Friday, 16 November 2012

Hugo & Krista, sittin in a tree...

I don't usually post about imbeciles like Hugo Schwyzer, and the next time I post about Krista Jane Heflin aka the Femitheist Divine will be to celebrate when she stops flaking out on suicide and really kicks the bucket.

But I mention them both today, because I am doing a public service. Men and women of earth, we can be forever rid of these two spazzes, simply by convincing them to shack up together.

I realized they're perfect for each other when I stumbled upon Hugo's latest post (hat tip Chuck Rudd), entitled 'Why Men Should Be Willing To Die For Women.' Hugo begins by spinning a yarn about his supplicating beta days of yore, when he gushed over his pity fuck du jour and promised to lay down his life for her:
As we walked out of the theater to grab an ice cream, my 17-year-old self said to my 16-year-old girlfriend something along the lines of “You know, I really would die for you.”  I was hoping for wide-eyed gratitude; what I got was a gently cynical smile that belied her years.

“Hugo,” she said, “that’s really sweet. But that’s such an easy thing for guys to say.” I remember that I protested ineffectually
No really, Hugo? But you strike me as such an effectual kinda guy.

Hugo's article is the usual tripe we've come to expect, relying on scant and selective evidence, mythological allusions, and the oddly patriarchal assertion that sex is something that men "do" to women. At one point he states that
Women had no more right to refuse their husbands than a low-ranking soldier had to disobey an order from an officer
without stopping to identify when or where this was the case. Anyway, the gist of it is that men dying for women is very nice, but it's an obligation, not a noble sacrifice.

This immediately made me think of the Femitheist Divine, because she would be in complete agreement with Hugo here. She certainly believes that men have an obligation to die for the sake of women - all men, in fact! - except for a lucky few who would be permanently restrained and fed the bare minimum to survive, retained only for the purposes of breeding and showing little girls how horrible male animals are:
We will keep a small portion of men alive, so that when young girls ask: “Were they truly as horrible as you say?”, we can show them the hideous beasts, which live like rats in the darkest of cellars and subsurface prisons.

We will keep them for breeding, until they are too old to breed, and we will put them to death when their purpose has been fulfilled. They will not be educated, and they will be fed the bare minimum, with proficient restraints to keep them in their place. Their own access to anyone other than themselves will be for the purpose of sample collections, and nothing more.
Sound good, Hugo? It's for the sake of women, after all. How could you possibly refuse?

Granted, I'm not sure if Hugo would go along with her stances on the disabled, homosexuals, intersex people, and women who disagree with her about anything (she would kill all of those people too). But maybe he wouldn't have so much of a problem with her castration fetish. Hugo already had a piece of his penis cut off as a 'present' for his new wife:
when I met the woman who is now my wife and fell in love with her, I began to wish that I could offer her something radically new about me.  And it occurred to me one day that getting circumcised would be something tangible I could do to provide an outer manifestation of my sexual rebirth.   My wife would thus be the only woman with whom I had made love with that particular penis, as it were.
Krista, on the other hand, is suffering from severe mental issues that could perhaps be ameliorated if she had one man to herself, to take her rage out on.

They're perfect for each other! They are Eros and Thanatos personified, a sado-masochistic match made in hell. If we could somehow convince Hugo and Krista to settle down together, they could dispel all their pent-up aggression in a series of explosive, genital-mutilating, fem-dom lovemaking sessions, and then they wouldn't have to write such stupid shit any more.

- Mojo

Fuck white nationalists.

Loathe though I am to attack anyone on my blogroll, especially those who link to me, thus providing me with sweet, sweet traffic (the electronic ambrosia that all narcissists bloggers seek), the time has come for me to say a big fuck you to the white nationalists among us.

Look, I'm a contrarian. I am naturally inclined to question, to satirize, and to cynically tear down other people's efforts - most of all whatever society, and especially the state, declares to be truth. But any unfalsifiable belief with a significant following - otherwise known as a cult - is fair game for my poison pen.

First, let's discuss what we agree on. Let's talk about political correctness. PC is problematic, because in establishing one unquestionable truth, alternative views are stamped out, either through state coercion or social pressure - hard or soft control over free thought and expression.

As an individualist, I rebuke the suggestion that I or anyone else should simply fall in line with any belief whatsoever just because it's what the crowd thinks. I even have an problem verbalizing assent to popular mantras that seem reasonable - equality of opportunity, for instance - because all the people who speak enthusiastically about these things are dead-eyed zombie stormtroopers, little Eichmanns congenitally predisposed to obey their masters and zealously attack anyone who jars their precious worldview by having an independent thought.

I hate them.

If you can understand that, then you'll understand why I was open-minded towards those who stood against multiculti and open borders insanity. Yes, whites are being depopulated and/or 'race-replaced' within their own countries by left (and right)-wing governments and NGOs intent on destroying white cultures. Yes, the mainstream media deliberately upholds racial double standards, routinely covering up for black flash mobs. Yes, government departments fudge the stats to make it appear that black crime is lower than it is, and claim that whites need to be disadvantaged through "affirmative" action because society is RACIST.

All of this is true and more. The anti-racist lobby, which government and society looks to for moral guidance on all issues of race, consists of the most virulently racist people on the planet - hypocrites to a man, they hold a deep hatred for Caucasians that by far outweighs white historical prejudice.

That's all true, and, to a point, does justify white nationalism. White people have the right to defend themselves, to secure their existence and their future - just like every other race of people. Nobody questions the right of black people to secure their existence and future. It would be un-PC to suggest that black people don't have every right to do this. The same holds true for every race except for whites.

And yes indeed, if you're white then you can't bring any of these issues up without someone pointing fingers at you and shouting DAS RACIST. Here's how the establishment typically deals with these matters:


It's the zealotry and hypocrisy of the establishment that made me add a bunch of white nationalist blogs to my blogroll - I want to hear other views, particularly heretical ones. I suspect the establishment has decreed them heretical because they disseminate their own truths, which threaten to undermine the official narrative.

Everything I've talked about above is true enough and worthy of outrage. But then we get onto the white nationalists themselves.

You guys are a bunch of fucking fruit loops, and you go too far.

When you're criticizing the system for being racist against your people, about the dumbest thing you can do is to commit the same offence. I took Metapedia off my links list when I realized it's just anti-Jew shit, and not the kind of alternative encyclopedia proposed by Mencius Moldbug.

The last straws for me were the following comments at Mindweapons in Ragnarok. Ryu gives insight into how his white utopia will be administered:
Alot of people want a white ethnostate without wanting what its going to take to achieve and maintain it. It will be a military state, as the rest of the world opposes it. It will be totalitarian, in our favor.
Mindweapon on Jared Taylor's tolerance for miscegenation:
I sure disagree with him about outlawing race-mixing. I would outlaw it, and the punishment would be deportation. Actually, in my ethnostate, race mixing would be all but impossible, but anyone who did it would be deported to some rainbow state.
I had hoped that white nationalists weren't just neo-Nazi boneheads, but here they are gleefully plotting new, racially pure, totalitarian regimes.

If your ideal society doesn't let me speak my mind and fuck whichever consenting adults I please, then you've already lost me.

Speaking of which, the other reason I can't really abide white nationalists is their following mantra:
Because the beauty of the White Aryan women must not perish from the earth.
You can try to tell me that feminism is an invention of the Great ZOG and those poor, misandric white women are just brainwashed idiots, but that doesn't really make sense when you consider 1) white women are grown adults who make their own decisions, and are accountable for making bad ones, and 2) Judaism itself is becoming increasingly feminized.

Nobody is brainwashed. How individuals behave is ultimately a matter of personal choice. Needless to say, I'm not about to join you in your moral crusade to save the beauty of the White Aryan woman. I'd rather reap the benefits of immigration and deep-dick Asian hotties, if it's all the same to you. Which, of course, it's not. But fuck you, so there.
There's a very good reason why white nationalists don't need to feel guilty about popping covert boners over Eastern babes like Misa Campo: their own women are easily tempted by black men. I don't mean white women; I mean white nationalist women. Here are some quotes from white nationalist women, that Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech preserved:
Sorry, fellas – it’s not women that have to please you – you have to please, and lure in women.
Yup. It’s true. My 9 year old nephew has better social skills, than do 90% of you.

[...]

As a White American Woman. Who talks to a lot of other White American women. Who have HAD IT with snarky, juvenile, insulting socially-cretinous WN men.

[...]

Many, many of the comments reveal the precise nature of the problem – the boorishness, childishness, and social inpetitude of American males.

Once again, fellas – the onus is on YOU to please women. Not the other way around. Ghetto Negroes have better wooing, and flirtation skills, than so many White males. A lot of you guys are beyond pathetic. You really have nothing to offer females of any Race. A lot of you have very little money, and you are not as physically attractive as you flatter yourselves to be.
Somehow, I don't get the feeling that these particular white nationalist women are outliers. And yet white nationalist men will continue to supplicate to them.

To be a chivalrist in an age of female sexual licence is to ask to be cuckolded. And that's why I could never belong to a movement so strongly reeking of betatude. I am sure that the white nationalist preoccupation with miscegenation is really a fear of the black man/white woman pair bonding. Check out Ryu's comment at Eradica:
That’s been one of the biggest changes I’ve seen in myself since becoming a WN – a visceral reaction to white women with men of other races. I believe that this “disgust” is one of best tells for checking if a man is a WN or not. It’s like a giant middle finger in the face of the white man.
Strangely enough, I don't feel that a black man with a white woman is a giant middle finger in my face, but I suppose that's because I'm ZOG or a member of the Frankfurt School or whatever other ridiculous conspiracy white nationalists will pull out of their pasty asses to justify their claims.

There's also the fact that white nationalists want white women to trap white men with 'oops' pregnancies, which, as a man, I find abhorrent. It's pretty obvious that white nationalists have no actual regard for the autonomy and liberty of white people whatsoever - at least, not for white men.

It doesn't matter to me whether it's feminists or white nationalists who make me pay child support for a kid I didn't want - the end result does not work in my favor. Speaking of which, the Women's Ku Klux Klan was basically a precursor to modern feminism in its language, ideas and action, and the WKKK and Suffragette movements were heavily connected - not something you'll ever hear a third-wave genderslut admit to, obviously.

A friend to misandry is no friend of mine. It's a shame, because some of the basic white nationalist ideas make sense, but the people behind the movement are just as deluded and cultlike as the activists responsible for radical multiculturalism and open borders immigration policy. The tipping point for me is that, as one who is prone to scepticism regarding received wisdom, I would not be tolerated in their totalitarian white utopia.

- Mojo

The mosquitos, they will rape me in my sleep.

We're having a heatwave right now in the UK. And with a heatwave comes two unpleasant things: fats sweat more, and mosquitos.

Enough about the fats. We have the rest of our lives to fisk them and their greedy, lazy worthlessness. Besides, fats don't bother me in my own home. They don't come flying in through my window in the middle of summer. And although I might joke about it, I don't genuinely fear that a fat might get so hungry that he tries to eat me.

Not so for the mosquitos.

Every summer it's the same. You have to open the windows or you'll suffocate. But that's just what they want you to do. Like minitaure vampires, these little flying bloodsuckers have to be invited in.
And so there comes a day, each summer, when I settle down to sleep, but then I hear it.
That unmistakeable high-pitched drone.
BzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz ...
And it won't stop. For some reason they go nuts when I turn off the light.
And of course, as soon as I turn it back on again, they stop flying and land where they are - on some obscure wall fixing or skirting board, where I can't see them.
So begins the midnight summer mosquito massacre.
It's never just one of the bastards. I have to launch an entire holocaust just to be able to get some rest. Half an hour and a vicious killing spree later, I think, maybe I won't hear that dreaded buzzing again when I turn out the light. But you can never quite be sure.
Why don't I ignore it, and just go to sleep? Because it just so happens to be the time of year when it gets too hot to use the cover in bed. I am asleep, defenceless, utterly exposed to them and their evil plots to pierce my naked flesh and steal my blood.
They fucking cut me, and steal my blood. What the fuck?
I realized today that this must be how it feels to be a beautiful young feminist walking alone at night past a pack of carnivorous, necrophiliac, penis-wielding, inferior genetic mutations commonly known as men. Much like the feminist who is almost-raped when a man asks her for coffee in an elevator, I am totally vulnerable to the predations of these disgusting animals as they look for any chance to penetrate my virtuous body.
All mosquitos are rapists, and that's all they are. If Susan Brownmiller can bravely denigrate an entire demographic, then surely I can cast aspersions of a similar kind against my own assailants. Although I do happen to know that it's actually only female mosquitos that bite you and suck your blood. The mansquitos just fly around, chilling out and probably eating berries and shit.
I was going to draw the inevitable analogy, but then I found out Dick Masterson already did that and even pre-dated my use of 'mansquito.'
Women and mosquitoes both:
1. Suck your blood.
2. Hate “bananas”.
3. Never stop buzzing in your fucking ears.
Incredible. I wish he was still writing.

- Mojo

MRAs would lay wreaths at Hitler's bunker.

Matt Forney has posted in agreement with me about the radfem suicide thing and how goddamn pathetic it is for anyone to feel sorry for her. Someone also linked to my blog on r/mensrights for the first time, calling me a "contradictory blogger" trying to blame MRAs for something or other.

I'm now basically convinced that the suicide was a hoax (the site Matt links to can be updated by anyone), although I do not believe the feminazi herself was a mere 'persona.' She's just abandoning the blog because MRAs gave her hell.

And that's what I thought was great about this whole thing - unlike Matt Forney, I genuinely appreciate the activism of Paul Elam and the others at A Voice for Men. My disappointment stemmed from the reaction of the MRA community following the reported radfem suicide.

Here was a radfem whose ideology was essentially the equivalent of Nazism - perhaps worse - and who saw fit to dehumanize and write atrocious things about half the human race, then expressed surprise at people objecting to her views.

MRAs, you not only piled onto her blog to attack, you tracked down her identity and employer, got her fired, and cost her any future employment by ensuring that her genocidal ravings shall forever be tied to her name. Your merciless hounding of this bona fide femi-Nazi put her in such a dark place that the only way out, as far as she could see, was to end her life.

That sounds like textbook FTSU to me.

But then, rather than celebrate your epic victory over the forces of evil, you began BAWWW'ing about how all life is precious and nobody deserves such a fate!

A little perspective is in order. This is the game feminists have been running on men for decades. Pin unacceptable, politically incorrect views to him, slander his character, get him fired, maybe put him in prison, and cripple his chances of any future employment, or of access to his kids, etc.

I scarcely need to remind any of you about the high male suicide rate.

My only reaction to the news of a radfem suicide was to hope that other radfems find the strength to honestly self-appraise and then eat a bullet like their spiritual and ideological progenitor.

Everyone was so quick to call the radfem a sick sack of scum while she was alive. What changed when she became (allegedly) a dead sick sack of scum? Alive or dead, sick sacks of scum are not deserving of sympathy. I for one am not a Nazi sympathizer.

The reaction of MRAs at places like A Voice for Men and r/mensrights makes me think that most MRAs would lay wreaths at Hitler's bunker upon hearing of his suicide. All life is precious, right guys?

Go back to my last post on the radfem's suicide and read what she says about how feminists are weakening men, making them less then they are, so that they are more susceptible to the final wrath of women.

Now ask yourself what that means when your reaction to her reported death is to mourn her.

That is how much they have already weakened you - you are all still playing the chivalrous gents, seeing her suicide as some great tragedy rather than a cause for relief and celebration.

Apologising? Trying to deflect responsibility? That just shows how pussified you've already become. How submissive and grovelling they have made you in preparation for their 'final vengeance' - which obviously won't ever actually happen; but they're still trying to pacify you.

Ritalin, harassment lawsuits, family courts - do I need to remind you guys of all this stuff? They use the force of state - omnipotent and unconquerable - to pacify and weaken men. That wasn't some future plan that the radfem dreamed up. She was quite explicit that this is already going on.

Don't be a pussy. Man up and go on the offensive. Expose those radfems. We have more names, courtesy of Agent Orange. Do not turn the other cheek, like Jesus; be like the epic hero Achilles, slayer of the Amazons!

You guys are honing the craft of Fucking Their Shit Up. Keep it up, and more importantly, own it.

- Mojo

The blue pill is strong in this one.


Apparently, some radical feminist who wrote nasty screeds about killing and mutilating men and boys committed suicide. This is unconfirmed (if Paul Elam has any real evidence then he's not sharing).

Witness the 'red pill MRAs' of A Voice for Men lamenting the loss of this sweet, pure, angelic angel in the comments.

This is why your movement isn't getting anywhere, guys - you're not angry enough.

You're not even close. You're not even close to close. You just ask for coercive, anti-male behavioral codes when the death of a dangerous, extremist misandrist is met with tears and sympathy rather than joyous laughter.

And you think you're the red pill takers? Pfft. You guys are still popping blues. It's one thing to not dance on a grave, quite another to wail about the terrible tragedy the world has suffered because one poor innocent little girl didn't get the help she needs.

Oh, cruel world! R.I.P. princess.

Get a fucking grip, guys. If this isn't a hoax, we're one monster down. The red pill reaction looks more like this:



Think this is in bad taste? Then perhaps you'd like to read a sample of Femitheist's Divine's writings:
We must show men that they are worthless and useless, like lapping dogs at our heels. Begging, starving, dying, and whining up to the hand that feeds – our hand. Yet, we will not feed them. We will slap them down, and throw them outside to die.
We will re-define the world, and create am ambience which utterly loathes and abhors everything that is male, and embraces and loves everything that is female.

[...]

We destroy everything about them that is male. We pacify, we condemn, we castrate, we feminize, and we lessen them enough so that they are more susceptible to our justified vengeance and wrath than they already are. This is happening now, and it will continue in the future.

[...]

Along with men, we shall eliminate the handicapped, and the disabled (any form, mental or physical), including the abominations that are “intersexual” people, commonly, and incorrectly, referred to as hermaphrodites. Eugenics is the future, and not only are these types of people an economic, mental, physical and emotional strain on themselves and others, generating misery for all around them, but they are a blemish to the genetics of humankind. We will take our evolution into our own hands, and we will rid the world of all vermin.

Homosexual men, for being the greatest of misogynists by being naturally inclined to hate women and find them unattractive, shall be put to death. There will be no exceptions, ever. Even for a man who is only partially skewed. They are all bound forever to the collective. Every individual male, offender or inoffensive, will be judged by the actions of the greatest perpetrators.

[...]

We will keep a small portion of men alive, so that when young girls ask: “Were they truly as horrible as you say?”, we can show them the hideous beasts, which live like rats in the darkest of cellars and subsurface prisons.

We will keep them for breeding, until they are too old to breed, and we will put them to death when their purpose has been fulfilled. They will not be educated, and they will be fed the bare minimum, with proficient restraints to keep them in their place. Their own access to anyone other than themselves will be for the purpose of sample collections, and nothing more.

[...]

And, for women who are forever indoctrinated, or mentally ill, there will be no protection by these claims. If they cannot be reformed or treated, they will be sentenced to death. There is no excuse for it. It is a sad loss, but it is necessary to create the New World.
There's more - a lot more - but it just goes on and on like this so there's no point in adding to the copypasta.

But this post is in bad taste, right? It sure is a tragedy that this atrocious human being is no longer alive, right MRAs?

- Mojo

Addendum. Mental illness is no defence. I am sick of seeing it claimed that because this person may have suffered from some sort of personality disorder (which, like the suicide itself, is unconfirmed), then she is absolved of responsibility for her own actions. BPD or not, she was clearly in control of her actions. She was of sound enough mind to articulate her hatred and to publish it online for the world to see what radical feminism looks like. It's amazing to see 'red pill MRAs' playing the old feminist game of denying women agency to allow them to escape accountability.

The religion of State.

W. F. Price found an anti-Semitic screed by a feminist who calls Jews, and especially Holocaust survivors, "Judenscheisse" ('scheisse' being the German word for 'shit'). This was published at mainstream site Jezebel. Pretty horrendous stuff, but what interests me is this section:
during a family dinner conversation about Terri Schiavo, my father made the serious request that should he fall into a vegetative state, he would like for us to keep him on life support indefinitely. Today he and I are estranged for a number of other reasons that are all somehow the same reason.
I find it bizarre that anyone would become estranged from their father because he mentions that he would prefer to live than to die, even in a coma. First of all, isn't that his decision to make, and no one else's? How can anyone else believe they have the right to decide whether another lives or dies - and how can anyone believe they are so entitled to make that choice, that they fly into a rage when that person disagrees?

But then I remembered that this is a feminist. Feminists are typically high-conflict, neurotic people, prone to drama, tears, and other histrionics, and fundamentally lacking in gratitude, even for those who raised them. Almost every feminist I have known has been estranged from her family, or has harbored a deep resentment towards them.

As I said in my post on penis envy, Freud wrote mostly nonsense but did stumble upon the occasional insight. In his book Civilization and its Discontents, he writes about the common man's psychological need for religion. Religion, for the common man, is:
the system of teachings and promises that on the one hand explains to him, with enviable thoroughness, the riddles of this world, and on the other assures him that a careful providence will watch over his life and compensate him in a future existence for any privations he suffers in this. The common man cannot imagine this providence otherwise than as an immensely exalted father.

[...]

The life imposed on us is too hard to bear: it brings too much pain, too many disappointments, too many insoluble problems. If we are to endure it, we cannot do without palliative measures.
Growing up involves the harsh realization that the world is cruel, not only in the acts of human beings, but also in nature. The father cannot protect the child, let alone himself, against all possible threats and fates. He cannot provide food in a famine, nor can he fight off armed soldiers who have come to deport him and his family to a concentration camp. We could all die unjustly, painfully, without compensation ever being paid. This jars with the earlier conception of childhood, the belief in the invincible father who acts as the child's personal bodyguard and benefactor.

Freud's point is that, having developed an association in early life with the protective father, we develop a 'schema' (to use later psychological jargon) that outlasts the actual father. To rescue ourselves from the distress that comes with realizing the cruelty of the world, and the impotence of the father, we simply construct a new father in his place: bigger, stronger, more powerful - in fact, infinitely powerful - and who is deeply interested in our plight on a personal level, who shows his love for us through suffering, and who promises that our good conduct will go rewarded, and the wrongs committed against us will be punished.

Religion, for Freud, is a defence mechanism; a way of insulating ourselves from cold, hard reality. But what about the new liberals, who believe in Reason rather than God? Does the psychological need for the immensely exalted father simply disappear when we give up religion?

Of course not, because religion is the effect, not the cause. Giving up God simply means that this need will have to be expressed elsewhere. And it is - in the new liberals' fanatical worship of the State.

With Nazi Germany in living memory, the Soviet Union having only just collapsed, and North Korea still in existence, the new liberals defy all history and morality and insist that the state is necessarily a force for good and must be strengthened in every way possible.

Rejecting God as the stuff of children's stories, they tell each other their own fables about the new father they are constructing. This father, like the old God, will provide for each one of his children, and cares very deeply about social justice.

And much like the religions of olde, Statism does not only provide and protect, it punishes, in the here and now, all those who refuse to bow down before the deity. It is well known by now that the USA incarcerates more people than any other country in the world. The state zealotry of new liberals is largely responsible for locking up more black men, as a percentage of the population, than South Africa did under apartheid. There are more people languishing in US prisons today, than people who did time in Stalin's gulags.


Don't look for logical purpose here; it's the effect of psychological dependency, the need for an omnipresent, omnipotent father. That explains why child support is to be extended until the 'child' is 26 under the new liberals' beloved Obamacare. Expect that number to creep higher and higher until it covers an individual's entire life. At that point, the new liberals will have established the eternally protective father in the form of the state. Until that point, all their achievements fall short.

It can't happen, of course - it's unsustainable, someone needs to actually be earning the money, there needs to be incentive, and so on. Yes, liberals make poor economists. But then they're starting from psychological needs, not economic first principles. That the world will not bend to their will shall not discourage them from trying to make it so.

How does this all tie in to feminists estranging themselves from their families? Like this: feminists too are dealing with the shock of the father being less than ideal, less than invincible, and so on. Their level of entitlement is even higher than the average new liberal, and the notion that they will not be eternally coddled is so fundamentally shocking to their way of thinking that they grow to hate the father (and the family by association), as if it is his fault for keeping his coddling from her - as though he could choose to coddle her eternally, but chooses not to.

The failure to agree with her ideologically is a failure to coddle; it's a failure to assure her of her moral rightness. While most people would simply accept the difference of opinion and move on, without letting the disagreement damage their relationship, the feminist is too immature to deal with another point of view. The existence of another viewpoint is threatening to her own. And her father's refusal to coddle her, to assure the big baby that she is sooo smart and enlightened and strong and independent, is taken as a personal attack.

Even when it concerns his own life, and his opinion is that he would prefer it to continue.

- Mojo

All sports, all the time.

I don't watch TV.

I don't even own a TV, because I could never get a chance to watch it when I was growing up, and for that reason I never got into it. My father dominated the TV through my youth, and still does so, rotting in his armchair, stuffing his face full of crisps and nuts and other shit he doesn't need, edging closer towards clinical obesity.

And it's all sports, all the time.

Because sports fucking matters.

It really, truly matters which team wins this time. Even though they will be playing against each other again in a few months, and then a few months after that, ad infinitum. This time it matters. And next time, too.

Football is shit. Soccer, American, Aussie Rules; I don't give a fuck. It's all total shit. Totally vapid, predictable, brainless, boring. A bunch of dicks kicking a piece of rubber around a field, and the occasional homoerotic group hug. The only thing I can think of that is worse than playing it is sitting there watching it.

Just look at yourself. You have endless admiration for the players (you spend your entire waking life staring at them, after all). They possess all the intelligence and sophistication of your typical cro-magnon, but I will concede that these so-called Sports Men are in good physical shape. You live vicariously through these athletic heroes while you sit there immobile for sixteen hours a day, your own strength and vitality draining away.

If you watch football, fuck you. You are not someone I will ever choose to associate with.

I cannot think of a worse way to waste your life than on this shit. Fans and pundits make it out like it's all some kind of epic struggle for supremacy. But there's no beginning, no middle, no end, no resolution, no final victory. It's no different than endlessly flipping a coin and cheering for heads, screaming in rage when it flips tails. And then you flip it again, and again, and again, and do the same thing. It's just like that, but on a bigger scale.


It's not just football. It's all sports, but football has the lion's share of my spite because of the neanderthals who play it and the neanderthals who celebrate them, lionising the degenerate, turning these pinheads not fit to sweep my street into folk legends. They spit and swear like common thugs, but holy shit, they can kick a ball, so let's make them multi-millionaires and exalt them as the best our nation has to offer.

Knowing how to kick a ball is not a 'skill.' Knowing how to kick a ball better than most other guys who kick balls just means you wasted more of your life learning how to kick a ball than they did.

Oh, and fuck you.

I went back home this weekend. As always, my father sits glued to the TV. What would he do without it? Probably suffer a mental breakdown. It's gorgeously hot outside; he sits in the dark, watching football or some other shitty inconsequential game played between a bunch of ignorant, overpaid assholes. My mother makes some lame joke about how he's going to enjoy the weather this summer. He makes some equally lame retort about taking the TV outside with him.

Yeah, or maybe you could get off your fat fucking ass and do something with your life.

Does nobody read books any more? Too hard, I guess. All those big words and no moving pictures to keep you entertained. Your rapidly shrinking pre-frontal cortex wouldn't be able to cope.

The TV remained on while we sat at the table for dinner (a disgraceful faux pas in my book). I managed to catch some of what was happening on one of the nonsense sports channels. It wasn't even a match, just some documentary on a team. One of the Sports Men was taking a nap and the others on his team decided to burst in and scream to wake him up. He woke up. They all laughed.

Oh, what a wit!

Then they were playing some engrossing game of catch and making whooping and hollering noises. Loud screams whenever one of them dropped the ball.

Fucking apes.

Then we cut to just after a match, and one of the Sports Men ran and skidded through a big puddle. The others went wild with cheering and laughing.

Oh, those Sports Men. What will they do next?

The fans are every bit as bad, what with their painted faces and high-school chants. Bunch of primitives, they even look and act the part. Get a life. Fucking bigfoot hunters are worth more than you.

I am glad that I don't own a TV. My father has led by example of what not to become. Just think, if not for his domineering control over the screen, I might now be staring, glaze-eyed into the idiot box, watching people richer and dumber than myself play children's games.

Because that's all football is.

A children's game.

If you watch children's games, then you need to grow up - and also, fuck you. Not sure I mentioned that yet.

As for me, I'm taking a walk outside on this beautiful summer's day. I shall find a nice patch of shade to sit in and read a fucking book.

- Mojo

The new liberalism.

Where once it was liberative, now it is prohibitive.

Where once it attracted the free-spirited, now it attracts the mean-spirited.

Where once it appealed to the open-minded, now it appeals to the small-minded.

Where once it celebrated what all people could do, now it instructs certain people what they may not do.

- Mojo

Masculinity is conquering the self.

Preliminaries:

Women simultaneously deride, and insist that men conform to, masculinity.

In fact: they are working with a false definition.

Not being men, they are constitutionally incapable of comprehending that which can only truly be understood through experience (i.e. the experience of being a man).

Masculinity is only the essence of man (man is the embodiment of masculinity).

Woman is not just a poor measure of a man, she is no measure of a man. The fake masculinity she alternately derides and shames men towards is best described as: whatever will serve her interests at any given moment (for you to be tough and stoic one minute, and weak and dependent the next).

Women's impressions, opinions, etc., on masculinity are hereby discarded. They know not what it is that they speak of, and wouldn't care if they did (it's all about her anyway).


Conquering the Self:

Masculinity is not when a man is violent, brutish, savage, etc.

Nor does it necessarily refer to a man leading the way (although it can).

Masculinity is what happens when a man stands up to himself, to the man within; or more accurately, to the boy within.

It is to emerge victorious from the struggle of virtue vs hedonism. The first is practiced by men, the second by boys.

For what can we call the pleasure-seeker, if not a child? He stands for nothing, acts for nothing, but filling his own mouth. He sits, always comfortably, and resents having to rise for any purpose, even his own. His joys are fleeting, without purpose, without direction, without authority.

This idiot thinks he lives like a king, because he answers slavishly to biological impulse; because he serves desires imposed by nature, not by his own will.

The man pursues his own will. That which he created himself, that design which he shall imprint upon the world.

This is never achieved without struggle. Primarily internal, as all struggles are. Every struggle takes place between the man and the boy within. The boy cries that he should give up because it's easier. The man must push ahead. And whoever or whatever external foe the man struggles against, it is this internal struggle that he must win.

Any man who has ever practiced self-denial, in any form, for the achievement of an object that is his own will, shall be familiar with this experience.

To hear the complaints of the boy is not shameful (there can be no virtue if there is not vice for it to run up against). To comply with the boy is what should be a source of shame.


Beware:

To return to preliminaries: there are people (men and women both) who do not ever grasp any of the above.

In their misunderstanding of what masculinity is, they believe there are masculinities plural, and/or that masculinity can be 'reshaped' or otherwise exploited to make you meet their own ends.

They will encourage you to side with the boy, and surrender yourself to an existence of no values, or where they represent all value, and you are obligated to serve them, because they make it easier to give in to humiliation and subordination.

This is behind all demands that you "man up," "take it like a man," etc. Or any other demand relating to masculinity that comes from women or certain men (you will recognize them by the following: their anxiety about the man within, as they have sided with and embody the boy; physical evidence of long-term hedonism; alternately, a tendency to preen like a teenage girl; and female-centric, bitchy discourse).

So, you must beware of who is making demands of you, and for what purpose.

The two occasions when you should follow the advice to behave in a more masculine manner are:

First, when the advice comes from a trustworthy man, one who is masculine-behaving, and who you conclude, given reflection on the matter, is aiming only to improve your status. Then you should follow what he says, and ignore the complaining, lazy boy within.

Second, when the advice is your own, and emanates from the man and not the boy (you will know which is which; they are impossible to mistake). In this case you will necessarily improve yourself and give yourself purpose by following what you say.

Do not deny yourself a thing for anyone but yourself and trustworthy men.


Experiences of Self-Denial:

The virtue of taking only what you need, and doing what you are capable of, will fill the space that was once occupied by the fleeting pleasures. You will grow less tolerant of hedonists.

No meal will taste as good as the spiritual rewards of denying bad food, and even of denying good food where there is more than necessary; but your meals will taste much better. You will learn to taste again.

When you exert yourself to the point of exhaustion, you will go much further than you imagined you would. Sleep will come sooner and can truly be called rest.

You may ache, and you may hunger, and as long as you recognize these as positive signs, the pain will subside easier and will not disrupt your day.

You will develop a deep loathing for the fattened, the greedy, the lazy, the unhygienic, the cowardly, the impulsive, the men who spend their days staring at screens.

Greed and inaction, in particular, will appear to you as the most disgusting and disgraceful sins. You will scorn and wish for harsh punishment on those who take more than they need, and on those who do not make one step towards meeting their potential.

Your clouded mind will clear. Lies will appear indefensible.

- Mojo

The dumb white boy's guide to banned words.

Footballer John Terry apparently called Anton Ferdinand a series of naughty names during a match last year. I haven't really been paying much attention to the story, though I was aware there was some racial component to it.

Last night I happened to catch what Terry had actually said. Ferdinand had apparently made fun of him for being cuckolded by a team-mate. Terry responded with a string of expletives (which seems reasonable enough). Oh, but then there's that racial component.

I had imagined Terry had gone on some racist meltdown like Michael Richards when he got heckled by a black audience member. But actually, the only racial reference Terry made was to call Ferdinand a "black cunt."

That surely must be the racial component, because nothing else that Terry said has anything to do with race (he also called Ferdinand a "fucking knobhead," and told him to "fuck off").

Only, I'm a little confused. You see, Ferdinand is actually black. This is a matter of fact. So, calling him black is just a statement of truth, and is not illegal.

Calling someone a cunt is, of course, very offensive, but it's a matter of opinion, and Ferdinand had just made fun of Terry for being cuckolded. I can understand why a man would use vulgar language against someone in that situation. But even if you think someone is a cunt, and call them a cunt, that's offensive, but not illegal.

So, to recap, calling a black person black is not illegal; and calling someone a cunt is offensive but also not illegal.

It seems that only when these two words are put together, then it becomes an offence against the law. If Terry had simply called Ferdinand a "cunt," or had he used any other adjective, even one that was less truthful (e.g. calling Ferdinand a "white cunt"), then he probably wouldn't have been charged.

If you were to call Ferdinand a black man, or a black footballer, or a black hero, then you also wouldn't be charged, and I don't think he would dispute you either. So it's okay to say that someone is black in the context of a positive opinion about them, but not in the context of a negative opinion about them. That's when it becomes racist.

This might seem obvious to some people but for po' dum white folks like me it's actually pretty hard to keep track of what is and isn't racist any more. For instance, the N-word is obviously offensive (when spoken by white people). But some other words aren't allowed to be used by white people either, and sometimes we don't know that until it's too late.

Several white people have got into trouble and even lost their jobs for using the word "niggardly," which means stingy or miserly and has no etymological association with the N-word. It just sort of sounds similar, and so sometimes people get offended by it, and then white heads have to roll.

And this one time, a white woman made the mistake of using the phrase "jungle drums," which is a colloquialism meaning unsubstantiated rumors or gossip. This was deemed offensive to black people, and the white woman who used the phrase got in a lot of trouble for it.

So we have to watch out not only for the N-word, but also for the other N-word, the J-word, and the B-word, if we are going to use it in proximity to the otherwise non-racist C-word.

This can be confusing for a lot of whites, so I think what we need is some new administrative body - perhaps called the Office for Racial Harmony - which can keep track of all banned words (for whites) in a centralized database, updating it with new banned words every year.

Or we could just keep on banning words (for whites) through precedent and innovative lawsuits, so that civil rights activists can keep on persecuting white people who accidentally use words they didn't know were racist.

What do you guys think? I don't know what the best solution is. I'm just a white man, so I can't ever hope to comprehend the plight of oppressed peoples different from me. Therefore, I just have to take it for granted that they're right when they ban me from saying or thinking certain things.

This makes sense because I am the white oppressor and non-whites are the oppressed. Even though non-whites are apparently powerful enough to destroy me if I use certain words, and I have no defence against this. Or something like that.

- Mojo

Extracts from the Elegies of Theognis.

It's Ancient Greek poetry month here at the Chronicles. If ancient literature tells us anything, it's that nothing much really changes. Human nature, and the problems facing mankind, have been remarkably consistent throughout history considering we are all really just 'blank slates.'

From the Elegies of Theognis, c.550BC, which the author wrote (mostly) to his young lover, Kurnos:

This city's pregnant, Kurnos, and I fear
she'll bear a man to crush our swelling pride.
The people still have sense, but those in charge
are turning, stumbling into evil ways.

Gentlemen never yet destroyed a town;
but when the scum resort to violence,
seduce the masses and corrupt the courts
to line their pockets and increase their power,
then Kurnos, you may know this tranquil town
cannot remain unshaken very long.
When wicked men rejoice in private graft
then public evils follow; factions rise,
then bloody civil war, until the state
welcomes a Tsar. God save us from that fate!

Kurnos, the city stands; her men are changed.
You know, in former days, there was a tribe
who knew no laws nor manners, but like deer
they grazed outside the city walls, and wore
the skins of goats. These men are nobles, now.
The gentlemen of old are now the trash;
terrible sight. No principles at all:
these new men cheat each other, and they laugh.
You want to buy an ass, a horse?
You'll pick a thoroughbred, of course,
for quality is in the blood.
But when a man goes out to stud,
he won't refuse a commoner
if lots of money goes with her.
And vulgar oafs with brutish ways
can marry noble girls, these days.
Good faith means nothing now, it's clear,
hard cash is all that's honored here,
while gentle blood unites with base -
the drachma's ruining our race.
You wonder, lad, that I disparage,
the present state of civil marriage?
Interesting that, like Hesiod, Theognis considered his age to be already decadent, although neither lived in particularly advanced societies (Athenian democracy came a little later). Hesiod was a poor shepherd in a feudal aristocracy where trade was only just burgeoning, but even he complained about his society's "fallen laws." Theognis was writing a century and a half (or so) after Hesiod, at a time when capitalism was perhaps not yet thriving, but present enough for men to found their new morality upon the pursuit of wealth, to the exclusion of religion. Theognis's comment on the bourgeois class displacing the old nobility brings the revolutions of early modern Europe strongly to mind. Nothing much really changes, we go around in the same circles.

- Mojo

Hesiod on women II.

From Hesiod's Works and Days, c.700BC:

... spoke the Gatherer of Clouds,
'Prometheus, most crafty god of all,
you stole the fire and tricked me, happily,
you, plague on all mankind and on yourself.
They'll pay for fire; I'll give another gift
to men, an evil thing for their delight,
and all will love this ruin in their hearts.'

... he told Hephaestus quickly to mix earth
and water, and to put in it a voice
and human power to move, to make a face
like an immortal goddess, and to shape
the lovely figure of a virgin girl.
Athene was to teach the girl to weave,
and golden Aphrodite to pour charm
upon her head, and painful, strong desire,
and body-shattering cares. Zeus ordered, then,
the killer of Argos, Hermes, to put in
sly manners, and the morals of a bitch.

The son of Cronus spoke, and was obeyed.
The lame god moulded earth, as Zeus decreed,
into the image of a modest girl.
Grey-eyed Athene made her robes and belt,
divine Seduction and the Graces gave
her golden necklaces, and for her head
the Seasons wove spring flowers into a crown.
Hermes the Messenger put in her breast
lies and persuasive words and cunning ways.
The herald of the gods then named the girl
Pandora, for the gifts which all the gods
had given her, this ruin of mankind.

The deep and total trap was now complete.
The Father sent the gods' fast messenger
to bring the gift to Epimetheus.
And Epimetheus forgot the words
his brother said, to take no gift from Zeus,
but send it back, lest it should injure men.
He took the gift, and understood, too late.

Before this time, men lived upon the earth
apart from sorrow and from painful work.
... but now the woman opened up the cask,
and scattered pains and evils among men.
Gatherer of Clouds, the son of Cronus, the Father = Zeus
The lame god = Hephaestus
The herald of the gods, the gods' fast messenger = Hermes

Epithemeus means 'hindsight.' His brother is Prometheus, whose name means 'foresight.' Pandora means 'all the gifts,' i.e. all the gifts that the gods had contributed to her creation, hence Hermes' naming her this.

- Mojo

Hesiod on women.

From Hesiod's Theogony, c.700BC:
... all the race of womankind,
the deadly female race and tribe of wives,
who live with mortal men and bring them harm,
no help to them in dreadful poverty,
but ready enough to share with them in wealth.

As in the covered hive the honey-bees
keep feeding drones, conspirators in wrong,

every day, all day long, until the sun goes down,
the workers hurry about their work and build white honeycombs,
while those inside in the sheltered storeroom,
fill their bellies up with products of the toil of others,
thus, women are bad for men,
and they conspire in wrong.

... if a man avoids marriage and all the troubles women bring,
and never takes a wife,
at last he comes to miserable old age,
and does not have anyone who will care for the old man.
He has enough to live on, while he lives,
but when he dies, his distant relatives divide his property.

The married man who gets a good wife,
suited to his taste, gets good and evil mixed,
but he who gets one of the deadly sort
lives all his life with never-ending pain,

inside his heart and on his mind;
the wound cannot be healed.
According to the Hesiodic tradition, woman was created as man's punishment for Prometheus's transgression in bringing fire to the mortals. She was constructed by the gods Athene and Hephaestus intentionally as a trap for men, who would be attracted to her beauty, then suffer from their association with her.

The line about women being no help to men in poverty, but ready enough to share in their wealth, makes me think that the gynocentric double standards of our age (one-way alimony laws, etc.) are not the products of a few sick women called feminists, but of female nature made manifest. Hesiod was writing long before anything called 'feminism' existed, and yet he covers the same problems we now face.

I have often wondered if the ancient patriarchies were constructed as a matter of necessity - for men to protect themselves against women's passive-aggressive predations (violence and extortion by proxy, etc.) If women having a share in power necessarily entails misandry, injustice and the systematic exploitation/enserfment of men (as in the last sixty years of organized feminism), then this all really is a zero sum game, and the only logical solution for men to protect themselves - now or in the past - would be to throw off the female yoke and establish patriarchal order.

- Mojo

Search keywords.

Here is a sample of Google searches that have brought people to my blog:


I guess my blog just exudes Internet tough guy for so many people to end up here after searching for it. What I find amazing is 1) that two separate people both searched for "masturbation super happy fun time," and 2) that they ended up here.

To answer the question one visitor posed: it varies. If I'm in a rush or might be disturbed then no, I don't do it naked. I may have to suddenly pull my pants up and try to seem like I wasn't doing anything immoral, so I can't afford to take my clothes off entirely. I don't recall this ever happening. Although, I would almost certainly have repressed the experience of being caught jacking off, so I can't say with any certainty that it hasn't.

I do it naked before going to sleep, since I sleep naked anyway. So there's the answer to your question, anonymous visitor. I hope it is to your satisfaction.

For the clingy gf meme, see here. I don't know anything about a pure purple party pill, but I like the thought of people stumbling onto Pale & Dorky's post without knowing any of the context.

- Mojo

The good men rejects.

Never shall I earnestly proclaim that I am a "good man." Nor that I am trying to become a "good man."

(We all know this is the metric by which women attempt to measure us, and a woman is a poor measure of a man.)

I am simply man. Like nearly all people, I have too many and varying, sometimes conflicting, emotions, temperaments, stimuli, desires, fears and ambitions to be either "good" or "evil." Like nearly all others, I am too complex to be reduced in this way.

At times, I will do things that some will find offensive, even unethical (by their metric). I might refuse to be held accountable for my conduct. I might even tell you to go fuck yourself.

Man is the embodiment of masculinity; masculinity is the essence of man. Beautiful, honorable, immutable masculinity. Not traditional, but transcendent. It is not a phenomenon that can be thrown away or consigned to history. It is fact, it simply is, it remains for as long as men do.

Man may not be strictly "good," nor is he strictly "bad." Virtue cannot exist unless it has vice to run up against, to test it. This is the mistake idealists, utopians and social engineers make; the world without potential for sin is the world without moral choices, thus the world without morality at all.

What man has, if not goodness or badness, is staying power.

A message then, to all those who despise men - not just openly misandric bigots, but those who want to change men, to modify us or our "culture," to make us more like this and less like that:

We ain't going nowhere and you'd better get used to that.

- Mojo

Take The Purple Pill: The GayLeo-Flame Cult

When I started this blog, I never envisaged having multiple authors. But a longtime reader and avid fan of the Chronicles emailed me begging to let him write. He told me that he has some shocking revelations about the manosphere, and after giving it some thought, I agreed. Without further ado, here's Pale & Dorky.

- Mojo

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
I am using the pseudonym Pale & Dorky to avoid being identified. Identified by whom, you might be asking. Well, that's just the thing. You never know who might be one of them. They can disguise their IPs, use pseudonyms, and may even be capable of shapeshifting.
Who am I talking about? The GayLeo-Flame Cult, of course. They are operating throughout the manosphere, on many different sites, exploiting people like myself and my compatriot AlexNobody. They do this derailing all discussions relating to men's rights and covertly introducing new topics - such as homosexuality, astrology, and arson.

This is why I have given them the name The GayLeo-Flame Cult. And make no mistake about it, they are a cult. They believe unquestioningly in these beliefs. They are deluded, brainwashed, zombie-like followers of the homosexual lifestyle, horoscopes, and setting fire to buildings. They will viciously attack anyone who questions their cultlike beliefs, or who tries to steer the conversation back towards men's rights.
 
How can you recognize a GayLeo-Flame Cultist? It's simple: they defend, discuss, mention or link to homosexuality, astrology and arson, or any sites discussing or mentioning these subjects. This includes anyone who doubts the existence of the GayLeo-Flame Cult. It's definitely real and only a GayLeo-Flame Cultist would deny that.

When the SPLC attacked the manosphere, why did they do this? Because of our close links to people promoting gays, astrology, and arson, of course. And WE FUCKING GIVE THESE PUBLICATIONS THE AMMO, by linking to them and talking about them. You can bet that another hit piece is in the works because of our links to the GayLeo-Flame Cult.
However, there is hope. I believe that the GayLeo-Flame Cult is on the verge of death and total irrelevance. Why? Because the things it promises simply don't work, and soon all MRAs will realize this and rise up to overthrow the GayLeo-Flame Cult. The GayLeo-Flame Cult promises that you will improve your life by becoming gay, reading horoscopes, and committing arson, but none of this is true. I predict that the GayLeo-Flame Cult will finally fall within 6 months.
Until then, however, we must all take the purple pill. The 'red pill,' you see, is just another blue pill, and so is the 'black pill.' The only true red pill is the purple pill. This is the pill that you take when you realize most manosphere sites are full of GayLeo-Flame Cultists and people who disagree with me.
See the links on the right of the screen for a partial list of GayLeo-Flame Cult sites. It is incomplete and constantly expanding since the reach of the GayLeo-Flame Cult is very extensive. Please add your own in the comments.
Peace out, and remember to take the purple pill.
- Pale & Dorky

You're a Paleo-Game cultist, too.

Hello, my name is Mojo and I just started blogging this month. My blog is called the Neckbeard Chronicles, even though I'm not really much of a neckbeard. I write about a number of things, but Paleo diets and Game are not among them. I don't follow the Paleo diet in real life, nor do I attempt to pass myself off as any kind of PUA or Game practitioner, beyond the basics everyone should know by now (i.e. don't be a supplicating wuss around women you plan to sleep with).

I came across the Black Pill blog, which specializes in attacking other manosphere blogs on the grounds that they belong to a secretive cult called the Paleo-Game cult. I find this all rather suspect and wrote a post suggesting that they may be feminists attempting to divide and discredit the manosphere.

In response to this, the people behind the blog called me a member of the Paleo-Game cult. Which isn't surprising, since they call everyone who disagrees with them a member of the Paleo-Game cult. They also think that Paleo-Game cult members are extremely paranoid and delusional for not believing in the Paleo-Game cult.

Now White & Nerdy has taken it a step further and made a post about it in my honor:
The Paleo-Game Cult is falling apart. Another reason why the Paleo-Game Cult is falling apart is because of their paranoid delusions about anyone who disagrees with them.

[...]

I have been accused of being a feminist troll and running a false flag operation. This guy has also lied by saying that I have called for the elimination of women and lied by saying that Alek is a virgin. [W&N linked to my blog here - ed] We’re already at the point where disagreeing with the Paleo-Game Cult no matter how much or how little you disagree with them gets you labeled a “feminist troll” and someone who is running a “false flag operation” on top of the many other lies they will make up about you.

[...]

While the Paleo-Game Cult was always extremely paranoid, these examples show us how the Paleo-Game Cult is becoming even more paranoid. Anyone who has even a minimal disagreement with these people will be attacked as “disinfo shill” or “government agents”. They’re even doing it to their fellow paleo dieters. They’re getting ready to attack MRAs with these lies. How long will it be until MRAs like PMAFT or Elusive Wapiti become the recipient of these attacks? Not long, and this will be another reason the Paleo-Game Cult will die. Being attacked as a “government agent” or a sockpuppet isn’t going to be tolerated by the larger group of MRAs and will only serve to isolate the Paleo-Game Cult from everyone else bringing to the cult closer to complete and total irrelevance and death.
Despite having been around for all of three weeks, and having never discussed the Paleo diet or Game, W&N thinks my criticism of The Black Pill is evidence that I am a Paleo-Game cult member, and that the Paleo-Game cult is becoming more paranoid. Genuine MRAs like PM/AFT and The Elusive Wapiti aren't going to be attacked as false flag feminists, because they're obviously not. The clue is in the fact that they don't spend all their time attacking other manosphere sites.

Also, I didn't lie about anything in my post - all I did was quote W&N and AlekNovy, then respond to it. Go and check yourself using the links above. So that makes W&N not only paranoid and delusional, but an outright liar, too - everything he calls anyone who disagrees with him. This is either pure projection or pure feminist trolling.

Things get really crazy in the comments to the post. Since I was being slandered, I waded in to ask how I could be a member of the Paleo-Game cult when I don't post about Paleo or Game. W&N responded with the following gem, which doesn't at all suggest pathological narcissism and a persecution complex:
If you’re really have nothing to do with game or the paleo diet, then you wouldn’t be so invested in disagreeing with me.
So even if you have nothing to do with Game or the Paleo diet, you can still be a member of the Paleo-Game cult, if you disagree with W&N about anything. This is exactly how feminists act with their equally false concept of patriarchy. If you ever criticize a feminist on anything, then you're a patriarch, or if you're a woman, you're brainwashed by the patriarchy. W&N's accusations that people belong to the Paleo-Game cult works on exactly the same principle.

A commenter named ybm also attacked me for questioning how I could be a Paleo-Game cultist when I don't talk about or defend either Paleo or Game. His response was not to address my question, but to call me a "conspiracy theory nutbag" and a "racist, reactionary, flawed, nutrition obsessed stooge." Name-calling rather than addressing legitimate concerns - another sure sign that these people are feminists. Even when in disguise, they aren't able to discuss issues like normal, rational people.

Finally, a commenter named Grizzly implied that, since I link to people who discuss the Paleo diet, racism and Game, I must by necessity also support these things. Which doesn't really make sense since I also link to the Black Pill and clearly don't agree with them, so obviously I don't just agree with everything I link to. Also, a lot of the blogs I link to often disagree with each other, so it would be impossible for me to agree with them all about everything.

I defended myself by stating that I am interested in subjects beyond men's rights, which is why I link to those blogs. Grizzly responded:
You have interests like game, racism, and all around kookery. Therefore you’re a part of the Paleo-Game cult.
Apparently that's all it takes - you just have to be interested in the subjects, you don't even need to agree with them. We're all Paleo-Game cultists now.

As I said in my last post on the subject, I fully accept the 'Paleo-Game cultist' label because there's no such thing, and to make fun of W&N, AlekNovy, and the rest of the idiots at the Black Pill.

- Mojo

As rhetoric is to philosophy, so women are to men.

When someone tries to sound clever or profound, in an attempt to dazzle their audience, they are being a rhetorician.

When someone seeks the nature of truth, and follows the argument wherever it leads, they are being a philosopher.

The sophists of Athens were targeted by Plato because their arguments were weak. They relied on diversionary tactics like ad hominem attacks to make their points. No doubt, they said many fashionable things that the people liked to hear, and sounded very impressive to impressionable listeners. But it was Socrates who was willing to sacrifice everything - beliefs, principles, even his own life - in the pursuit of eternal, unchangeable truth.

It is from the thought of Socrates - via the students who followed him, through a fair amount of trial and error - that we have the scientific method. Plato's Academy was founded to counter the false hype of the rhetoricians. The emphasis was not on how to impress but on what actually is, and included early studies into mathematics, astronomy, zoology, physics, and more.

Men and women are after different things when they argue. Their aims and, therefore, their approaches, are as different as that of the philosopher and the rhetorician. This is why there have been few female philosophers (and certainly no great ones). As Rob Fedders puts it:
Men tend to, but not always, hold the truth to be the decider of the debate. [...] The man who illustrates the truth the best, is generally considered the winner of a debate. Women, not so much. [...] Women decide who “wins” a debate by who has been the snotty-mouthiest and by who emotionally manipulates the other into submission. The truth matters not a bit to women.
The 'truth,' as far as women are concerned, is whatever most other people believe to be true. While a man considers his belief to be vindicated when it is verified by empirical data or logical argument, a woman considers her belief to be vindicated when others will back her up on it. For women, winning an argument is less about truth than it is about status - hence the reliance on shaming tactics, ad hominems, and the like. The aim is not to demonstrate the correctness of her proposition but to smear the character of her opponent, such that nobody would want to take the opponent's side even if he has put forth the superior argument.

It is surely no coincidence that women gaining the right to vote, and subsequently flooding into higher education, happened at the same time as the rise of post-modern pseudo-philosophies which explicitly deny that truth has any nature whatsoever. I do not draw this comparison to disparage women, for I do not mean to disparage rhetoric. It is a potent weapon and awe-inspiring when wielded properly. But philosophy aims at truth which exists even if nobody were there to appreciate it; rhetoric by way of contrast aims for its own success, which is dependent upon its capacity to convince others of its own version of truth.

The Academy has become corrupted. It has become a tool for disseminating the material of sophists, now known as 'deconstructionists' and 'social constructionists,' among other names. Universities produce impressive, high-flung, utter crap which does not even have to meet the minimum criteria for internal consistency. Social science papers can be completely nonsensical, as the Sokal hoax demonstrated.

Post-modernists and the like aren't really serious when they say there is no objective truth, and therefore, no justification for traditions or social rules of any kind. We know this, because they have no sooner 'deconstructed' a social norm, than they set about constructing a different one in its place - one which they find more favorable, and which is of course not subject to the same scrutiny, but assumes the status of a politically correct, untouchable truth.

Of course, if you are going to make your new truths untouchable, you have to be prepared to exercise violence against those who question them. You're going to have to force conformity of thought through legal and extra-legal means: orchestrated mob outrage, employment threats, innovative lawsuits, imprisonment, etc.

In other words, you're going to have to kill Socrates.

The democrats of antiquity were moral relativists, too. Today, universal suffrage has transformed Western societies into wonderfully egalitarian POLICE STATES.

- Mojo

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

SOCRATES: Shall I tell you, Theodorus, what amazes me in your acquaintance Protagoras?

THEODORUS: What is it?

SOCRATES: I am charmed with his doctrine, that what appears is to each one, but I wonder that he did not begin his book on Truth with a declaration that a pig or a dog-faced baboon, or some other yet stranger monster which has sensation, is the measure of all things; then he might have shown a magnificent contempt for our opinion of him by informing us at the outset that while we were reverencing him like a God for his wisdom he was no better than a tadpole, not to speak of his fellow-men-would not this have produced an overpowering effect? For if truth is only sensation, and no man can discern another's feelings better than he, or has any superior right to determine whether his opinion is true or false, but each, as we have several times repeated, is to himself the sole judge, and everything that he judges is true and right, why, my friend, should Protagoras be preferred to the place of wisdom and instruction, and deserve to be well paid, and we poor ignoramuses have to go to him, if each one is the measure of his own wisdom?

I am a Paleo-Game cultist.

Someone calling himself (or rather themselves) 'Dudes' posted a link to my article calling out The Black Pill for being deep cover feminist trolls on The Black Pill's latest post.

AlekNovy first responded by calling me a conspiracy theorist in cahoots with their other critics, which is itself a conspiracy theory:
It’s not the first time. Conspiracy theorists are good at one thing, creating conspiracy theories.

We even had a running joke here, when we used to say “Barbarossa is a Rockafeller operative who hired Black Pill to create a massive super-paralel computer running thousands of sockpuppet accounts on autopilot”.

Again, when someone is an ignorant piece of shit, and they run into cognitive dissonance (the facts don’t add up in terms of one conspiracy theory the bought) —> they just invent a newer conspiracy theory to place on top or instead of it.
Then White & Nerdy (aka The Black Pill) labelled me a member of the Paleo-Game cult, even though one of my main criticisms of him is that the Paleo-Game cult is an invention of his own mind:
This seems pretty similar to something at Hawaiian Fat Blob’s blog where he started with vague unsubstantiated accusations of government/elite propaganda agents in the manosphere. In that case, they didn’t name me or this blog by name like the like above did. However, it is interested that all of a sudden the Paleo-Game Cult is taking the approach that anyone who disagrees with them is a troll or a government propaganda agent.
I never accused him of being a government propaganda agent. My assumption is that he(?) is a feminist working to discredit the MRM. Feminists =/= government propaganda agents.

'Hawaiian Fat Blob' is apparently the name they give to Hawaiian Libertarian. Very clever nickname.

W&N is displaying many classic traits of a paranoiac. His response to someone pointing out that there is no evidence for the existence of the evil cult he believes is persecuting him, is to accuse that person of being a cult member. I suppose there could never be any legitimate refutation of the Paleo-Game cult's existence, since anyone who doesn't think it exists is by necessity a member of the cult trying to deceive W&N.

Since it is impossible to refute the existence of the Paleo-Game cult, I might as well own the label. I hereby admit that I am a member of the Paleo-Game cult. W&N has uncovered our secret plot to infiltrate MRA spaces and talk about diets and other subjects tangentially related to men's rights.
- Mojo

Jumped-up public school radfem vs. gay conservative: FIGHT!!!

(Note for my American readers: in the UK, for some retarded reason, we refer to private schools as 'public schools,' and public schools as 'state schools.')

From the Times (£), reposted here:
Starkey, speaking at the Sunday Times Festival of Education at Wellington college in Berkshire, first sparked an angry reaction from a female audience member when he said a group of Asian men in Rochdale convicted of grooming white girls for sex had values that were “entrenched in the foothills of the Punjab or wherever it is” and that they needed to be “inculcated in the British ways of doing things”.

The row erupted again when the woman in the audience, Laurie Penny, a radical blogger and journalist, joined Starkey on a panel discussion of Britishness.

Penny, who was taught by Anthony Seldon, master of Wellington, when she was a pupil at one of his previous schools, accused Starkey of “playing xenophobia and national prejudice for laughs”.

She continued — to shouts of “keep going, keep going” from the audience — making an argument about Starkey’s tax status.

After she sat down, the Cambridge historian, known for his television programmes about the Tudors, walked over to her, jabbed his finger at her face and said he objected to being described as if he was a “mean and grasping runt comedian”, possibly a reference to the tax affairs of Jimmy Carr. He added: “I will not be lectured to by a jumped-up public school girl like you,” saying, with another jab: “I will not have it!”

Penny, 25, a columnist for the New Statesman, continued, but Claire Fox, director of the Institute of Ideas think tank, stood up and said to her: “You started it, you called him a racist. It is intolerable.”

Penny replied: “He is a racist.”

Fox said: “You are a disgrace to women and you are a disgrace to the left.”

As the session ended, Tim Novis, the chaplain of Wellington college, came to the stage to prevent further trouble, followed by Starkey’s boyfriend, James Brown, who ushered him away.
So we have a gay conservative defending white wimmin against predatory Muslim gangs, a radfem defending predatory Muslim gangs, and a leftist woman betraying the sistahood. LOL. WHAT A CLUSTERFUCK. This has pretty much made my day.

Laurie Penny is indeed an intolerable bigot, but I don't know if she's a "disgrace" to the left so much as an exemplary model of it. Listening to her, you are left in no doubt that she holds everyone she is speaking to in contempt. Being a little rich girl, she is of course isolated from (and thus clueless about) the consequences of mass immigration on working class neighbourhoods and communities. Like most middle/upper-class communists (her Twitter handle is 'PennyRed'), she doesn't know, and doesn't want to know, how the workers actually feel about things.

All Starkey is really arguing for is that new migrants should be expected to assimilate to British law and customs - which was UK immigration policy from Windrush right up until 1997 when New Labour pursued multiculti instead. And as Starkey has previously pointed out, that didn't really work out so well for anyone. Even Labour are now admitting that they fucked it up on immigration. Starkey is vindicated!
- Mojo

Cutting down the internet.


The internet is electronic cocaine. All of us - bloggers, commenters, lurkers and trolls - are hopelessly addicted to novelty:
“The computer is electronic cocaine for many people,” says Whybrow. “Our brains are wired for finding immediate reward. With technology, novelty is the reward. You essentially become addicted to novelty.”

We can’t stop because the brain has no built-in braking system. With most natural constraints gone, all we’ve got left is our own intelligence and the internal regulatory system in the frontal cortex, the most recent evolutionary addition to the brain. This “executive brain” regulates impulse control and reasoning. But, Whybrow notes, “despite our superior intelligence, we remain driven by our ancient desires.”

The most primitive part of our brain – the medulla and cerebellum – developed millennia ago when dinner tended to run or fly away. It cradles the roots of the ancient dopamine reward pathways. When an action has a good result, like snatching food before it escapes, or finding something new, dopamine neurotransmitters release chemicals that make us feel pleasure. And the more we get, the more we want. When these reward circuits are overloaded with near-continuous spikes in dopamine, our craving for reward – be it drugs, sex, food, or incoming texts – “becomes a hunger that has no bounds,” says Whybrow.
If you're like me, then you spend practically your entire working day sitting at a screen, much of it on the internet. The problem is that you have to do things you don't want to do, while the things you do want to do - Youtube, Facebook, etc. - are mere keystrokes away.

So what's the first thing you do when you get home? You fire up the PC and keep on staring at a screen, doing the things you do want to do, and have wanted to do all day. It's such a relief from all the tedious work you had to do.

Stepping away from the screen would be more life-affirming, as you well know. But you still don't do it, do you? No, you sit there, barely moving, clicking away late into the night. You can't go to bed yet. You might miss something.

It's not entirely your fault. Like me, you've inadvertently wired your brain into dependence on online novelty. The crappiest blogs are sufficiently stimulating to keep us all entranced into the early hours, awash in the eerie blue glow of cyberspace. And the more you do this, the less tolerant you become of long articles - you want novelty sooner, which is why microblogging (Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, and three-sentence posts) have become so popular.

As you can see from the long list down the right side of the page, I read a lot of blogs. I spend a lot of time online. Too much time, in fact, which I could be using to do other things. Like reading the classics or learning a language or going outside in the sun or traveling.

On that note, Matt Forney recently announced that he is unplugging from the matrix for the remainder of his travels across the States, although that was three days ago and he has posted twice since then. I have no grand plans like traversing a continent, but I can relate to what he says about the isolation of being permanently connected. Being online puts us in direct contact with millions of people from all over the world. Yet each of us is very much alone.

In an earlier post, Forney listed all the sites he's going to stop reading on his trek. I can see his point. Political blogs always seem like they're having a slow news day. MRAs just rehash the same arguments, which is not necessarily a bad thing since they need to keep to a set number of issues and concentrate on agitating for those - but I've heard it a hundred times now. Game posts are variations on a theme.

My point isn't that I'm bored of any of this. That's the problem. If I was bored, there would be nothing stopping me from quitting the manosphere altogether. The problem is that there's not much useful information, but I'm addicted to it anyway. Like craving junk food.

I'm on day 17 of the Chronicles and I've posted every day so far. What can I say, I've always had something to talk about. Posts may become less frequent in the future as, like Bob Chandler the internet lumberjack, I start to cut down the internet.

From today, I'm using LeechBlock to limit my browsing time to two hours a day. I've used LeechBlock in the past to stop myself from accessing certain sites I was particularly addicted to (no, not porn) and it works. It's time to pull out the stops and apply it universally.

The internet is great. It's how we all found out about the red pill and related concepts. If not for the manosphere, we might all still be wondering if the things that make us miserable are personal rather than political.

But ... real life is great, too. And spending too much time reading the inconsequential thoughts of random assholes on the other side of the Atlantic is not healthy for anyone.

I will report on any interesting developments that result from cutting down the internet.

- Mojo