It’s summer, and I have some time off. I’ve been burning time watching old episodes of Unsolved Mysteries on Amazoid Prime. This is a show I remember enjoying in childhood. Robert Stack narrates, and there’s a spooky atmosphere about it that has not diminished with age. I find that it echoes the aesthetic of older series, namely Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents, though the stories depict real events.

What’s amazing about this series is just how badly women end up being depicted. Nearly every single episode, watched by a woke brother, will reveal that women cause about 80 percent of horrible problems that happen to men. Almost always, the troublemaker is some woman that’s fucking the victim, though it’s not unheard of that it’s a mother or sister who does the evil deed.

When a woman is depicted as protagonist, it is always due to the extremely poor judgment and behavior of either her or another wimminz.

In order to demonstrate, I picked one episode at random (there are over 100 available) and decided to describe the stories broadcast here.

Season 1, Episode 16

July 11, 1988. Walnut Creek CA: A vice cop, Lester Garnier, was found by a groundskeeper in a parking lot. He appeared to be sleeping at first, inside his parked Camaro. A closer examination revealed that he had a couple of bullets in his dome. There was very little physical evidence at the scene, and colleagues declared there was no obvious motive for his execution.

The narrator makes a point to note that on his off hours, Lester enjoyed picking up women and made a hobby of running hoez he met (not unlike my own bad self – and most of my readers).

One of the downsides of this series is the blue-pill tone and endless reframings of tragedies like this, though it’s shocking to see the producers edge toward blaming the victim of a murder. I suppose this was the culture in the gay 90s, when feminism was ascendant.

The night before poor Lester was discovered, with his wig peeled back, witnesses described hearing gunshots. A carpet cleaner came forward to tell investigators that he saw two wimminz lurking around the parking lot after hearing the pop-pop-pop.

A google search on later developments reveal that at some point after the episode aired, cops matched fingerprints on the car to a wimminz named (appropriately) Katherine Kuntz. Mizz Cunt Ms. Kuntz clammed up when questioned, and was subsequently deported to Europe (sorry to you guys across the pond – I doubt this was the Kuntz last hit).

One can read more about this sad state of affairs at the San Francisco Chronicle.

Update. Florida: In an earlier broadcast, some unidentified wimminz (her face is shadowed – lol) was depicted as the victim of a scam artist named Arthur Frankfort. Apparently the anonymous wimminz met Frankfort at a dance, and two days later invited him to move in with her. He stayed at her pad for a couple of weeks — just long enough to learn what she had and how to get it — then skipped town with all her money and jewelry.

I’m tempted to indulge in pure mocking and scoffing here, though if we’re honest we can all likely name at least one blue pill chump who, just days after getting a decent piece of tail, opens up his life so that some wimminz can rob him blind. The crucial difference here is that when wimminz are the victims of such nonsense, they’re treated with kid gloves and given endless amounts of sympathy. In a healthier world we’d treat them exactly like we treat their male counterparts: specifically as thirsty simps who should have known better.

In any event, this Frankfort asshole was almost immediately fingered by his own brother (fuck’n lol) after the segment aired. He was arrested in Kentucky, and cops found out his real name was Harry Donaldson. He was a lifelong parasite and was already wanted for a number of similar shenanigans, including check fraud, armed robbery, and auto theft. Curiously, I couldn’t find any credible media sources detailing his eventual disposition. Various homemade web sites declare that he ended up dying in a Florida prison. Yeah, I hope so.

July 23, 1987. Las Vegas: 15-year old Kathy Hobbs, who lived in a sleazy, dangerous, North Las Vegas neighborhood, decided to walk to a supermarket to buy a romance novel at some point after 11 pm. Her skank-ho single mom had no problem with this. In fact, when Kathy left, she asked skank-ho single mom to give her a hug good-bye. Skank-ho mommy describes telling her “Why? I’ll be up when you get back…”

Kathy replied “No, after I go to the grocery store, I’m going to go out and hang out with some kids…”

Apparently skank-ho mommy had no problem with her little girl staying out all night, in drug/crime infested North Las Vegas.

As an aside, Brother Boxer is familiar with the ‘hood this young girl lived in. Las Vegas is a Mormon community, and I’ve been there many times. Just by looking at young Kathy, I’d guess she was a member of the tribe. I wouldn’t dare walk around there at 11 pm myself, and it has been cleaned up and gentrified a very great deal since the 1980s.

The narrator’s voiceover breaks in to explain that “Kathy had gone out late at night many times, so Kathy’s mother was not concerned with her safety.” The narration continues to describe skank-ho mommy going to bed after midnight, not worried about a thing.

It will surprise no one to learn that Kathy disappeared after leaving the house. Days later her body was found by a hiker, near Lake Mead (Lake Mead is south of Las Vegas on I-15). She had been brutally raped and beaten to death.

Despite the endless spin of this segment, a bit of realtalk gets through the filter. Later in the episode, one of the detectives who investigated the crime describes his own relationship with his own little girl. He expresses astonishment in the segment, aghast that any parent who would let a girl like Kathy go cavorting around late at night, unsupervised in Las Vegas.

It’s safe to say that if this girl had a father around, she’d be alive today. She also wouldn’t have been reading trashy romance novels.

A google search suggests that the questions surrounding young Kathy’s murder have never been conclusively answered, though a piece of human trash named Michael Lee Lockhart is the guy who probably did the deed. Lockhart is a serial killer who was executed around the turn of the 21st century. Good riddance.

Update. Europe: A little girl in Europe was searching for an American soldier named Philip, who fed her family his own rations when they were starving during the occupation of German territories in World War II. Philip Pelletier was found in the American State of Maine. It’s a refreshing little bit of normalcy in a depressing episode, featuring a decent American boy and a grateful little girl with her daddy telling him thank you.

1934. New Hampshire: A guy named Bill searches for his siblings, after his irresponsible parents left them home alone as children, and social workers intervened to keep them all from starving. All the kids were subsequently farmed out to orphanages and foster homes.

Granted, this tragedy isn’t entirely due to wimminz misbehavior, and it’s the depression era. Little kids are likely better off in an orphanage than alone.

Even so, the show lets slip that his mother eventually divorced his father and ran away to San Francisco, which caused the kids to be put up for adoption, rather than returned as a family. Bill apparently found two of his siblings, but a sister, Jackie Purinton, is still missing.

There is much more to this episode, but I trust my point is made. Wimminz tend to go through life using very bad judgment. They really aren’t fit to raise children by themselves, nor should any intelligent man blindly take orders from one.

Recently, a conservative journalist named Stephen Miller decided to blackpill Alamo Draft House, and attend one of the “women only” screenings of Wonder Woman.

Karol Markowicz’ comment was included on purpose, because I found it humorous.

While Karol feigns surprise, anyone who has read Brother Boxer for any length of time would have predicted this outcome. Women (including and especially feminists) love men who laugh at their prescriptions and prohibitions. If a woman says she would never tolerate x, and you do x immediately afterward, it’s likely to make that same woman interested in you.

Brother Stephen may have been in danger of being mobbed by desperate, wall-hitting feminists who wanted his phone number, but he was too wise in the ways of women to worry that his presence would cause angry meltdowns or violent attacks.

Not to be outdone, scores of women (like Rachel Leishman) are now raging on twitter, begging Stephen for the D, and expressing outrage that they weren’t in attendance to garner some of this alpha-male’s real-world attentions.

…by Herbie Marcuse

Over on Dalrock, one of our fellow sociologists opines:

(link)

The social movement, to which Brother Oscar is no doubt referring, is feminism.

Feminism is certainly part of the constellation that includes plummeting birth rates, increased divorce rates, and general social problems. Even so, is that really the root cause?

I love to mock feminists. They’re easy targets and their lunacy is generally so transparent as to be endlessly entertaining. Even so, I think we give the feminist movement far too much credit, by dignifying them as socio-political movers-and-shakers. Most of them seem to be atomized, pathetic people. The typical feminist is poor/in debt, physically unhealthy and repulsive, with no friends. Feminist organizations don’t really exist any longer.

Feminism’s popularity spike happened, not coincidentally, at the same time that the era of mass migration was really taking off. Urbanization, moving across the continent to chase employment and marriage, and general loss of community (which are really extended-family) bonds had preceded its arrival.

I’m partial to the idea that broader social and economic changes made individuals and families more vulnerable to craziness like feminism. By the same metric, feminism arose at the same time widespread drug abuse, membership in gangs and armed cults, and crazy political movements (revolutionary communism, the KKK, etc.) were also becoming chic.

This is a particularly painful truth that men need to internalize, if we’re to realistically plot a return to a more sane social order. Defeating feminists isn’t going to do the trick. Reformers need to imagine a world in which nearly every institution is deconstructed and built back up, with strong incentives for maintaining social bonds, at the expense of “do your own thing” liberalism and libertarianism.

Down below, V writes…

Getting the pdf through Muse often leaves watermarks, but the full text is marginally entertaining. Here’s a longer excerpt of this work (of spellbinding genius).

Credit goes to Anon (part of the award winning Dalrock Research Team) for finding this hilarious piece of lunacy. Show him some love here.

From page (no, not kidding) 69:

Quantum physics disrupts the stagnancies of typically humanly recognized bodies. In quantum understandings, particles (classically understood as stagnant objects) also have wavelike properties, di ract, leap, and are quantumly entangled.

It will doubtless come as a shock to learn of the author’s credentials.

If anyone decides to converse with Mizz Whitney via email, please be respectful, and make sure to screenshot her response for publication.

I know that all you single bros are waiting for your chance to land a prize catch of a wimminz like this. Have at it!

This is an alternate take on my analysis of Rachel Pietka’s Relevant article (posted here) by commenter Mich. Show him some love…

She didn’t say that abstinence leads to divorce or that modern Christianity should let up on premarital sex restrictions to avoid divorce. She cited one woman who believed she could have avoided divorce by engaging in premarital sex and mentioned that the benefits of waiting are exaggerated (they are). But, it seems the author attributes the divorce to the dishonesty surrounding no-sex-before-marriage ministries rather than to abstinence itself, which it looks like you both agree does not inherently result in happy marriages or bedrooms.

I agree with that. Young people in particular are being fed the lie that great sex is a reward for following the rules, and godless heathens will never really be able to have this transcendent sexual and marital experience that awaits pious virgins. That’s bunk, as I’m sure you know firsthand.

She explicitly states that bad sex is no reason to divorce or reduce martial investment. Great! But her notion of the “proper place” for sex in marriage is presumptuous. Sex is not icing on the cake; marriage and sex cannot be separated, and sex should never be relegated to the status of “gift” that some couples get and some just don’t. The loss of sex through mental or physical incapacitation is worth mourning.

Her musings about the “place” for sex is a far cry from an endorsement of premarital sex or divorce, but it’s just as far from being a practical solution for “incompatable” couples and provides no viable options for couples who really are suffering. She identified a problem, but took the easy way out on fixing it.

Over at Relevant (link) Rachel Pietka has published an article entitled “Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex” (link). She opens her diatribe by citing the story of a non-Christian, Elizabeth Smart, and the fallout from her abduction. While the authoress feels that Elizabeth Smart’s kidnapping was somehow the fault of Mormon abstinence education, and while Mizz Pietka admits that Christians have learned from this tragedy — specifically to allow their young girls to slut it up in their preteen and teenage years — the authoress declares that Christians must go further in encouraging young Christian kids to indulge in irresponsible sexual behavior.

Although these conversations are evidence that Christians are forming a more candid, holistic and theologically sound discourse about sex, an area that still needs more attention is the far-reaching effects of abstinence rhetoric on marriage.

Jessica Ciencin Henriquez recently detailed how the abstinence movement affected her sex life and marriage in a revealing article titled, “My Virginity Mistake.” Henriquez relays how she pledged herself to Jesus at a purity ceremony at age 14, remained a virgin until she married six years later, and wound up divorced after she and her husband could not make things work in the bedroom.

Are you all following this nonsense?

Despite the title of her article, the authoress clearly feels that Christians are entitled to have amazing sex. She illustrates the problem of chastity, encouraging her readers to have amazing premarital sex, beginning in childhood, and then to divorce their spouses if the sex isn’t amazing after the wedding. Like most contemporary Christians, she doesn’t bother to cite any part of the text of the bible, nor any original sources from commentary by church fathers, in making her arguments.

Thanks to Rollo (visit his blog here) for finding this nonsensical article, and posting it on Dalrock (visit that blog here).

See also: “Why I am Not A Christian“

It’s difficult for me to understand this level of desperation. Even so, there is much truth in the subtext of the message.

Our brother Ebrahim is here committing the cardinal sin of lying to himself. His goal is to salvage his ego, by making his wasted time and money a noble pursuit, rather than what it blatantly is: just wasted time and money.

It would honestly be less risky for Ebrahim to just lie around in bed all day, and flush all of his surplus cash down the toilet.

As it is, he’s due to enter the marriage/divorce cycle presently, and may even end up paying child support for one of the bastards his ho’ popped out, prior to his fortuitous arrival.