Of Anonymity and Impotence

99_2Now that the horse has been beaten to a brown stain on the side of the highway, I figured I’d zoom out and make a few observations.

Bayly’s angst about “the manosphere” is largely a reflection of his feelings about his own evangelical movement. Bayly suspects, at an emotional level, that Christianity is a historical failure: a cul-de-sac, a dying project. The difference between Bayly and us is that we knows that Christianity is a corpse, and some of us are attempting to revive it (or at least to save the Christian men within its ranks). For this good deed, Bayly and his crew hates us.

Bayly is a very shallow thinker. Like most people, he feels that something is terribly wrong, yet, as so many of his Christian brothers, he doesn’t understand the underlying currents which lead to the blossoming forth of so many aesthetic horrors.

Screen Shot 2019-03-09 at 00.00.45

Bayly can not handle honest criticism, even on the very website he laughably labels as “the reformation,” in which he begs for “discussion.” He runs his web page like he runs his church, no doubt: permanently detached from everyday reality. He criticizes people for their anonymity, when it’s clear he has none of what Taleb calls skin in the game himself.

Dalrock has, at least in the past, gone to bat for Christianity against the feminist enemy. Bayly resents this because he’s the same type of real-world failure I have occasionally seen in my day-to-day life. We all know that one guy who seems to desperately need help, and who simultaneously lashes out at anyone who tries to help him.

An effort to help such a person is wasted. In the attempt, the good samaritan exposes the flaws and failings of the poor sap to the light of day, where his own ego must confront them. The confrontation illustrates to everyone (and most importantly, to the patient himself) his complicity in his own failure. It’s easier for such people to just keep failing, than to face the fact that what they’re doing isn’t working.

Bayly and his gaggle of losers prefer feminists to us, because this doesn’t threaten the illusion of Christian hegemony (not to mention the ego of each whiner). If Bayly and his crew of miscreants weren’t total losers, they’d ignore Dalrock (and us) and spend their energies mocking our common enemies.

One can listen to as many warhorn media podcasts as he likes, and I’ll bet he’ll never find these cretins lampooning single mothers or abortionists, the way they sneer at us. This is not a coincidence.

As men with a goal of a healthy, patriarchal society, our first instinct is to build bridges and form coalitions (even temporary ones) with disparate peoples and groups. Unfortunately, Christians are at best unreliable, and usually treacherous. People like these will never be part of anything healthy or useful. As Nietzsche might remind us, they’re masochists who are centered on death and negativity, who cling to a slave morality. Such creatures have nothing positive to offer.

Clownworld News (March 2019)

R. Kelly 'Soulacoaster: The Diary of Me' book signing, New York, America - 10 Aug 2012

Entertainer R. Kelly is now in the Cook County Jail, not for robbing, raping or killing, but merely because he couldn’t give his bitch ex-wife enough of his dough.

I thought we had a revolution over all this debtor’s prison nonsense. The question remains, what has his bitch done to deserve a hundred sixty large?

From CNN (no link, because they suck)

Screen Shot 2019-03-06 at 22.49.40

It must be nice to be a uterus-american, where one can get paid just for breathing.

Here’s another great story. Did you boys hear about this guy?


As we recently saw, Johnny Depp got hit with a false accusation of violent assault. For some reason, Shawn thought he wouldn’t get the same treatment. You boys really need to be smarter than this. Document all your interactions with skanks. Failure to be vigilant may result in the destruction of your life.

Oh, and in case you were gonna hit the cinema this week, you know which movie not to see…


And then there’s more warnings from those brothers who have gone before…

Screen Shot 2019-03-06 at 22.28.14

It might seem rough, but I have no sympathy for Steve. Unless you work at a nightclub, you shouldn’t be chatting up bitches on company time. Just don’t go there.

There are other things you shouldn’t do. Buying a bitch dinner is benevolent sexism. Spending money on a wimminz is the equivalent of raping that woman. Just ask your local bulldyke professor in the gender studies department. She’ll back my play on this.


Boys in this post code don’t feel sorry for that simp, either. He got what he deserved.

Remember, be the guy who eats for free. Don’t be the guy who buys the meal.

Some Thoughts on Authority


An 18th c. photo of John Jay, anonymous shitpoaster.

Down below, Derek writes that “Authority and leadership are antithetical with anonymity.” Is this true? I don’t think so, but honestly, I don’t know, since Derek continuously refuses to well-define the term ‘authority.’

We’ll set aside, for now, the implicit second claim in this conjunction, given that my position on leadership was established two years ago.

Screen Shot 2019-03-06 at 10.43.17

Authority is a word that has a wide lexical range. I’ll try and define some of its most popular senses here, and explain why Derek is wrong in his sweeping declaration.

Authority in its barest form simply means authorship. It seems obvious that ‘Nick Adams, of Wye Mills, Maryland, is capable of authoring articles. It’s equally clear that ‘Boxer’ is just as capable, given that he’s been doing exactly that, here on this blog, at least as far back as 2017 (see photo above).

Derek will, of course, claim that this isn’t the sense in which he’s using the word. That’s fine. We can get as specific as we like.

Normative authority implies that there are certain ideal norms which govern right conduct. Since I occasionally cite the New Testament and the U.S. Constitution, it’s fair to assume that these are two norms that I accept. It seems that I can cite such norms independent of divulging my identity to any third party, and it also seems that I can accept those two norms without knowing who the original authors might have been. In the case of the New Testament, this is obviously true. I mean, I think Saul of Tarsus might have had something to do with that book, but I really don’t know, and can’t ever know. The text is prehistoric, and the identity of the author is lost to us forever.

Theoretical authority is the ability I have to discuss the definition of ‘authority’. I have a degree that says I’m qualified to do this. Over the course of my career, I’ve taught propositional logic and foundations of advanced mathematics. Those are philosophy and mathematics courses (and, as a fun little bit of trivia, despite being in two disciplines, over half of the content of those courses is identical). I wouldn’t ever be pulled to teach a biology course, or an English course, or a class in law or medicine, because I have no authority to teach such stuff, and I make it a point never to pretend to speak on my own authority about legal matters on this blog. Though I often discuss the law, I do so as a novice, who shouts from the cheap seats. If you want serious advice about such stuff, you have to go find someone with a master’s or doctorate in those disciplines, and ask him.

This is the only sense in which Derek’s point might be valid, since this sort of authority comes down from other scholars (specifically, the people on your thesis defense committees) and it’s something like the notion of apostolic succession. I’ve never heard of a graduate scholar who gets a degree under a throwaway pseudonym. Even so, it doesn’t seem like Derek uses this sense of the word when he bandies it about.

Political authority seems to be what Derek is talking about, in that political authority is not only the ability to prescribe right conduct, but to compel compliance, even in the unwilling.

Derek is obviously wrong about authority when he uses the word in this sense. Do you know the man who wrote the tax laws in your state? I don’t either. Try to evade your taxes, and see how much it matters. Much of the political authority wielded, not only in our society, but in every society, is nameless, faceless, and anonymous.

Political groups like the IRA and Viet Cong were almost completely anonymous, and yet they compelled obedience in the territories they influenced. They did so with violence, same as the I.R.S. does today.

Hail Nereus!


Despite having been banned from countless blogs and forums, ya boy Boxer has never scored the coveted thousand year ban. That honor goes to the worthy troll we know as Nereus, and was bestowed upon him by the closet queers over at Warhorn Media, who couldn’t handle the bantz.

The reason for this prize? Nereus refused to give his name and contact information to the hosts.

It begins to occur to me that nearly everyone who wants to spread the meme of anonymity as bad happen to be wimminz or their male feminist allies. Have you ever seen an anonymous female blogging online? Yeah, me neither. Wimminz must put their names and photos on everything.

Suppose I out myself tomorrow? Suppose I just start using my real name. Would the work of Nick Adams, who works at Chesapeake College for his day job, and who blogs on his off hours, be somehow more worthy than the work of Boxer, a ghost who pretends to write critical theory at the Frankfurt School? Would the metrosexual cruxtoid priests over at Warhorn Media suddenly give me more respect? What would the difference be?

Nereus is correct to withhold his real name and place of employment from these pretend friends of Jesus, and so is Dalrock. Their supposed respect means nothing when they prove themselves too lazy to even address the real issues, up for debate.