Post Your Lifts!

A bit of motivation from Brother Scott over at American Dad. Unlike the rest of us, he’s not using the holidays to become even more of a fatass. A couple of weeks ago, he decided to get into better shape. I think I had that thought around the same time. Unlike ya boy Boxer, he’s actually doing it.

Motivation (posted 09 Nov.) (here)

When Life Gets In The Way (posted 30 Nov.) (here)

Now, this will cue up the usual suspects (Cane Caldo, SirHamster) to call me a faggot, but Scott’s open about his real life, and he’s posted pics that are interesting. Check out the improvement in his biceps, in the span of about three weeks.

Most of Scott’s blog is now password protected. I think this is wise. Wiser still would be for him to start a separate blog, authored under some sort of pseudonym like “Luigi Montecassino” or some shit, and post his antifeminist stuff there. These posts are not (yet) password protected, so, check them out while you can.

The bottom line is that here is an older bro who (again, unlike me) is self-motivated, with no personal trainer, and who is improving himself with diet and exercise. This is a masculine pursuit which ought to be inspirational.


An Answer to Scott…

…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.

GramsciScott 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)

List of Slut Tells

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

Σ Frame

I’m glad to see that sluts are finally coming out of the closet. That is, society is no longer shaming them to the point where they are trying to hide or deny their membership to slutclub international. I’m glad about this, because it becomes all that much easier for men to discern what type of woman they’re dealing with up front, which is very important in deciding which type of relationship to pursue with her, if any at all.

Nevertheless, because of the importance of determining the course of a relationship as early as possible (an unfortunate requirement for one to compete in the modern marketplace), and because all women invariably lie about their N count, it is worth revisiting the observable indicators that a particular woman is a slut.

Women generally have a very complex list of impressionistic slut tells, and although not all of these concepts directly…

View original post 1,134 more words

Marry and Reproduce!


Over on Dalrock, there is scuttlebutt about a new commandment by the Christian god, that all Christian men must marry.

Cane Caldo explains:

there is a command is for each man and each woman to marry, but that concessions–exceptions–might and should be made in specific cases for specific reasons.

Later on, BillyS agrees and amplifies:

God said it was not good for a man to be alone and made a woman for him. That is the baseline principle. Exceptions, such as Paul, exist, but they are just that, exceptions. Review the Scriptures I already posted.

The problem that Cane and Billy have is a simple one. There is no “Thou shalt marry” commandment, anywhere in the new testament. So, Cane and Billy are fabricating new commandments, and weaving justification for their new commandments from minor allusions found here and there in the text.

Astute readers will remember that Artisanal Toad seemed to do something precisely similar. When asked where the “Thou shalt marry multiple women” and “Thou shalt let thine wives dyke out in weird lesbo group sex orgies” commandments were, he’d go on a long, dull tirade, about how ya boy Boxer was too worldly and too stupid to get the hidden meaning in the text.

Now Billy and Cane are asserting that the Christian god says something which he clearly doesn’t say. Their motivations for making this assertion are unclear, and don’t matter anyway. Let’s assume that both Cane and Billy are perfectly sincere in their beliefs, and are not trying to lead anyone astray for the sake of any ulterior motive. Since their beliefs neither correspond nor cohere with the propositions in the New Testament, there are a finite number of possibilities available to explain the disparity.

  • The Christian god has given a new commandment, by revelation, through internet bloggers.
  • Cane and Billy are starting a new, post-Christian religious movement.
  • Cane and Billy are reading the text through the lens of ideology.

While all of these are plausible scenarios, the first doesn’t seem likely. The text itself warns against false prophets, and implies that it constitutes both the completeness of the theory and a final revelation. It also pronounces a curse on anyone who claims to have had a subsequent revelation (Galatians 1:8-9). Billy and Cane both study the New Testament, so they know this themselves.

The second also doesn’t seem likely. Neither Billy nor Cane has ever denounced any of the central tenets of Christianity, nor have I ever seen either of them claim to be anything other than a sincere Christian.

So, assuming (as I do) that these guys aren’t purposely lying to people, I am left with the final scenario as the one that seems most likely to be the case. They are reading the New Testament through the lens of ideology.

What is ideology, and what does it mean to read a text through the lens of ideology?

Ideology is a Marxist term which (like most weighty philosophical items) takes some effort to unpack. We might say that it is a social phenomenon, which originates in the false state of consciousness, arising out of the mode of being prevalent in our particular historical epoch. Marx would point out that the mode-of-being in the epoch is brought into being by the mode-of-production, but we’re not going to go that far. The bare concept is itself hard to understand.

We live in a world that prioritizes certain things (fame, money, status, women) and thus we adopt certain inherent biases that color any new sense data we are exposed to. When sense data hits our eyes, our brain instantly begins working to translate such stuff into intelligible information. It does this by making associations through a conditioned structure. That’s part of ideology.

The warm fuzzies that the wimminz get when they see a lavish wedding, or the sympathy that a man feels when he sees a suffering child… some of that may be inborn, but most of it is ideology. We have each been conditioned and socialized to respond in certain ways, and the conditioning is at least partly subconscious.

The Marxist term is usually considered a subset of what Hegel called a world-spirit (weltgeist). We theorize about history, that is about our place in society, as we navigate all the currents that brought us to the now, in terms that our place in society offers us. To some extent, we are limited by language and pop culture to certain channels of thought, whereas other possibilities are closed off to us.

So what does it mean to speculate that some people read texts through the lens of ideology? In truth, we all do. This is why so many texts can be interpreted in such a variety of different ways.

The truth of this statement often gives way for linguistic relativism, and an idea that nothing inherently means anything: that in the war between text and subtext, context is the only winner. While students of ideology should examine the truths available from a variety of interpretations, we should also be careful about adopting the view that the interpretation is everything. If meaning is chiefly interpretive, then text is deprecated.

In an answer to the bizarre assertions of Cane Caldo, I had to ask:

Where is this command that each man marry? Chapter and verse, please.

Of course, Cane had no answer. Neither did anyone on his side of the argument. I did get a few replies, though. My man Earl said:

It’s not there. There are commands on what you are supposed to do when you get married…and what you are supposed to do if you are not married (the common theme for both is sexual morality)…but there is no command that states you are to get married.

That’s the way I read the text also. Of course, I read the text at face value, and try to keep my Marxist critique-of-ideology shades on, whenever I turn a new page in it.


One thing many of my secular readers might not appreciate are the differences between the Christian god, and the Mormon god. These are, despite all the protests to the contrary (by Christians and Mormons both) very different gods. Mormons have a specific commandment to play up our similarities when among Christians, but in private we tell our children the score. We can pass as Christians, but we are not Christians.

One of the differences between the Mormon god and the Christian god is what each calls his people to do. The Christian god does not make any specific commandment to marry; but, the Mormon god did command his people to marry.

To obtain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, a man must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (D&C 131 1-4)

The Mormon heaven is only for married people. Mormons who never marry will not be allowed in. Not only this, but the Mormon man or woman who marries in a secular ceremony, will also be counted as an unmarried person after death, and will likewise never be allowed into the Mormon heaven.

If a man marry a wife not by me, their covenant and marriage is not of force when they are dead (D&C 132 15)

Mormons are not only commanded to marry, but they are further commanded to marry other Mormons, in temple ceremonies. Failure to do so precludes a brother from any leadership positions in the church, any sort of benefits or employment within the church, and he will die condemned.

This, in fact, is the greatest example of the superiority of Jesus (the name of the Christian god) and his disciple St. Paul over Elohim (the Mormon god, who definitely has nothing to do with Jesus) and his disciple Joseph Smith. Jesus allows for those of us who may want to choose another vocation to do so.

I will always be a Mormon, and I will always love my people; but I will never bow the knee to the Mormon folk religion, and I encourage my Mormon brothers to explore the truths that can be found in the works of St. Paul, and, for that matter, Karl Marx.


The Obsession with Wife-Beating

Screen Shot 2017-07-28 at 08.46.27Over on Dalrock blog, a critical article was recently published about the work of one Pastor Doug Wilson (link). Wilson is a cunning neo-feminist who uses various lawyerly tactics to redefine marriage in order to conform with feminist norms. Wilson noticed the critical article, and immediately confirmed his feminist credentials, by poisoning the well with broad accusations of wife-beating. (link)

Of course, the fact that people disagree with Wilson doesn’t automatically imply that they beat their wives, and people who use these fallacious tactics are safely ignored. It did surprise me to see Wilson use this cheap trick. He’s a very clever guy, and his arguments are (formally speaking, anyway) quite well constructed.

When I see men in the sphere talking about wife-beating, I instantly prepare myself for a handful of distinct, but related, neurotic types. In the first place, there is the feminist, who socks up to indulge in black propaganda. Our deluded sister will pretend to be a man of the sphere, and under her very manly pseudonym, will boast about keeping “his” little lady in line. There are also the trolls, who write over-the-top parody. Matt Forney is alleged to have created a funny web page about this, years ago. Disguised as a female, he drove the saps crazy with sexual allusions and garnered a few bucks in the process, from thirsty simps who just couldn’t help but fantasize about a night with this prize catch of a drag queen. And then, there are the fetishists.

Screen Shot 2017-07-28 at 08.59.51My nigga Artisanal Toad (visit his blog here) is a quasi-famous polygamist and advocate of the spank fetish. Toad encourages men to spank their wives, going through a whole spectrum of less-than-optimal responses, until he touches on the perfect woman, with the perfect attitude.

The truth is if a woman is honest with herself, she’ll admit that at least some man exists for whom she will get undressed and with tingles running through her body… lay across his knee in anticipation of having her bottom turned cherry red.  But, only rarely does one find a woman who can admit she would do so for the man she is with.  She may love him and she may even be in love with him… but not like that.

If Toad’s thesis is correct, then, a wife who eagerly accepts her spanking is the perfect woman, who is perfectly in love with her man.

By the same token, there are men who may not be sufficiently interested in beating their wives for sexual thrills. These men are not merely people who have other interests. Toad explains in detail, as follows:

there are also many reasons why a man might object to this, chief among them is the claim that women are adults and should not be spanked.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  When men object, as a rule the objections are driven by fear.  They know the woman they are with would never allow such a thing to happen, which only leaves one of two paths to take.  Either they acknowledge their woman is just not that attracted to them, or they come up reasons why it shouldn’t happen.  Their wife or girlfriend will back them up on this 100%, knowing she would never allow him to do something like that and even claiming no man would ever be allowed to do such a thing to her.

In other words, if you married bros aren’t interested in spanking your wives, it’s because you’re insecure. You must conform to Toad’s weird sexual fetish, or you’re not a real man.

If you disagree with Wilson, then you’re a wife-beater. If you disagree with Toad, you secretly wish you were a wife-beater, but your wife isn’t sufficiently attracted to you to make you want to beat her.

If I were to take this nonsense seriously, I’d honestly need a spreadsheet to keep track of all these convoluted arguments about paraphilias and sublimated desires.

In reality, most men just aren’t interested in spanking their wives. They’re probably too busy fucking to bother with any of this other nonsense. Most men aren’t anorexics, pedophiles or zoophiles. Most men don’t get turned on by smelly feet. Most men don’t have granny fetishes. Most men aren’t interested in anal or oral sex. None of these normative men have a problem. They’re perfectly happy. I’ll stop short of speculating on the underlying neurotic energy that makes people like Toad and Wilson focus so much of their efforts on wife-spankery. Maybe these people enjoy it, and it’s nothing to me, but the fact that not everyone agrees with them doesn’t imply some underlying hangup.

I do think there is a general problem (with both social and individual dimensions) with fetishism. One aspect of paraphilic degeneracy (whether it be the spank fetish or something else) which seems universal, is the gradual overtaking of all other aspects of the relationship, by the primacy of the sexual fetish. For men like Toad, real emotional intimacy, and interpersonal connection, is secondary to the act of beating a woman’s ass. The fetish eventually comes to replace feelings of love and union. The act of beating a woman’s ass may eventually become a substitute for actual sex. Experiencing the beating is the telos, and intercourse may never occur, or may be a halfhearted, masturbatory afterthought.

(Another) Male Feminist Arrested

Over on Dalrock, there’s a participant named ‘Anon’ who often points out the correlation between male feminists and scroungy behavior. This phenomenon is undertheorized.

ug_z60RKOne can see examples such as Hugo Schwyzer, the famous wimminz studies professor who made a career out of desperately groping and assaulting his hot female students. Schwyzer was well-known as a guy who traded on shock value and cheap theatrics, at one point sadly confessing that he had attempted to murder an ex-girlfriend (he was probably lying, but who knows?) (link). On another occasion, Schwyzer advocated men give up normal sexual intercourse, in favor of allowing their female partners to don a strap-on dildo and “peg” them with it. (link)

Screen Shot 2017-06-30 at 13.20.13As though anyone needed another illustration, we have this creature. While not as well-known as Schwyzer, our feminist hero appears to be cut from similar cloth, making a name for himself with outrageous internet theatrics condemning normal couples for doing normal stuff, all while behaving privately like a total degenerate.

Thirty-two-year-old Christopher John Goldberg, who went by the name “Amir0x” on social media, was a male feminist who often took to Twitter to express his hatred at “sexists” and Trump supporters, in vocal support of the Women’s March. He was active during the GamerGate debacle that took the gaming world by storm in 2014, taking the side of feminists.

The Tobyhanna, Penn. man was charged this Wednesday with 64 counts of child porn possession and one count of criminally using a computer to download the illicit materials. Goldberg told police that he believed the pictures were not illegal if they didn’t depict sexual acts, but the police didn’t buy his excuse and issued the charges against him.

Props to Age of Shitlords (link) for this summary. One can also read more at Pocono Record (link).