tremendously that it is now almost meaningless. I will be a white nationalist, by the definition slung around in the media, simply for disagreeing with some unrelated trivial positions that our masters feel strongly about. I expect the New York Times to run my headline whenever I’m worth noticing.

So, how do we parse the serious white nationalists who differentiate themselves from the stormfront hammerskins? Some white nationalists seem very different compared to the male feminists who also share the label. I don’t pretend to know the answer. The only thing I try to consistently do is to respect people who self-identify. If someone tells me that he’s a white nationalist (or a Buddhist, or a Choctaw Indian) then I trust such a person to know enough about himself to identify himself correctly.

There are worse things than being a white nationalist. I have a personal acquaintance from my school days who got into a ton of trouble as a teenager. My understanding is that he went off to prison, where he was converted to some sort of European paganism. He self-describes as a white nationalist on social media (which is the only place I see him). He’s no longer burglarizing people’s sheds to get beer money, and he credits his faith as the reason. In this regard, it seems that white nationalism sometimes functions in the way the Nation of Islam can clean up African American criminals. If a love of the white race is what motivates you to stay off booze and dope, hold down a job, and be a respectable family man, then I’m all for it, and I’ll goosestep around with you out of respect.

Down below, Scott writes on “White Nationalists are (mostly) Losers“:

I’m not sure if I’m a white nationalist, but I can say that all things being equal I would prefer to live in a nation where my ethnicity is the majority, and where that majority is not required to prostrate itself in constant fear of being labeled “racist” by everyone else.

 

This is also known as being psychologically and sociologically normal.

If by “normal” we mean “usual” then I have to agree. People tend to like being around their own types, and no one wants to be discriminated against. It sounds, though, like you’re talking about narrow nationalism, rather than white nationalism. I have to note specifically the term “ethnicity” – which is not a synonym for “race”. There are plenty of blond white people in Syria, Afghanistan and Egypt, and I don’t really want a lot of them moving into my ‘hood, despite being racially akin to me. I don’t want them moving into yours, either. I’m sure they’re not all terrible, but they’re nothing like us, and language and religion are important. Different ethnic groups, even of the same race, often encounter problems sharing space.

Aside from the frankfurters, my own views are mediated by guys like Richard Rorty, György Lukács, and Francis Fukuyama. All of these guys predicted the rise of nationalism (as opposed to white nationalism) as a reaction to late-stage capitalism. Steve Bannon, who is by no means a white nationalist, is in fact a civic nationalist, and he’s an understandable synthesis to the currently collapsing political narrative.

The problem with nationalism in contemporary North America is the immense size of countries like the USA and Canada, coupled with the amazing mobility of its people. It used to be the case that we had regional identities, but those have largely been erased, not only through immigration, but through internal migration.

Even North American natives — white or black folks whose history in North America stretches back centuries — tend to move great distances for work, marriage, school and retirement. This leaves people uncoupled from community, and tends to deracinate even those people who sacrifice to stay on the land from which they were born. If your neighbors are constantly moving away and being replaced, then you become a foreigner in your hometown.

The centralization of capital also leads to a cultural homogenization. I remember, even ten years ago, when I’d find curious local shops and restaurants. These have largely been replaced by massive international chains. These megamarts will occasionally commercialize a reified simulacrum of some local culture, that once existed authentically, in their local branches, but the depiction is transparent and only done to maximize profits.

Not only do we not have community any longer, but we can’t really move anywhere to find it anew. The map has been redrawn, with huge, homogenous cities, all bearing the same vacuous pseudoculture, all featuring citizens who originated someplace else.

Thus I don’t have a lot of confidence that Bannon’s narrow, civic nationalism will be successful in saving America. If I had to guess, I’d predict that Texas and Québec would probably survive 200 years from now. Maybe there will be a nation of New England, and a nation of the American South, but the political and social climate in the rest of North America is sorta up for grabs.

On externalizing risk and maximizing reward. (link)

Jack Donovan on brotherhood. (link)

We live in the era of the secular cult. (link)

An insipid movie and its target audience of idiots. (link)

Cheryl Strayed and Sheila Gregoire: two batshit-crazy sides of the feminist coin. (link; Archived PDF)

On the construction of a healthy masculine identity. (link)

Political Libertarianism and its future in the alt-right era. (link)

A fair assessment of the Milo Yiannopolous scandal. (link)

More on the innate differences of men and women. (link)

…who need to know how to spot a ho’ in the wild.

I have little sympathy for a man who complains about being used by a ho’. It’s current year, fam. You should have this shit down by now. Even so, for all those older men who are fresh out of the divorce courts, here’s Boxer’s incomplete list of red flags that alert an attentive playa to the fact that he’s wasting his resources on a ho’.

1. Skanky tatts. This really means any tattoo on a woman, but especially those tattoos that are located near the breast, ass or vagina.
2. Disagreeable attitude. If a woman wants to demonstrate how independent she is on a first date, then she’s really got some grade-a insecurity. This has translated, with a 99% probability, into a parade of men in her bedroom for years now. Check out immediately at the first sign of this nonsense.
3. Jaded. By definition, a jaded woman is oversexed. This leads to a number of identifiable personality traits. If the woman comes off as “fronting” or posing as a super tough and together lady, she’s a ho’. Often these women will not be disagreeable or bitchy. They may feign an attraction or come off as overly sweet. Don’t be fooled.
4. Accusations. Freud called this displacement. If she declares that you’re a playa, or infers that you’re going to break her heart, then she’s a ho’ who has a long string of sanchos on the side.
5. Ho’ friends. Remember that women are herd creatures. Like attracts like often in this world.
6. Gay friends. Note that this is an even worse tell than no. 5. If she hangs out with out-and-proud gay dudes, weird trannies, or other promiscuous types, it’s because they’re the only people loose enough to compete and commiserate with her. Get the hell out immediately.
7. Male References. She talks about her male “friends,” often by name, even though you’ve never met them. Rest assured that the vast majority of these “friends” have been up in every hole.
8. Attention Whoring. The bitch that can’t quit posting high-angle selfies to instagram? Yeah, she’s a ho’. You needed me to tell you that.
9. Talks about sex. If a woman is talking about sex, it’s because she’s imagining having sex with you. This is especially relevant if she opens the subject first, and early in your acquaintance with her. If she’s imagining having sex with you on the first date, then you can be sure that she’s already had sex with me and all my friends on first dates too.
10. She paints you a picture. Also true if she writes you a poem, or a song for guitar. These cute gestures are major red flags. I have some ideas as to the motivations behind this (overcompensation?) but don’t completely understand it, yet.

Ultimately, your instincts will clue you in better than my past observations. You have the right to be picky, and you shouldn’t waste your time and resources on a ho’ unless you’re sure you just want to play the field and have fun yourself.

I suck at leadership, and I usually suck at following leaders, too. There have been precious few men, my father included, who have inspired me to obey their orders, however ridiculous.

I’m also a terrible friend; and, I’m not friends with anyone I know on the internet. There are a few online minds I admire, and I will promote their work. Wimminz is one of the best blogs I know of. Jack Donovan is another. The authors of both those sites have little in common, but both are solid guys who tell the unpalatable truth.

Dalrock is another blog that’s in my top 5. Unlike the first two authors, I’ve never had private conversations with the guy behind the Dalrock blog. It’s not likely to be revealed that he is a convicted burglar and drug addict, who blogs while he’s waiting on the welfare check; but, if something like that came out, I really wouldn’t care. In every case, it’s about the message, rather than personal friendship. The author would continue to have my support, so long as he kept putting out quality content and taking the fight to my enemies.

The contrapositive is true as well. Should any of these people sell out, and begin promoting feminism, then – heh – my lack of personal friendship will become immediately apparent.

Above I said that I doubted the author of Dalrock was a scroungy layabout, LARPing as an honorable family man. I doubt this because it would take too much energy for the average scroungy layabout to accomplish, and there would be no real payoff to it. However, I don’t doubt for a second that he has been (and will continue to be) enticed by our enemies to sell out and water down (or reverse) his message. The fact that the enemy is now banning nobodies on twitter is not due to their desire to be thorough in victory. It is a result of fear. They fear us because we are winning. In their desperation, they’re frantically trying to silence our message, because they have no riposte. They know this, and we should know it too.

We are winning, and will continue to win, because we have no strong leader for our enemies to attack directly. We’re individuals and small groups, who are speaking the truth to the comfortable, and they have no response. Leaders are easy targets, and we’re not ready for one quite yet.

I have a strong belief, rooted in Hegel and Marx, of human beings and their ability to self-organize. A leader will arise when the historical imperative dictates, and not before. The one thing I’m sure of is that the leader won’t be me. My goal is to be a sort of John the Baptist figure, calling out hypocrisy when I see it, and laughing at the liars on the sidelines. In the interim, I have something of a unique perspective, born of a lot of wild time-wasting in my youth, and I think that I can add some useful knowledge over in the comments sections, to men who lived a better life than I did. Most of these guys, who sit in the comments sections, think that their lives will be over after their divorces. Most of them are angry at women for being deceptive. In other words, they’re angry at women for being women, which is silly. I try and tell them to stop wasting their time. Sometimes it works. Often it makes them mad at me. I care not.

People who are foolish enough to think I am leadership material should reassess their situation. Like anyone else, I’m subject to turn if the payoff looks good. Be loyal to the principles we struggle toward, and walk beside me on the road to victory. Never be afraid to criticize me. We’ll get to the promised land together.

This is a left-field answer to the problem you’re highlighting, but I think it’s a higher-order issue because your examples are so particular, but generalizable on a scale that makes it a drop in the ocean even if you turned one of the examples to sense.

So to higher-order:

I wonder if it’s a case where one tribe in our culture more or less needs a king.

Take tribes like Catholics and Mormons. Both tribes have a strong culture, history, written-lit/canon backing the culture, as well as a moderately domineering hierarchy – these serve to overcome the lack of a common ethnicity while also raising Catholics and Mormons to a higher state of cultural cultivation than would be possible by ethnicity alone.

Or – take “ethnic” or “racial” tribes – they have ethnicity and race as a skin-deep / clan-deep unifier. The unifier is extremely potent, but also inherently self-limiting.

So – let’s look at the characteristics of the problem tribe.

– it lacks adequate culture, history, written-lit/canon that either would bond it or cultivate it

– or: actually – it may have such a written-lit, everything from Huck Finn to Blackstone and Smith – but somewhere along the way it got this anti-intellectual poison pill so that it won’t read it’s own lit – in fact, the act of reading it’s own lit typically results in one’s self-deportation from the tribe

– it lacks a hierarchy – really any hierarchy at all

– but it always seems to be looking for one – it is the most readily susceptible demographic to “strong man” quasi-fascist and fascist politics – this is manifest, in other words: everyone, in the tribe and outside it, for it and against it, now and ever in the past, everyone – recognizes this quality about this tribe

– that last quality is probably caused by vacuum of culture, history, written-lit/canon and hierarchy, as well as common national origin

– it chest-thumps a lot – but here’s something to it’s credit : it ** can ** be angered, but it is ** slow ** to anger – so we have seen cases of it rising up in anger, and sometimes for good, sometimes for bad, but thankfully it’s rare when it does so – … in this respect it’s something like European honey bees as opposed to Africanized honey bees – where the quality of the latter being so easily roused is actually anti-adaptive among high-tech niche-sharers like humans because it makes the latter more likely to be exterminated

– anyway – the chest thumping, together with the irrationality of the chest thumping – has a lot to do with all the previous attributes – there’s a human, hind-brain danger indicator going off the in tribe member, but he is unable to correctly identify it, lacking either a hierarchy or culture, history, etc., which would better inform him

In the past I’ve thought that the long-term solution for this tribe is education, a moderate degree of separation (i.e.: differ by time, age, place and range-of-effect), and through both: enculturation.

Short run though: long-run solutions may not come fast enough, and in the short-run a “good king” would help.

I’m doubting big T is the good king we need though.

I guess a thing to add:

For awhile strong labor unions were adequate for this tribe. They provided a sound means getting its legitimate political needs represented and gave the tribe the strength-through-unity that is necessary in lieu of history/culture/literature, hierarchy and common ethnicity.

But we killed the unions.

More accurately: we gave the unions a knife and begged and pleaded and threatened for them to self-emaciate, and they did.

Arguably: this was possible due to aforementioned anti-intellectual poison pill and the strange belief that everyone is going to agree that what’s good for you but not for me is going to go on forever, … where better education might have prevented that.

That, or unions were just corrupt. Could be both.

But bottom line is this tribe needs to unify, and if it wants to unify and thrive, instead of unify and be promptly destroyed, it needs to unify on the basis of something with humanistic value. Right now it seems prone to unifying on race and, see “promptly destroyed”.

The tribe can’t recognize things right. Like: it should recognize you Boxer. What should be happening over there is you should be getting followers. But it won’t do that. The tribe won’t recognize its friends, won’t recognize it’s leaders, won’t recognize it’s betters. It would rather argue, and argue about stupid bullshit.

Or: you can volunteer a leader. Volunteer Dalrock. Tell him that if he leads, you’ll follow, as long as he makes culture and humanity center, and eschews race, but that you’ll follow.

Anyone who self-identifies as a leader puts on a target. We have to give up our own desire to lead as a token to the privilege of having a leader.

I could be way off, it’s a blog comment, that’s all, but that’s what I’m sensing. We need a leader, and that will happen when people choose someone to follow. If you volunteered to follow Dalrock, he shouldn’t agree to lead. There should be 20, maybe a hundred more volunteers. Qua Plato, we need a reluctant king.

Many of my favorite blogs, over the years, have both hard-hitting articles and a lively comment section. iSteve is the prime example, though Dalrock and Heartiste both qualify too.

A day or two ago, over on one of these other places, I cited Jack Donovan’s book The Way of Men as a decent primer on masculinity. The first comments were more or less legitimate, if deliberately uninformed.

The author of the book is an openly gay dude, and many Christians refuse to read the work of someone in that camp. No problem. Even so, It wasn’t long until the resident headcases appeared to try and derail any discussion about the book.

While I have seen Jack Donovan and his work excoriated on feminist sites like Jezebel, at least the feminists tend to critique it’s content. Frank K appears to be making a false rape accusation against the author, which is something that I don’t even see from the likes of Jessica Valenti.

Not to be outdone, SirHamster agrees and amplifies:

There are a couple of interesting possibilities here. The most obvious is that these people have some sort of repressed fantasy life which includes inappropriate thoughts about young boys. Because SirHamster is mentally ill, he projects these disgusting fantasies outward, upon random strangers he disagrees with on the internet, and upon authors of books he doesn’t like.

When confronted about these weird fantasies, SirHamster doubles down, naturally, and starts desperately spreading the meme that y’r boy Boxer is a homosexual pedophile. With no evidence, of course, but whatever…

It might also be the case that the feminist movement is sending malcontents to manosphere blogs in an effort to make antifeminist men look like unhinged nutcases. This is actually a well-known phenomenon, which was described in Tayacan’s Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, Taber’s War of The Flea, and Che Guevara’s classic Guerrilla Warfare. The tactic is usually known as “black propaganda.”

Is that what motivates people like SirHamster? Hard to say. If I had to guess, I’d go with psychological problems and social isolation as a likely cause. Even so: While patriarchalists shouldn’t give way to conspiracy theories, they should be aware that their enemies are committed, determined and unscrupulous. Feminists have gained the upper hand almost completely through propaganda, rather than direct action. Deception is easier than fighting, and historically it has been their M.O..

Update: In a funny turn of events, SirHamster (with the help of his fake Christian friend Cane Caldo) is now denying that he ever wrote this nonsense. I cover this humorous reversal here.