This is one for all you married bros. Break out that credit card and get your wife what she deserves.
This is one for all you married bros. Break out that credit card and get your wife what she deserves.
This site now has its own top-level domain name. http://v5k2c2.com and is still hosted on wordpress servers. There are a number of reasons that I have gone this route. Immediately, I was compelled by the increase in spammy ads that wordpress was employing against any non-account holders who came here to read the site. You should now be seeing this blog ad-free. You’re welcome. Of course, in doing this I was conceding to a sort of strong-arm tactic, but in the end it was only 50 dollars.
The conspiracy theorists will now conclude that wordpress has all my personal details: legal name, work and home addresses, telephone numbers, credit card numbers, etc. That’s true. My full legal name has been fairly well known around the sphere for years. Hell: The name of this blog denotes the (less than 1 km^2) area in which I lived, when I started it up.
I was an early financial supporter of Bill Price (I know, kick me, but I felt sorry for him.) He knew much more about me than wordpress ever will, and even after he banned me from his blog and married a feminist, he didn’t sell me out. It’s an open secret that I have met many big manosphere names in person, and have participated on the back-end in some of their projects.
On the other end, my boss already knows I write here. The IT department outed me weeks ago, and we’ve had conversations about shit I’ve posted. She thinks some of my articles are outrageous, and some are funny, and when I asked her recently if she had a professional problem with it, she said something along the lines of “it’s called academic freedom, dumbass…” before buying me a coffee.
If anything, I’m more hesitant to think that the manosphere authors who have met me will connect the mild-mannered proofreader they know to the asshole who has been going by “Boxer.”
I had two other options: I could try to rig something up at home (too time-consuming) or migrate to Google’s blogger, which will farm out my readers’ asses to every spammer and con-artist in existence, for next to nothing.
I learned the hard way in this regard, when I started a gmail account to handle my manosphere-related communications. Just days after I opened my google account, I left some comment on an MGTOW blog, and almost immediately started getting solicitations to buy fleshlights, real dolls, and all manner of other incel-related paraphernalia. About a week later, I posted on heartiste, and suddenly was inundated with all manner of ads for illegal viagra and penis-enhancement devices. Am I an incel or a playa? Google doesn’t know, and doesn’t care. They’ll shotgun me with so much crap that something is bound to draw me in. Why should I put any of you guys through that?
In any case, I hope the reading experience here is a little less cluttered.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
The notion of truth is extant in a number of different contexts. In the painting, above, we can find a measure of truth, but this truth is aesthetic. Pilate used the term to mock his position, as judge of a trial which he clearly thought was closer to farce than reality. Postmodernist faggots will often assert that no such thing exists as truth. One of the more annoying aspects of working where I do is having to deal with such goons. They’ll often excuse their devotion to orthodoxy, and my lack of enthusiasm for the same, by asserting something like “that’s your truth, but I have my own.” Such statements are meaningless in themselves, and when I hear them, I make a mental note never to take the speaker seriously, in any context, ever again.
I’d like to discuss the notion of truth in a restricted domain, motivated by logicians like Russell and Tarski, who were also fans of the correspondence theory. Bertrand Russell wrote that the logical proposition is the bearer of truth. (1) He also noted that propositions are encoded in sentences. (2) Tarski’s theory of truth (3) is the one most cited today. Like Russell’s theory, it includes a two-language composite structure. The concept of a sentence as truth-bearer is pretty straightforward. By sentence we mean a set of sounds, uttered in sequence, or a set of squiggly lines, which make up a well-formed formula. In either case, the reader or listener is able to intuitively decode the semantic content of the language, which is then metalinguistically used to get at the logical proposition beneath the words. This last part is the tricky part, because all sorts of things can go wrong in the mind of the reader, as he attempts to unconceal the truth-bearing proposition behind the metalanguage. (4)
So what is truth? I’m a fan of the correspondence theory in most contexts; though there are competitors (5) with their own merits. Aristotle was the first correspondence theorist. He wrote:
But on the other hand there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate. This is clear, in the first place, if we define what the true and the false are. To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who says of anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either what is true or what is false; but neither what is nor what is not is said to be or not to be.
The concept of truth is pre-epistemological. This is a fancy way of saying that what we know is based partly upon the truth of the thing we claim to know. You can’t “know” something that is false, because falsehoods evade justification, which is another prerequisite to knowledge. Plato called knowledge “justified true belief,” (7), but the Gettier cases (8) suggest that justification and truth are not enough yet to define knowledge. There is some additional prerequisite, which is very difficult to pin down.
So, what does all this complicated stuff mean for us? Basically it means that, s being a well formed sentence:
s is true iff s
In other words, if I make a statement, I am prepared to back it up with a pointer to some fact, some state-of-affairs, that is verifiable. If I say:
There is a blue car in space no. 4 of the parking lot.
Then any listener who can intuit the semantic import of this well-formed sentence can appropriately check space 4, and verify the existence of the car so mentioned.
The correspondence theory and Tarski’s truth conditions have some notable contextual problems, however. Suppose I write on this blog that:
5 + 3 = 8
Can any of my readers be expected to find the numbers 5, 3 and 8 in some spatiotemporal location? It seems unlikely. Try it out.
There are certain truths that can be uttered without metaphysical correspondence. I can claim this sentence is true (and I do). I can be sure it is true. Perhaps more sure of it than most other things, despite the fact that I can never tell you what the number 5 looks like, or where it’s located.
There are people who make pretty good arguments for the untruth of all mathematical statements. (9) Such epistemologists/metaphysicians generally don’t deny that mathematics is useful, but they find it inconceivable to believe that a sentence full of acausal, abstract objects can bear truth-claims.
There’s a heated argument down below, in some ancient thread. Brother Kryptonian wrote:
My position has and always shall be, that man NEEDS women, so please stop side tracking this issue
Despite the angry responses he got, I can’t disagree with this brother. I grew up with the sure knowledge that I needed a woman. I remember expecting to find a cute girlfriend, sometime in my late teens. I figured I would serve a Mormon mission, come home and marry her, and immediately begin cranking out hot Mormon babies. We’d grow old together, each having been each others’ first loves, and eventually be buried in the shade of the temple.
Of course, these dreams and expectations were largely ideological: a product of the pre-fab identity I was born into (see Jacques Lacan and Louis Althusser for more on this idea). They also grew up alongside a great number of other expectations and dreams, which included (but were not limited to) owning a flying car, and taking regular vacations to domed resort cities on the Planet Venus.
Men need women. This can’t be denied. Men also need antibiotics, regular dental checkups, a functional weight room, and a home with electricity and running water on tap. Everything we were created and/or evolved to need is not necessarily available in the world we find ourselves in. Getting basic: Many men starve to death in places like Africa and Asia. The fact that they were born with a need to eat food did not guarantee food to be on offer.
Thus I read Kryptonian’s arguments with Earl, Honeycomb, et. al. to be an argument of nature v. nurture. Men need women for companionship, to keep their homes, and to serve their emotional, sexual and temporal needs. Unfortunately, women are in very short supply presently. What we have instead are skank-ho wimminz.
At some point in time, between my early years of confidence that I’d end up a married father, and have a career as a radio DJ, and the present day, I found AfOR’s blog. The author lived my dream, only to see his life flushed directly into the toilet by his vindictive wife. In my earlier years (going on seven years now) he was my tutor to instruct me. The fact that I use the term “wimminz” to denote most modern females is a direct result of reading his work in those days. I can’t say for certain that his survival guide saved me for a prison sentence, but I know I’m less likely to be on the end of a false accusation because I follow most of his sound advice.
I do not agree with AfOR on everything. For example: NAWALT. I’m totally fine with the assumption that there are chaste women in the world who will keep their commitments and not screw their husbands over. I am confident of this, despite the fact that many of my friends and relatives have been screwed over, by the wives who promised to “love, honor and obey.” The screwing-over came the minute they became bored, or the screwing-over became convenient, with absolutely no thought of the future consequences, to their husbands, their children, or even themselves.
What I am most certain of is that I can not discern the women from the wimminz. This was one of the first propositions in which I ever had complete faith, and I remain absolutely confident in my own inability to pick out a woman from among the wimminz.
Moreover, it is not my burden to do the discerning. In AfOR’s own words:
Now, how do we differentiate between women and wimminz?
Simple, as Men, we don’t… IT IS NOT OUR FUCKING PROBLEM!
I am, of course, happy that Brother Derek has found a decent woman, and is currently engaged in repopulating his part of the world with his descendants. He is a better and more trusting man than I am. I do hope that Kryptonian can find a woman, rather than ending up suckered by a wimminz into giving up all his money. As for me, I find the cost-benefit ratio pretty fearsome, and I won’t be taking that particular plunge.
I just got done with Peter Sloterdijk’s book Bubbles, which is the first huge tome in a trilogy entitled Spheres, that, when taken together, will probably compose the author’s magnum opus.
While I’d never call myself a philosopher, I have become competent at reading philosophy, thanks to bothering people who are smarter than I am, while on the clock. Sloterdijk is a philosopher. He’s in residence at Art and Design University, Karlsruhe (Germany). He also hosts a popular television talk show, where he has featured guests as diverse as Paul Virilio and Slavoj Žižek. It’s illustrative to note the difference between European and American tee-vee audiences by this fact alone. I can’t even find middlebrow stuff on pay tee-vee here.
Sloterdijk’s main point in this book is strangely relevant to the ‘sphere (sorry for the pun). It’s a clumsy segue; but, I’m a huge fan of blogs like The Anarchist Notebook, where there’s a fair bit of philosophical import on offer. The author has lately been critiquing open borders libertarians. Our Questioning comrade writes stuff such as:
Open borders advocates’ argument on immigration and human movement, if applied elsewhere, would hold that drug dealers should be allowed to cook meth in an RV within National Parks because the state has no legitimate authority to enforce those rules because it has no just claim to that land it acquired through coercion and finances through theft. Also, in a libertarian society drug dealing would be legal and so would meth production, so the state has no right to enforce anti-drug laws, either.
Libertarians like the idea of open borders because they think that the border jumpers are, at heart, individuals; and that as individuals are basic to a political system, they can be easily integrated into the system they’re jumping into. Thus we see the philosophical problem at the core of political libertarianism: It is a confusion as to what is basic in the political sphere (sorry, again). Libertarians like to think that the individual is basic, but as Sloterdijk points out, individuals don’t exist. Human beings are born with a sense of longing for communion.
Sloterdijk speculates that we come to the conclusion that we are meant to be together with one other due to the presence of the placenta in the womb. The placenta has its own pulse, distinct from the fetus’, and being flushed through the birth canal (and into the underworld) is the beginning of a psychic separation from which we spend the rest of our lives trying to recover.
(Peter Sloterdijk, Spheres Vol. 1: Bubbles. trans: M. Lowenthal. New York: Semiotext(e), 2011. 343-347)
Thus we find ourselves yearning for our twin, and when we find this person, we instinctively marry and settle down and have children.
This is more important than anyone, these days, is prepared to admit. The basic political unit is the dyad: the two-sphere, the family unit, composed of a man and a woman (sorry faggots). This is what the libertarians get wrong, and this is why they’re destined to endlessly circle-jerk from one failure to another, dreaming of a society in which potheads can drive stoned without a government license, without ever causing any accidents. The libertarian paradise suggests that we can successfully integrate 7 billion African refugees into New Mexico without significant social problems. They’re all individuals, and as such, interchangeable with the legal citizens whose people settled that part of North America, so it’s no big deal.
Society in microcosm is not a single person, it is the relationship between two individuals. Herbert Marcuse noted, way back in the 1950’s, that this relationship transcended sex. He also noted that modern industrialized society found it to be too subversive to allow developing naturally. Marcuse invites a comparison:
compare love-making in a meadow and in an automobile, on a lovers’ walk outside the town walls and on a Manhattan street. In the former cases, the environment partakes of and invites libidinal cathexis and tends to be eroticized. Libido transcends beyond the immediate erotogenic zones a process of nonrepressive sublimation. In contrast, a mechanized environment seems to block such self-transcendence of libido. Impelled in the striving to extend the field of erotic gratification, libido becomes less “polymorphous,” less capable of eroticism beyond localized sexuality, and the latter is intensified.
Thus diminishing erotic and intensifying sexual energy, the technological reality limits the scope of sublimation. It also reduces the need for sublimation. In the mental apparatus, the tension between that which is desired and that which is permitted seems considerably lowered, and the Reality Principle no longer seems to require a sweeping and painful transformation of instinctual needs. The individual must adapt himself to a world which does not seem to demand the denial of his innermost needs: a world which is not essentially hostile.
(Herbert Marcuse, One Dimensional Man. New York: Routledge, 1991. 77-78)
Ultimately, the study of what exists is ontology. We are designed (by God or nature, it doesn’t really matter) to couple up with someone we like, and we construct a dyadic ontology to protect ourselves, primarily from invasive ideas. The status-quo hates this, and has spent enormous amounts of time and money trying to erase this aspect of human nature, largely through ideological nonsense like radical feminism, white nationalism, and political libertarianism. We can take heart in the fact that eventually, our enemies are doomed to fail. We are hard wired to immunize ourselves from these toxic ideas, and our resistance to them begins at birth.
To begin with, I’d like to sincerely thank our Comrade Soldier, Brother Jason, for sharing his story about overcoming addiction. Given that I could barely quit cigarettes, and still drink coffee, I’m always a bit awestruck at hearing such powerful testimony. Shades of Nietzsche’s superman peek through such tales.
I should also preface this by admitting that I don’t expect this article to get many hits. Some of you will probably feel offended. That’s fine.
One of the things addictions seem to do is to hollow out the addict’s psychic personality. The constructed subject, in itself, is transformed (often in a very short time) into a machine which has as its goal the procurement of the substance (or behavior) which is the focus of the addiction. All the other aspects of the subject — the things that once made him “him” — are more-or-less blunted to serve the fix, or transformed into means to this end.
Johnny Rotten eulogized his friend, British musician Sid Vicious, in the media. Sid died of a heroin overdose, a day after murdering his Jewish-American girlfriend in New York City. Johnny described Sid’s decline into murder and suicide as a complete transformation: “Once you start on that heroin trail… it’s gone… you just disappear.” (The Unseen Sid Vicious)
What is most interesting is that the same phenomenon seems to happen to many PUA types.
The first clue that this process is at work is an immediate willingness to destroy once close, meaningful social relationships. This is not the same process that single dudes complain about when a brother gets wed. We all know the story about the pal who gets married, and suddenly disappears from view. That’s not what’s happening here. In the first place, the newly married brother has a legitimate commitment to a wife, and is probably working on starting a family. PUA types have no such reasonable conflicts. The women they bang don’t generally want any commitment to a man. They just want to fuck. Fucking such women doesn’t entail long hours at work to save for junior’s private school tuition. Moreover, the meaningful social relationships that such men enjoyed prior to adopting the PUA lifestyle are often destroyed overtly, by antisocial and outrageous behavior. PUA types self-induce a psychic erasure, replacing their authentic personality with a bizarre collection of tics, sexual fetishes, and irregular grooming and dressing habits.
The second clue directly follows from the first. What psychic contents are left are entirely self-centered. PUA types seem to define themselves, far too often, by being as annoying an asshole as possible, despite the fact that this is contextually unnecessary. Before finding books by Tucker Max and Cernovich, many of my pals (and it was not just internet acquaintances – I had meatspace friends who went this route) were on their way to moderately successful careers and had already begun establishing stable lives. After adopting their PUA personae, they generally lost interest in doing interesting stuff, and preferred to slack off, making “being a PUA” their one obvious goal in life. They still made enough money to buy fuzzy hats and get manicured fingernails, but all their higher aspirations seemed to go down the toilet.
In an essay, Jack Donovan defines the “metrosexual” PUA as “a “mirror man” whose highest narcissistic concerns are pleasure-seeking and being regarded as “desirable.” He may be in love with himself, but that, too, is a shallow kind of love. He cares more about how he looks and how well he fucks than what he has achieved or how well he is respected.” (Everyone A Harlot)
Now, the PUA will rebut these observations by claiming that their lifestyle has “liberated” the men who embrace it to build an authentic identity. The opposite is actually true. An authentic personality is socially constructed, and is based upon meaningful interpersonal relationships and ties to community. The PUA lifestyle does not allow for an authentic personality. It obliterates it.
It’s funny because it’s true.
An interesting video for Monday…
Years ago, I wandered down to my local (back then it was west coast USA) divorce courts. On occasion I’d see some poor bastard trying in vain to enforce his agreement. On one occasion, I saw the judge not bat an eye, when he declared that: “in accord with the agreement signed prior to the marriage, petitioner will keep the house which was bequeathed him by his parents.” He then immediately declared: “Petitioner will buy respondent a house of equal or greater value within the next thirty days.”