Should bloggers dox their own identity?

Weighing the benefits and risks of maintaining an online persona.

Readership: Men; Manosphere authors and commenters;
Theme: Risk Assessment
Length: 1,850 words
Reading Time: 6 minutes + 4 minute video

The Arguments

Some time ago, Derek Ramsey wrote a series of posts about the widespread anonymity in the Manosphere.

To sum up these posts, his main points were as follows.

  1. Names are a basis of one’s identity. Ramsey gave the example of a woman taking her husband’s last name.
  2. Names hold authority and convey leadership. Anonymous authors thus have a hollow leadership.
  3. Anonymity provides meaningful protection. It protects against the ideological persecution and deplatforming, such as that at Twitter, Facebook, Google, Patreon, WordPress, and others.
  4. Anonymity helps prevent real life harassment, like that experienced by Tucker Carlson’s family.
  5. Anonymity protects against government suppression.
  6. Anonymity is a tool for the weak, the cowardly, the ignorant, and the dishonorable. Anonymity is often employed to protect idiots who are all these things.
  7. People are anonymous because they fear something, legitimately or not. They are not willing to put their own neck on the line when they take controversial stances.
  8. Anonymity is a lie. Lying is always a sin. Sin leads to defilement. This is one reason why the internet is so toxic and dirty.
  9. Pseudonyms corrupt the soul. People are more likely to say something critical, false, judgmental, or toxic that they wouldn’t say if their identity was known. As such, one consequence of anonymity is a degradation of one’s self.
  10. People who have things to sell (e.g. books, training programs) are not anonymous. People who don’t are anonymous. There are very few exceptions.
  11. Jesus didn’t work anonymously. He never backed down or softened his words to avoid conflict. His words were biting and cut to the heart. He never put his life before his message. He showed true leadership. Jesus’ followers stood by their names as well. Churches were built upon the teachings of those who were named.
  12. A man should put his reputation behind his words. The word of a Christian should be his bond. Christians are God’s agents and speak with the authority of God. Anonymous authors cannot fully represent God.
  13. Those who remain anonymous cannot be held accountable.

As readers can see, Ramsey advocated full disclosure of one’s identity, regardless of the consequences.

Interestingly, Bruce Charlton and Michael Foster (the author of It’s Good to be a Man) apparently agree with Ramsey’s perspective. But for me and most of the other commenters, the bottom line is that I/we can’t take Ramsey’s argument seriously. Several commenters pointed out that it’s easy for him to encourage disclosure for others. For example, Lexet wrote,

“That is easy to say if you are not in a profession where you would be fired instantly, and your career destroyed, for saying anything remotely anti-PC. And I say that as someone who works in a politically conservative environment. Leftism is everywhere, and people live in fear, and will throw their best friends under the bus to avoid 5 minutes of fake scrutiny by people who don’t matter.”

The comments were rife with objections, including a few life or death scenarios.

  • Missionaries in China.
  • Being honest with criminals while under gunpoint.
  • The book of Hebrews was written anonymously, possibly to avoid persecution. To this day, scholars cannot identify who the author was, but their best guess is Timothy. In the last post listed above, Ramsey responded by saying that the authors were well known to others back when they were written. But isn’t there a reason why the author didn’t identify himself in the text whereas Paul and other NT writers did?

IMO, Ramsey’s argument is purely philosophical, with strong appeals to moral conscientiousness. Never does he address the wisdom or purpose for either recourse, nor does he undertake an assessment of benefits vs. risks.

Persecution and Risk

I have written before about how foolish it is for men to operate in good faith and be honest and trusting with those who are not offering the same in return. For example…

  • Developing Attitudes That Help You Cope (2015-11-5) examined the value and purpose of trusting and being open and honest with others.
  • The Blue Pill, Feminism, and Sin (2018-10-16) mentioned how Feminists and SJW’s have a regular pattern of resorting to violencerage, and dishonesty, all efforts to force others to conform to their narrative of truth. Doesn’t that make you want to give them your full name, address, phone number, and place of occupation? (sarcasm) “Hey! I’m a good guy! I’ve done nothing wrong. So what is there to lose by being honest?” This is a foolish recipe for disaster.
  • Men’s Fantasy of Emotional Intimacy (2021-6-23) described how foolish men are honest and open with a woman because they naively expect the same from her. NovaSeeker described how women will use this information against men. Scott has made it his mission to make men aware of how their idealogical love is seldom reciprocated, and is instead used against them.
  • When walking on eggshells, step boldly! (2021-6-30) discussed how men often fail to exercise discernment as to whether a woman is actually capable of offering either love or respect, and therefore open up under the assumption that it is right to do so, or that honesty is important, or merely because he desires to be loved by her.

Obviously, the outcome can range from beneficial to destructive, so we must employ wisdom.

Case Study — Zippy Catholic

Like 2014, 2018 was another extremely difficult year for the Manosphere. Censorship, deplatforming, demonetization, shadowbannings, and various other persecutions were rampant and got worse as the year progressed. I documented the shake down in The Evolution of the Red Pill (2018-12-31). Many Red Pill authors went under, and a few of them voiced their difficulties. But we only know what they were able to broadcast online. Many of these abrupt changes were surrounded by mysterious circumstances which were not revealed to the public at large, and I suspect there was a lot of dirty pool going on behind the scenes.

Let’s take Zippy Catholic for an example. The name of the man behind the blog and online persona of ZC was Matthew.

Zippy Catholic was the first anti-mainstream-narrative blog that I came across back in early 2017 (yes, I was a latecomer), and through him I discovered all the others (Dalrock, Deep Strength, Illimitable Men, Roissy, Rollo, Roosh, et al.), so ZC has always had an important place in my heart.

Zippy Catholic / Matthew consistently produced logical, intelligent arguments, which picked at the threads of Usury, Liberalism, and Anti-Realism, and he was impressively effective in convincing many people of the inherent evils.

You can believe that somebody was not happy about that.

He was also a renegade maverick blog author who took on both modern Feminist society and the Manosphere, tearing down the foundations of the Matrix – in the name of Jesus, no less.

Somebody was definitely not happy about that.

On September 18, 2018, Matthew was killed in a mysterious hit and run accident while he was cycling. Shortly after he died, another blogger at another site he blogged at before he opened his Zippy Catholic site “outed” him and published a mini-obituary using his full name and identifying him as ZC. That blogger was quickly and viciously criticized for publishing that obit, and it was taken down within a day or two. The primary reason for the criticism was that ZC did not want his real identity known. His son Gabriel confirmed this news in a comment under his last post.

About four months after Matthew’s death, I searched the internet for more information about his death. It was fairly easy to find his real identity online, and there was a lot of very personal information about him floating around the internet. I won’t disclose much about what I found, except to say that he was quite successful as an investor and CEO of at least one start-up. He had published five technical papers in SCI journals, and held six patents on webpage data mining. In short, he was an accomplished man, not only in the blogosphere, but also IRL and as a man of faith too. That’s worthy of honor and respect — but not to everyone.

The first thought that went through my mind after reading of his sudden, mysterious, hit-and-run death was, “They finally got to him.” Although I’m not even sure who “they” would be.

But whoever the culprit might be, it is not outlandish to believe that whoever was making money from the usury that Matthew assailed, had felt the chill and put a price on his head.

I know some readers might find it disrespectful to Matthew to speak of what might be called a “conspiracy theory” here, but I think a sufficient period of time has transpired since his passing, and I want to put this idea out there.

I know this is all conjecture, but I believe it could very well be true. So I am quite willing to chalk him up as a modern day martyr.

Conclusions

Christian Red Pill / Manosphere bloggers and commentators need to weigh the benefits vs. risks of giving out any clues whatsoever about one’s real identity. There must be a specific purpose for either adopting a pseudonymous identity or revealing personal information for all the world to see. In some cases, it could be a matter of life or death. Censorship and demonetization pale by comparison.

In the final analysis, the question of whether to be anonymous or not quite literally becomes a question of whether this is the hill one is ready to die on.

So basically, this comes down to two options.

  1. If you remain anonymous, you can continue to spread the wisdom you have found and minister to other men.
  2. If you identify your real life person, you can suffer and possibly die for your beliefs.

The apostle Paul described these two options like this.

21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.  22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell.  23 For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better.  24 Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you.  25 And being confident of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy of faith, 26 that your rejoicing for me may be more abundant in Jesus Christ by my coming to you again.

Philippians 1:21-26 (NKJV)

Revealing one’s identity makes one an easy target. So unless you’re nearing the conclusion of your life’s mission and are seeking to enter into a martyr’s glorious eternal rest, the resulting harassment and persecution will only slow you down and may not be worth the trouble.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Calculated Risk Taking, Conserving Power, Conspiracy Theories, Culture Wars, Decision Making, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Enduring Suffering, Identity, Manosphere, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Online Personas, Personal Presentation, Purpose, Satire, Secrecy, Self-Concept, Trust. Bookmark the permalink.

82 Responses to Should bloggers dox their own identity?

  1. dpmonahan says:

    Ramsey is using the anonymity thing as a form of “Man Up!” The proper response is to say, “It is none of your business.” For most of us it is an inconsequential choice.

    Liked by 6 people

    • ramman3000 says:

      If you are a man and a Christian and want to lead and do so on the internet, then anonymity is antithetical to that. No one is forced to do all of that, nor even encouraged to do so. No one’s manhood is not at stake. Indeed, as my pastor pointed out in Church this Sunday, it is common for pastors to have little to no social media presence at all. To wit:

      “Sin leads to defilement. This is one reason why the internet is so toxic and dirty.”

      Now to other criticisms…

      Missionaries in China.

      Are not anonymous.

      Being honest with criminals while under gunpoint.

      One may not lie, ever. If you cannot but tell a lie, then you say nothing. You can avoid persecution, but you can’t sin in the process.

      The book of Hebrews was written anonymously…But isn’t there a reason why the author didn’t identify himself in the text whereas Paul and other NT writers did?

      Where comes the authority for the canonicity of the book of Hebrews? Is it from the author himself or someone or something else?

      Like

  2. thedeti says:

    I disagree with a number of things in this post.

    1) 2018 was not as difficult a year for the sphere as 2014 was. 2014 was the year in which the sphere started getting a lot of attention due to the Eliot Rodger incident. Rodger was wrongly identified as being part of the manosphere/PUA culture when he was most decidedly not — he was on sites like PUAHate and SlutHate which were about as anti-Manosphere as it gets without being feminist.

    2014 was also the year in which the MSM and women decided “Manosphere = incels and misogyny”. The sphere has never recovered from this initial unfair tarring. Today, government, the MSM, and critics have added “domestic terrorist” to the “incel” and “misogyny” slurs.

    It’s really incredible that some of my predictions have come true:
    — It’s now illegal to be an unattractive man.
    — It’s now illegal to advocate for masculinity.
    — It’s not only unpopular to criticize women; it’s now become against the law.
    — You can now be thrown in jail or held as a “person of interest” merely because you hold some unpopular opinions about masculinity, femininity, and intersexual relationships.
    — Saying “men and women are different” and “men are physically stronger than women” and advocating for traditional relationships can now make you the target of government investigations.
    — People going public even with saying some of the things said right here at this site would result in ostracism, shunning, banning from social media platforms, and job loss — and that’s the least that would happen.

    2) ZC was a devout, fierce, oldline, hardline Roman Catholic and that’s where his worldview originated and his writings went. His marriage position was “Marriage until death, no divorce, ever, for any reason at all.” He was not in any way a manosphere blogger, and were he here to speak for himself, I am confident he’d say the same thing. He was alternately vicious and passive-aggressive in his criticisms of the manosphere, its adherents, and its positions. He and I went at it more than a few times on his blog and elsewhere and we criticized each other. He spent at least a year writing post after post after comment with blistering criticisms of the manosphere, Game, and Red Pill thought and positions.

    ZC thought Game, Red Pill, and men’s concerns about masculinity and “being men” were very feminine in attitude and outlook. He understood why men would concern themselves with wanting women, sex, relationships, and marriages; but sincerely held that Game, RP, and the manosphere were going about it all the wrong way. His attitude was very blue pill in outlook. Boiled down to its essentials, ZC’s “advice” was,

    “Ignore crappy women, just be yourself, just do your thing, don’t have premarital sex, but pursue women in a God-honoring way, and sooner or later you’ll find one. If it goes bad and you get divorced, oh well, them’s the breaks. Sorry, too bad so sad. If you never find a woman, oh well, them’s the breaks. Sorry, too bad so sad. You gotta live with whatever happens in obedience to God.”

    In many ways, ZC’s “advice” was the subject of many of my criticisms in The Unsolvable Problem of The Modern Sexual/Relationship Market (2022-2-7). He viewed men’s current predicament as a problem, yes, but one with God’s solution as either (1) toss yourself into the maw of the divorce meat grinder; or (2) learn to transmute your incel status into voluntary celibacy.

    The point is that ZC was not a manosphere blogger; he hated the manosphere and was viciously critical of it; and his solutions were more along the lines of what Vox and Adam now advocate.

    3) I don’t agree that it was easy to find out who ZC was during his lifetime. He jealously guarded his real identity. All he would say about himself before his death was that he worked in computers, had a private pilot’s license, he was Catholic, and he had used the name “Matt” at other sites. At least before 2018 that wasn’t enough to pinpoint who he was.

    The only reason info about him got out was that shortly after he died, another blogger at other sites he blogged at before he opened his Zippy Catholic site “outed” him and published a mini-obituary using his full name and identifying him as ZC. That blogger was quickly and viciously criticized for publishing that obit, and it was taken down within a day or two. The primary reason for the criticism was that ZC did not want his real identity known, and that even after his death, identifying him was simply out of bounds. No matter; the word was out, and now anyone and everyone who hung out in these parts in the fall of 2018 could’ve easily found that information.

    The reason people could find out now who ZC was, is because one person outed him after his death. Before he died, it was considerably more difficult, if not impossible, to find out.

    There are a few people whom I trust who know my real identity. Most of you don’t know; and as far as I’m concerned, most of you never will know.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “There are a few people whom I trust who know my real identity. Most of you don’t know; and as far as I’m concerned, most of you never will know.”

      The way that identities can be revealed is through building trust over time, and probably more time than most people think.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      My responses to deti’s points.

      1) 2014 was long before I found the Red Pill / Manosphere in early 2017.
      2) Maybe ZC had distanced himself from the Manosphere, but I didn’t get that impression when I started reading him in 2017. Maybe I didn’t catch on to this because I was still getting my bearings after waking up from the Blue Pill. Anyway, ZC is definitely Red Pilled.
      3) I never attempted to search for ZC’s identity before he died, so I wouldn’t know. I did this search in January 2019 and this post has been sitting in the drafts folder since then until a couple days ago when I was searching for one last topic about Risk Assessment.

      Thank you for the more precise information. I’ll edit the post to reflect this.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        I disagree that ZC was redpilled. He was at best purple pilled: Trying to achieve Red Pill results with Blue Pill actions and mindsets.

        Like

    • “I disagree that ZC was redpilled. He was at best purple pilled: Trying to achieve Red Pill results with Blue Pill actions and mindsets.”

      I wouldn’t really say he was purple pilled either. It was more like some form of “don’t care” type of pill.

      As you alluded to, he was opposed to the Church helping husbands and wives with their marriages and intersex relationships. Well, if the Church doesn’t do that, then who will? That seemed to just be bad advice IMO.

      Paul wrote various letters to the Church on husbands, wives, and marriage in order that people stop doing sexually immoral behavior and instead obey God. That’s specific instruction from Paul to the leaders of the Churches to tell their congregations. Seems to me like that’s supposed to be part of the Church’s responsibility.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        DS,

        “As you alluded to, he was opposed to the Church helping husbands and wives with their marriages and intersex relationships. Well, if the Church doesn’t do that, then who will? That seemed to just be bad advice IMO.”

        Forgetting what ZC may or may not have written, marriage is one of those institutions God established that the church should be very involved with teaching about. There is a reason that the earthly reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church is husband and wife and why the children of believing parents are covenant children. God has chosen to work through families a majority of the time and that means marriage.

        In my parent’s church a wife in an adulterous relationship was called before the church to repent of her sin. Should the church have called this an intersex marital issue and ignored it? A church avoiding marriage and relationship issues would have to avoid teaching 1 Corinthians 7 and Song of Solomon. The church not helping husbands and wives with their marriages is more than bad advice, it’s borderline heresy at best and plain old heresy at worst.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “…marriage is one of those institutions God established that the church should be very involved with teaching about. There is a reason that the earthly reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church is husband and wife and why the children of believing parents are covenant children. God has chosen to work through families a majority of the time and that means marriage.”

        “A church avoiding marriage and relationship issues would have to avoid teaching 1 Corinthians 7 and Song of Solomon. The church not helping husbands and wives with their marriages is more than bad advice, it’s borderline heresy at best and plain old heresy at worst.”

        And this fully explains why the divorce rate and single mother rate is the same in the church as it is in the wider society. Any church that doesn’t teach and enforce Headship in marriage is a church that is avoiding it’s responsibility to illustrate the image of Christ and the church in its most obvious form. And this includes most churches.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. thedeti says:

    Adam’s site is currently down. Getting a 503 error response.

    Like

    • Weka says:

      It’s back up now. Tends to happen every few days. His most recent post of celibacy as a choice is clearly offending those who routinely use DDOS bots.

      Like

  4. feeriker says:

    “IMO, Ramsey’s argument is purely philosophical, with strong appeals to moral conscientiousness. Never does he address the wisdom or purpose for either recourse, nor does he undertake an assessment of benefits vs. risks.”

    This is an unavoidable and obviously essential topic. Derek’s failure to address it is a sign of unwillingness to do so, for what appears to be an obvious reason: The conclusion to which such a risk analysis would inevitably lead is the opposite of the solution that he advocates.

    Liked by 3 people

    • ramman3000 says:

      “Derek’s failure to address it is a sign of unwillingness to do so”

      To this point…

      “nor does he undertake an assessment of benefits vs. risks…the outcome can range from beneficial to destructive, so we must employ wisdom.”

      I argue that one should not become a leader if one is not willing or able to take the risk. No one is required to be a Christian leader on the internet, and IMO few should even attempt to do so. Yes, wisdom is required.

      But what if you have no choice because you are explicitly called by God to lead in such a capacity? Because anonymity is wrong for a Christian, this implies that the persecution that he promised you (and by extension your family) is something you are expected to endure. It’s your cross to carry.

      “The conclusion to which such a risk analysis would inevitably lead is the opposite of the solution that he advocates.”

      Given the choices between “anonymous leader”, “non-anonymous leader”, and “don’t be a leader”, the first option is removed on moral grounds before a cost/benefit analysis (or wisdom) is invoked. But, a utilitarian ethic would obviously lead one to the first option in almost any reasonable cost/benefit analysis. I wouldn’t waste time arguing otherwise. But it’s not Christian, so it isn’t relevant.

      Like

  5. feeriker says:

    “There are a few people whom I trust who know my real identity. Most of you don’t know; and as far as I’m concerned, most of you never will know.”

    Extremely few of us here in the Sphere use our real identities or know the real identities of anyone we regularly correspond with, yet in almost no cases is it ever a concern. Why? Because we speak truth to one another, and truth is truth no matter who or what delivers it. While I occasionally think to myself, “It would be nice to put faces and names to some of these guys (and a few gals) who are more my brothers and sisters in Christ here in cyberspace than anyone in meatspace”, it’s not something I obsess over. I think everyone clearly understands the need for anonymity, which is just one example of the need for caution and circumspection. Quite frankly, anyone who is NOT aware of the dangerous times we live in, or who would downplay the danger, is someone whose judgment, if not their intelligence, is to be questioned.

    Liked by 7 people

  6. Gunner Q says:

    Anonymity is not a lie. It is the withholding of information, not the providing of false or misleading information.

    It’s true that Jesus did not work anonymously. It’s also true that Jesus got crucified.

    Liked by 6 people

    • thedeti says:

      It was Jesus’ destiny to be crucified. It’s what He was sent here to do, and he did it.

      All men have crosses to bear and die upon, but most of them are not literal. I’ve died many a death on the crosses God has given me.

      Kevin Samuels has said, and I agree: “You know why your woman has to do what you say? Because you have to die for her.”

      Woman is to man as man is to God.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Oh, yeah – and just THINK what would happen to me if I put that on Facebook. Just THINK how fast I’d be excommunicated if I said that in a men’s group meeting or in church.

        Liked by 1 person

    • lastholdout says:

      Jesus did “hide himself” when it was prudent by making himself unrecognizable.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Scott says:

    My main issue is that I do not believe anything about the current situation will ever change unless real humans come out and stand up for what is right. Otherwise, it is a secret handshake society that can’t have any actual impact.

    When I was at GTMO, there was a guy who’s workstation was across from my office door, and I walked out to go to the bathroom once, noticed he was reading Dalrock, and everything changed between me and him after that. We are still friends to this day. He was the commenter “Amos” at Dalrock.

    In order for anything like a massive movement to occur, that feeling of not being alone in all of this has to be multiplied by about 3 billion.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Agreed. All we can do is put the information out there so individual men can use it to change their own lives.

      We aren’t ever going to change “society”. Western society, specifically the USA, is doomed, There is nothing that can be done to save it at this point. The USA is suffering from stage 4 terminal metastatic cancer. The patient is on life support, a ventilator, cardiac bypass, and dialysis. The patient cannot be saved. All that remains now is to determine what to do with his organs, and to turn off the machines.

      If I personally start saying some of the more innocuous things I’ve said here, in real life, with my face and name, I’ll probably lose my job, get kicked out of my church, and be harassed and persecuted by local police agencies. Even saying things like, “men and women are different” and “wives need to submit to their husbands” and “men need sex” results in merciless social pummeling and persecution. And that’s the Church’s response! What do you think friends, coworkers, and acquaintances would do to me? What do you think would happen to me if I put some of this out there on Facebook or Twitter? How fast do you think I’d have picketers outside my house? How long do you think I’d last at my curent employer? How much time before someone shows up to torch my house and blow up my car?

      Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        It’s one of the rifts that exists. The “civilizationalists” vs. “let it burn / enjoy the decline” faultline.

        I have been on the fence about that the entire time. I worry about my children once the lights go out. But I recognize we live in an irrational system that cannot continue.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Let’s remember the experience of Joseph of Jackson, who left eons ago (around 2014) and reported his experiences with trying to get a men’s group at his church started.

        He started teaching much of the same things Deep Strength did at his church. JoJ was excommunicated. He’s essentially vanished from the sphere. No one knows what happened to him after he reported these experiences.

        Liked by 2 people

      • feeriker says:

        “Even saying things like, “men and women are different” and “wives need to submit to their husbands” and “men need sex” results in merciless social pummeling and persecution. And that’s the Church’s response!”

        Not the response of the TRUE church, but that of the skin suit that has taken its place. The problem, of course, is finding those who are part of the body of the true church. It has become obvious by now that they are far fewer in number than anyone had previously imagined.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “It’s one of the rifts that exists. The “civilizationalists” vs. “let it burn / enjoy the decline” faultline.”

        Those aren’t the only two options.

        I’m convinced that Western Civilization is headed for a fall. And I’m convinced none of us can prevent it. And I believe preventing the fall is unnecessary. I think building little pockets of Christian Civilization is sufficient.

        There’s not even a downside to building little pockets of Christian Civilization. If Western Civilization falls, it’s not as though the “enjoy the decline” crowd will be any better off than the people building little pockets of Christian Civilization. And, if the storm blows over, you have a nice little community to enjoy anyway.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Oscar,

        They are definitely not the only two options, but people line up and that is what it looks like. Dalrock used to say that we should keep telling the truth and living life the way we know is right and let the macro issues work themselves out. He called this “saving the seeds of civilization while the fire rushes over the forest.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “Dalrock used to say that we should keep telling the truth and living life they way we know is right and let the macro issues work themselves out. He called this “saving the seeds of civilization while the fire rushes over the forest.”

        I did a quick search on this quote, and I found that it’s actually from Vox. In Dalrock’s post, Continuing the discussion. (2013-5-24), he quotes Vox’s post at Alpha Game, Nihilists vs Civilizationists (2013-5-24) as follows.

        “…whereas Roissy and I obviously respect each other despite our different purposes, those who incline more towards his “fiddle while Rome burns” perspective are considerably less able to view those differences in the abstract than Roissy, while those who are more focused on saving civilization from itself, (or at least preserving the seeds of civilization as the fire sweeps through the forest), are considerably less able to view the fiddlers with the same sort of equanimity that I am.

        What both camps have in common is a diagnosis. Where they differ is the prescription. This is why they are not functional allies in the long term. Their immediate objectives and priorities have nothing in common and their perspectives are fundamentally different. However, it should be kept in mind that neither side created the problem to which both are reacting, and it should be recognized that both have important roles to play before the course plays itself out.”

        Reading further in Vox’s post, it can be seen that he had a more favorable view of MGTOW 9 years ago, seeing them as a necessary contributor to the decline and turnover of civilization. He concluded,

        “Both nihilists [i.e. MGTOW] and civilizationists are necessary to the process of first destroying, and then replacing, [a Feminine Imperative based] society.”

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Its hard to imagine what that is going to look like. All of us, with the exception of truly off the grid types are dependent on this system.

        And even the off the grid types will eventually run into hordes of hungry zombies coming from the cities for their stuff.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Scott,

      “My main issue is that I do not believe anything about the current situation will ever change unless real humans come out and stand up for what is right. Otherwise, it is a secret handshake society that can’t have any actual impact.”

      What about the build up to the American Revolution? Many men knew the power of the English throne and kept their identities secret until the time was right. “Common Sense” was initial and anonymous publication, because if it hadn’t been, Paine would have been strung up as a traitor. It was not until the movement had a better foothold that the timing was better and men stood up to be counted publicly. I doubt that they were not standing for what they wanted and believed in prior to their positions on independence becoming publicly known.

      I spent 3 hours on the phone with my brother this morning listening and going over biblical marriage and what he can do to try and drag his marriage in line with what the bible says. I’m one man changing things in my little tribe and this is happening mainly because anonymity helped people feel free to share the truth which allowed me to read it and judge for myself whether it was true or not.

      Is using your real identify online, so people you don’t know and who don’t know you or care about you in the least, the standard for standing up for what is right? Or could standing up be as simple as telling people you know what you believe?

      Liked by 5 people

      • Scott says:

        Eventually, the revolutionaries had to put it all the line when they signed the Declaration. They knew they were putting it all up for possible sacrifice and even death.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        That is a pretty important “eventually”, which was my point. Before they went public with their defiance, there was much negotiation and much contemplation because death was almost certain if they lost and even being victorious was not enough for many to preserve their wealth. There was a lot of work that happened prior to ever going public.

        Like

    • pukeko60@weka says:

      I had to nuke darkbrightness because a local woke activist with a track record of being anti my real life job doxxed me and complained to the licencing authorities. It was take it down or lose the ability to work. For some of us, anonymity is a partial shield, but using our name means we can’t communicate

      Liked by 4 people

  8. Scott says:

    The important stuff Zippy had to say wasn’t really about intersexual dynamics and marriage.

    It was about the ontological effects that occur at the intersection of language and reality.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Scott says:

      To be able to engage in conversations that occur outside the regular paradigms of economics, politics and religion is a real gift. It was Zippy who taught me that individual “freedom” as a basis for an entire civilization is not without its drawbacks. I stopped identifying myself as a right-leaning libertarian because of him.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      Scott,

      “The important stuff Zippy had to say wasn’t really about intersexual dynamics and marriage.

      It was about the ontological effects that occur at the intersection of language and reality.”

      I didn’t get this from reading ZC. Could you cite one of his posts or give an example?

      Like

  9. thedeti says:

    ZC also said the Church had no place or business in helping men learn about women, or teaching about sex, male or female sexual nature, etc. In ZC’s world, the church’s only mission was to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments, and that was it. To ZC, the church wasn’t even to evangelize to the lost.

    So, yeah, to ZC, if you’re a man struggling with masculinity and something integral to your masculine identity, well, you’re just sh!t out of luck. The church has nothing to say to you; and in fact, it SHOULD NOT have anything to say to you.

    Like

    • Scott says:

      Right. Looking to ZC for advice about women is like opening a gun magazine and hoping to find the best place to invest your money.

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        Bullets seem like a good investment lately.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Oscar – I’m a little partial to 30-06 as my investment caliber of choice. deep down inside I’m an old fart that likes a little tradition, I like that it’s a round that has been made forever and I like there are enough bullet options that I can use one rifle for any type of game found in the South. It’s not a flashy investment caliber, like the 6.5mm Creedmoor but it gets the job done.

        My next investment will be for the younger Apostles which means something in the lighter recoil arena. I’m contemplating 5.56 or .243 because they work on deer just fine in this neck of the woods and the kiddos will be able to handle the recoil more easily.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ RPA

        I like the 6.5 CM, which I guess makes me a hipster, but you can’t go wrong with 30-06. If you can’t get it done with a 30-06, you probably shouldn’t be doing it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • anonymous_ng says:

        I have a bunch of different caliber AR pattern rifles only to realize after examining the ballistics etc that the 77gr 5.56 was as good or better than 7.62×39 or .300AAC unsuppressed.

        As for -06, I still want a Garand.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ ANG

        I haven’t bought one yet, but the 6.5 Grendel seems to turn the AR-15 into a nice hunting rifle, and the 6 mm ARC looks very interesting as well. But, again, I’m into hipster calibers, even though I don’t wear a beard, or skinny jeans.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Oscar – The 6mm as a bullet has been around the block a few times. My father-in-law has a nice 6mm chambered rifle. It’s lower recoil, lower drag and tends to be quite accurate over long distances. It’s English unit sibling (.243) is on my list. Granted my list is not particularly short, but it is higher up on my list than other things. Also, high on the list is a 30-30 lever action because they’re cool and because it was one of the first rifles I hunted with as a kid so there is a bit of nostalgia involved.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ RPA

        The 6 mm ARC was designed specifically for the AR-15. I don’t know if any other rifles use it. The .243 Remington is pretty cool, but the case is too long to fit in the AR-15. On paper, they’re pretty comparable otherwise, but I suspect that the .243 is more versatile, because it’s been around a lot longer. Probably a lot easier to find, too.

        Like

    • dpmonahan says:

      Funny, reading Zippy on liberalism and authority was my ah-ha moment for seeing the problem with contemporary marriage: the husband is the legitimate authority of the household, i.e. a wife has a moral duty to obey him (excluding sin).

      The liberal state doesn’t believe in the husband’s natural authority, sees it as a cultural relic, and undermines it. Clergy are terrified of preaching about a husband’s authority and twist themselves and the Bible into contortions to avoid saying what should be obvious.

      Zippy himself just wasn’t that interested in fleshing out the details or people’s individual experience.

      Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “Funny, reading Zippy on liberalism and authority was my ah-ha moment for seeing the problem with contemporary marriage: the husband is the legitimate authority of the household, i.e. a wife has a moral duty to obey him (excluding sin).”

        It’s interesting, everywhere I’ve seen this followed in Christian and secular marriages, it has “work-ability” — the relationship actually works, i.e the couple stays together and seems to enjoy each other’s company to one degree or another. I can think of a couple secular marriages that follow this principle; and yes, sure enough the marriages seems to work, and has worked for a couple or three decades or so.

        The wife has a moral duty to obey him. Another way of saying it with less bite perhaps, she has a duty to follow his lead. She is his partner, and she has a say for sure, but the final decision is his; unless it involves sin, i.e. trying to get her to do something that is in violation of God’s Word. If it’s a grey area in the Word, such as certain sexual acts, that in my opinion, is open for discussion. If the wife can accommodate him, she should; if not, she better have a really good reason for not doing so. An example might be BJs vs. An@l sex. One should be done IMO by the wife because it’s an act of loving submission and costs the wife nothing; the other sex act could be discussed and talked out, i.e. it involves pain or discomfort or some other issue for her. Other thoughts?

        Like

      • dpmonahan says:

        I agree.

        With regard to sex acts, I’ve wondered if that isn’t why St. Paul allowed for divorce and remarriage in cases where a believer was married to an unbeliever: i.e. the unbeliever still wanted sodomy. Maybe that is just my dirty mind.

        I do know that in some places, “marital rape” traditionally existed, but only in reference to non- P in V sex.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        DPmonahan:

        I think St. Paul allowed for divorce and remarriage for the believer married to the unbeliever only if the unbeliever abandoned the marriage and would not discharge their spouse duties.

        It wasn’t because the unbeliever spouse wanted to do kinky stuff. It was because the unbeliever either left and abandoned the marriage; or because the unbeliever refused any kind of sex at all.

        Liked by 1 person

      • dpmonahan says:

        OK, thanks for jogging my memory.

        Like

    • Scott says:

      Zippy was part of the Nrx, but hardly a manospherian. That is a stretch.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Sharkly says:

    While I myself don’t publish my own name, nor care to have it published. It is easy enough to find it online due to stuff I’ve posted and stuff that was then posted against me by our Feminazi opposition.

    I think using your real name might be easier for folks like Derek who are currently still able to be self-employed.

    While I don’t know if it was related to my online posting, or to my nasty divorce, somebody called in an anonymous complaint to my employer claiming that they saw me viewing child pornography on my work computer. Fortunately all my computer activity, on the web and all the files that I access, are all recorded by my employer. And they had done a full review and investigation into the matter (finding nothing of the sort) before I was notified of the anonymous complaint that had been called in.

    Even though, in that instance, nothing came of that attempt to ruin me, I can see how under other circumstances a person could suffer greatly based upon a lie like that.

    I anticipate that the Left will only become more militant and escalate their evil and their persecution and their suppression of the truth. War is truly being made upon us, whether we fight back or not. My kids have already been taken based upon disproven lies and idolatrous goddess-worship, my future income will be subject to garnishment, my inheritance from my parents is subject to being seized and given to a woman who never ever sought to honor her side of our marriage covenant. I have not seen either of my teen sons in over a year and a half, and have only had a minute of phone contact with just my oldest son during that time. Which now appears to have been a set-up, just so that he could speak disparagingly at me, and then hang up on me, and that phone contact could then be cited in court to claim I’m somehow not fit to be a father to my sons, or to have unsupervised contact with them. I can’t begin to recount all the lies and misandrist nonsense that were thrown at me in court to supposedly justify my being zeroed out and me being forced into indentured servitude for years to come.

    However, I can boldly oppose all who pedestalize women, including even relatives who have known me since I was born, because I’m a righteous man and they still have nothing on me, only that I won’t return to their blue-pilled plantation and rejoin their disgusting worship of vajayjays.

    Like

    • Joe2 says:

      “…my inheritance from my parents is subject to being seized and given to a woman…”

      It may not be that bad. Did you check with your attorney because some states exclude inheritances in divorce cases? I know that’s true for community property states; inheritances and gifts are considered personal property and are excluded.

      Like

      • Sharkly says:

        I have been basically told and seen many times over that, It’s C_nt-Court, and the laws don’t apply there, except possibly to be used against a man. I was given no presumption of innocence against false accusations. Nor was there any repercussion whatsoever for those false accusation when it was proven that they were false. The judges act as the women’s backup lawyers. Kansas law says instead of my wife being granted a No-Fault divorce, I could be granted an At-Fault divorce for her failure to provide a material marital duty (sex). But the Judge flat out told me he wasn’t going to hear of it. The Judge effectively said, F*** the law! They really don’t give a sh!t what the law says, they are Satan’s servants and they do demonic evil for their living. They claim it is in the best interest of my sons to be made like bastards, to be denied a father, to be deceived and kept from knowing the truth, and to be raised solely by a psych-med swilling whore with three diagnosed (DSM-5) disorders plus other types of crazy that have yet to make it into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Furthermore, in my county I can request and must be granted joint marriage counselling in the best interest of the children, but during the time, over four years, my divorce was drug out in order to deny me my kids and turn them against me, I was completely denied that through deceit and just outright man-hate.

        I swear to you, the mask has come off of those servants of Satan, they hardly even pretend to abide by Kansas’ state laws. They hate the laws which still reflect more conservative times. It is a war of treachery against men and boys. I’ve lived it. And the lawyers and politicians won’t fix it. Nor will the majority of women vote to fix it. Nor will the legacy-media report it fairly. All the talk in the world won’t stop the kidnapping of men’s sons, nor the robbing of men of their homes and property and livelihoods.

        One of the most highly regarded psychiatrists in the state of Kansas, who did the evaluation on some of the state’s most notable cases including evaluating “BTK”, interviewed and tested me extensively and determined that he could see no disorder nor any reason that I wasn’t a fit father. However, after spending a couple thousand dollars for that evaluation, they refused to ever let me enter this report into the court record, but instead let a fat fugly scarlet-haired harlot Feminazi social worker, whom I have still never met, file a report and give a bitchy Zoom testimony against me apparently based on her intersectional Feminist beliefs, and speaking primarily with my wife and her friends. She refused to speak with the psychologist (with two doctors degrees) that I asked her to speak with, and she only argued with me for about an hour on the phone. I could tell she had it out for me from the moment she called me, after having talked with my wife. Meanwhile they prevented me from getting my nutty wife evaluated, but instead demanded I be evaluated again by a sex addiction specialist, who again found no issues and wrote that the accusation seemed pejorative and was possibly made by someone who is offended by normal sexuality.

        Every bit of it went that way. They didn’t let me enter the report from the state’s top psychiatrist that they made me go to, after finding out that he declared me to be a fit parent, then instead of returning my sons, they made me go to a sex addiction specialist who also said their accusations were not true and that he could see no reason that I wouldn’t be a fit parent, and yet they still don’t give me my kids back, because they think I might be dangerous because I’m mad at the court about them stealing my sons for two years based upon bogus accusations. So then they tell me that to get my kids back, I have to agree to hire a “Guardian Ad Litem” the opposing lawyer chose, who ended up being a scarlet-haired intersectional-feminist social worker that apparently believes all men are bad and that traditional marriage is abusive.

        They’re at war with us! And the gluttonous and lazy churchians still think they should be non-confrontational and compromise with Satan’s never-ending new litany of woke demands.

        Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      “While I don’t know if it was related to my online posting, or to my nasty divorce, somebody called in an anonymous complaint to my employer claiming that they saw me viewing child pornography on my work computer. Fortunately all my computer activity, on the web and all the files that I access, are all recorded by my employer. And they had done a full review and investigation into the matter (finding nothing of the sort) before I was notified of the anonymous complaint that had been called in.”

      Attempted frameups like that are made by techno-illiterate morons. EVERY organization of any size has monitoring agents in place on employee workstations that will alert their network security operations (or whatever title they give the position, whether it’s in-house or outsourced) to such online activity.

      You at least have the satisfaction of knowing that whoever tried to frame you is one of the 4-watt bulbs of the human chandelier.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ramman3000 says:

      “who are currently still able to be self-employed.”

      I’m not self-employed.

      Like

  11. Scott says:

    Side note:

    I went over the Derek Ramsey site and read through the comments on those posts.

    Things that bore me to tears:

    Endless debates about hermeneutics and epistemology.

    Like

  12. Bardelys the Magnificent says:

    If you glow, Google my username. Have fun.

    Like

  13. Lastmod says:

    St. Paul: “What can mere men do to me?”

    Like

  14. jorgen says:

    He must be a Calvinist. They always insist that their theological opponents use their real name, so they can church-cancel them.

    Like

  15. redpillboomer says:

    Some interesting posts here today! I for one like keeping anonymous even though I’m just a commentator on this blog and was over at Dalrock’s. Because I share real life experiences that I’ve been through in the past, or one’s that I’m currently going through, I do like to keep it anonymous in the remote chance someone could ever put two-and-two together on who these individuals are out there in “the real world.” For example, my recent posts about the Air Force Major and his wife, well they exist and they have names, but the chance of anyone connecting the dots as to who they are is slim to none because of my posting anonymity and their being generalized as “the Major and his wife.”

    Like

  16. info says:

    Why should we put ourselves and our loved ones in danger by losing our anonymity?

    Liked by 2 people

  17. feeriker says:

    “I have been basically told and seen many times over that, It’s C_nt-Court, and the laws don’t apply there, except possibly to be used against a man. I was given no presumption of innocence against false accusations. Nor was there any repercussion whatsoever for those false accusation when it was proven that they were false. The judges act as the women’s backup lawyers. Kansas law says instead of my wife being granted a No-Fault divorce, I could be granted an At-Fault divorce for her failure to provide a material marital duty (sex). But the Judge flat out told me he wasn’t going to hear of it. The Judge effectively said, F*** the law! They really don’t give a sh!t what the law says, they are Satan’s servants and they do demonic evil for their living.”

    For all practical intents and purposes, that is ALL “law” in the USSA nowadays. It’s just at its most blatant in the c_nt courts (federal courts come in a close second).

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Regarding anonymity, my stance has always been that someone’s arguments or points should be able to stand on their own regardless of their identity.

    It’s actually sometimes much better to be anonymous because if people know who you are (e.g. a famous preacher or a relative nobody), then unconscious bias can creep into their assessment, weighing points more heavily in someone’s favor.

    We already see this in real life where more attractive people tend to get more of the benefit of the doubt than less attractive people. No need to introduce additional bias, especially when the culture is going the opposite way.

    Liked by 6 people

  19. locustsplease says:

    I’m on the fence with this one. On one side, I agree you need a face to take the criticism and it builds a more recognizable brand with better risk reward. If you’re popular enough to lose a job your probably popular enough to make a living off social media. But anonymity allows the We are trapped on S1ut Island posts that we desperately need in these times.

    Like

  20. thedeti says:

    Off Topic:

    The next SF topic should be Will Smith, Chris Rock, Jada Pinkett Smith, and the Slap Heard Round the World.

    Liked by 2 people

    • lastholdout says:

      @deti, I agree. Not to pile on the guy, but to use it as a case study. Until the “slap” incident, I had no idea what was going on with them (or with any other Hollywood person). The YT vid, “Jada Pinkett Smith breaking Will Smith’s heart for 4 minutes straight” could be a case study. She owns him in this exchange. Painful to watch.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        I’ve watched only a few minutes of that video, LH. I did know about this Red Table Talk and I did know that Jada had at least one affair while she and Smith separated. Until today I did not notice how obviously heartbroken Smith was in that Red Table Talk video. The editing and commentary brings it out.

        There’s so much to talk about here. A whole series. Ideas:

        –Jada cucked Will. Big time.
        –Jada insisted that WIll go on her show and talk about her cucking him
        –toxic masculinity
        –toxic femininity
        –the effect of race on all this (is it different if the participants are white? Asian? Other races?)
        –they were “on a break”
        –Jada’s complete lack of remorse
        –Jada’s use of euphemisms and doublespeak to avoid telling the truth about her conduct
        –Jada is literally Tupac Shakur’s alpha widow – she’s still pining away for him
        –Jada’s manipulation of her husband – one minute Smith is chuckling; then after Jada rolls her eyes and shows her disapproval at Rock’s comments; Smith has to “white knight” for her because “Mama’s unhappy”
        –Smith’s emotional instability – going from amusement to violent rage to sadness/fighting back tears in a matter of an hour
        –Was this real, or was this staged and scripted to boost falling Oscar show ratings?

        Initial take: Jada is Deliiah; Will Smith is Samson. Smith is a broken man, and Jada broke him. Or, rather, he allowed Jada to break him. His wife cucked him and humiliated him in public numerous times and then forced him to sit there while she had a tell all about it on her Facebook show and wouldn’t even be completely honest about it. The entire sordid series of events has destroyed Smith. Or, he’s allowed it to destroy him. He spent 30 years building up a brand as one of the most likable, most bankable stars ever. And he very well might just have destroyed that too.

        I’d love to spend a while Red Pilling this whole mess.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        deti – I remember being at a point where the anger, hurt, sense of betrayal and lack of remorse from the Mrs. had me pretty messed up emotionally. It was as if there was no rudder in life and it took massive effort to keep the anger tamped down.

        Much of what you saw from Will Smith on stage I can relate to. My saving grace is that I’m not in CA with people trying to convince me Jada’s behavior is ok and that I appear to know the bible a bit better than he does. But I certainly broke like Will has, and for me breaking had the same characteristics regarding being able to control my emotions that are plaguing Will now. The difference is that I found the RP, recognized the truth of it and went down a very different path than what Will is on. He’s gone full tradcon, wife worship, BP, white knight nutty. It is sad to see him so broken over such a garden implement.

        Like

    • elspeth says:

      Should be interesting, deti. Don’t forget to add August Alsina along with Smith, Rock, and Pinkett-Smith. Alsina may have not been there in person, but he was at least one proverbial elephant in the room.

      Like

  21. Lastmod says:

    I watched it livestream on my computer. Okay….. I at first thought it was STAGED. I mean, the Oscar’s are WAY….. WAY down in ratings. They have been on a slide for awhile……

    — First. Amy Schumer is not funny. I am sick of everyone saying how gifted she is. What she needs to do is lose some weight.
    — The noxious signaling about race, diversity, the environment, the suffering in Ukraine, the whales, womens rights, reproductive rights…….. all of this lecturing, posturing……
    — Then Will Smith slaps Chris Rock….. and cusses him out. F bombs and all. Will brought “West Philly” to the Oscar’s.
    — Then Smith wins an Oscar, praises the Williams sisters (tennis players) who behave in the same manner by throwing tantrums. They make McEnroe look tame, btw.
    — The Smith goes on about race, and his people, and standing up for women.
    — ALL of the useless people there applaud him.

    It was lame. None of the movies I heard about. Will Smith I remember from “Fresh Prince” and being with DJ Jazzy Jeff when I was in high school. All these other actors and actresses….. most are unknown to me.

    This same crowd LET Harvey Weinstein for DECADES get away with what he did; while “lecturing” us (the common folk) about sexual harassment, womens rights, the earth, Islam, Republican jokes…

    This same crowd will shed tears over theater lesbians addicted to crack but could care less about the city of L.A. turning in many areas into a third world dump.

    Anyone else who did what Smith did would be escorted out. If you dissed Weinstein before the truth came out; you were OUT of work. And smeared.

    That joke Rock did was TAME btw. The trash talk in this scene is way worse. If a man did that to a woman who was “trash talking” his wife….. in handcuffs, and GoFundMe’s for the slapped woman, “even if she deserved it”.

    Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      I wonder: if some of the Oscar winners from Hollywood’s “Golden Era” who have been dead for decades were to return from the dead and see what the Academy Award Ceremonies have degenerated into (or what Hollywood in general has degenerated into, for that matter), what would they have to say?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lastmod says:

        Who knows? Hollywood and their ilk has always been a place for bad behavior that gets a pass “just because”…

        In October 1997, I and a co-worker from IBM showed up out front of the Pasadena Convention Center as the TV stars were making their way in for the “Emmy Awards”. We were on a week assignment at Disneyland.

        That corny “Touched by an Angel” TV show won a gazillion awards that year (a 1990’s version of the 1980’s TV show “Highway To Heaven”)

        That same week, I met up with a friend from college who was a set designer for that TV show “Mad About You”. He got me a ticket to a taping at Culver City Studios. Paul Riser was a class act, came out to the studio audience after the taping. shook hands, cracked jokes, and thanked everyone for coming out. Helen Hunt “the star” of that show was a snob. This same woman a few years later at a “womens conference” in Washington DC said it was genetically “impossible” for women to lie.

        II guess there are some okay people in the industry, famous and not famous. There is a part of me that wished I could have been a TV star type of thing……. or running my own trash talk show with the smarminess of David Spade….. THAT kind of show. LoL!

        I have not been to an actual movie theater to see a movie since 2011? 2012?

        No plans to do so. I do like some TV, and I do like game shows (you all know this), but Hollywood for me is very little talent, and good looks now……. and for the most part: How many boxes you can tick to be considered oppresssed, maligned, hated, discriminated…..

        Sports stars are really no better today. Brady rewarded for cheating, “Oh, yeah sorry about that…. but my wife is an amazing mother, and look at me, I have a great head of hair, and dimple on my chin!”

        Don’t get me started on Sosa, Bonds……..

        I’ll close with this: I bet Uncle Phil and Aunt Viv are very dissappointed with Will; and where was Carlton to stop him from doing this?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Joe2 says:

        I’m not sure it was any or very much different. It was just kept behind the scenes. They’re all actors and actresses and can turn their public persona on and off like we turn a faucet on or off. I mention this because I had a family member who worked in vaudeville doing a song and dance routine with some of the biggest names — one of which went on to have his own TV show. That individual tried his best to get the women dancers drunk so they would stumble and fall down during their routine because he thought it would be “funny” and the audience would laugh. Yet he came across as a nice guy, cracked jokes with the audience, and was a pleasant, friendly, and easy to like individual.

        Like

  22. feeriker says:

    “Jada is literally Tupac Shakur’s alpha widow – she’s still pining away for him.”

    If Will has known this since knowing Jada, that is red flag enough for him to have kicked her to the curb before ever getting involved with her. Any woman with “Alpha widowhood pain” over a man like Tupac is a woman to be avoided at all costs.

    Unfortunately, Will has kids with Jada, so he can’t just tell her, “You miss Tupac? How would you like to join him where he is now?”

    Like

  23. Pingback: What Ted got right | Σ Frame

  24. The Left loves to mock those who write anonymously, and they love to get them fired for holding Christian views.  Very predictable.  My goal is to write as freely as possible under the Eternity Matters tag until I retire. Then, I’ll go by my real name.

    A “Christian” Leftist preacher tried to “out” me to my employer once on a post he did on the Oregon Live site.  I reported him, and his comment got banned on his own post!  But even though the guy was wrong in his details about me, I realized that I should be more careful with my name online. 

    And I’m not that anonymous.  I link to videos I’ve done.  If people dug enough, they could easily find my name.  But if anyone ever complained to my employer, I could make it explicitly clear that I never represented myself as an employee of XYZ, so under no circumstances should my views reflect on them.

    I’ve been blessed with a great job, and we’ve basically capped our standard of living, so we can now give more and more.  If I lose my job because of some Leftist Internet cranks, then all that goes away.  I trust in God’s sovereignty, but I’m trying to be innocent and wise – just like He taught us to be.

    I also have a role where we scrutinize the performance of other groups, so people must know we are judging them fairly.  I wouldn’t want them to think that I am evaluating them differently because of their political or religious views or lifestyles.

    My current employer is great and unlikely to do something, but you never know.  I used to work for HP and they were hopelessly politically correct.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Pingback: The Boring Loyal Dude | Σ Frame

  26. ramman3000 says:

    Here is the OP bottom line:

    “There must be a specific purpose for either adopting a pseudonymous identity or revealing personal information for all the world to see. In some cases, it could be a matter of life or death. Censorship and demonetization pale by comparison….the resulting harassment and persecution will only slow you down and may not be worth the trouble.”

    Jesus said:

    “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

    Jesus notes of the prophets, Pharisees, and teachers of the law… and his own followers:

    “So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets…Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.”

    Paul said:

    “But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”

    Boast in your weakness. Be glad of it. Though you are weak, the power of Christ makes you strong, though all manner of hardship may come.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s