Click to Subscribe
▶  More from
'Speaking of Geh'
Woman in the Man Cave—Fire Discusses Debate and Gay Masculinity with the Hoplessly Hetero Crackpot
Speaking of geh...
10:43 AM (7 minutes ago)
So many things come to mind and then seem potentially frivolous or ill timed given the reality of dealing with every day I think about them, think about typing them...then let them drift with the tide of time...
Anyhow...I always find value in what you write James...Merci for the response....most often it is in a way like hearing myself except said in a different way and often with much more eloquence.
In regards to these (many) synchronicities...I offer an Exhibit A:
I concur Debating is beyond gay. For f**ks sake it's got the word bait in it (the frequency of the sound emanation is what counts, not necessarily spelling). If something points really close at a truth like an arrow to a target...debate dies. To me debating is the construct of intellectuality which has nothing to do with actual intelligence. Zero. Intellectuality breeds severed and disconnected jack offs jacking off inside their heads. A few months ago for sh*ts and giggles I watched about 20 minutes of a debate between (male) three really skinny tiny frail smart British atheists and 2 stocky short bearded barely hiding their holy hate, sweaty, stuffed into shiny suits arab muzlimbs. The little english guys were just "following the science" and the sad dead end that that brings them, but they made valid points about "the seen," while the sweaty jeehordees tried feverishly to sound credible and factual about their smiting god but in a matter of minutes were raising their my way or the highway extolling and looking like they just wanted to say f**k it and whip out their calf-ir was pretty funny...
In other news, I saw this guy Jack Donovan mentioned in a post on your site and looked him up and was looking at him with one eye shut due to his extremely greased up photos vs what he says...and my intuitions were spot on. So this morning in my cyber wandering i see...this guy who is a apparently a big voice for "masculinity" calls himself androphile instead of geh is a voice for manhood who likes manhood so much he wants to give and get manhood?....blah blah you get the idea...
am perplexed...his instagram page which I briefly glimpsed (Am not on there) screams geh when I took a quick look so it leaves me with this one eye closed...
Do you have a take on this guy? Am not trying to disparage here...this reality is a sea of hypocrisy with half baked concoctions of endless persuasions telling people how it is and I see him in a way as part of this...I couldn't get through one interview or talk by him because it seemed a bit like false advertising to me...
Merci for reading these James and being so generous with your time and your intelligence.

Fire, I was contacted by Richard Barrett after he read my debate is gay article and he texted me that I was right about debate being a negating pursuit and would be willing to write about it from the viewpoint of a young man who was at the top of the homeschool debate circuit for some years. I told him that what he should do is write a story about a debater who gets in trouble for being honest and the idea took fire in his young mind...
Your point about the bait in debate is very good. It only matered, upon a time, what sound a word made and in what context. But in our sophistic descent into mental masturbatory madness, we now fixate on spelling. Reading primary sources from the 1600s and 1700s is a lesson in how little spelling mattered in the Age of Discovery, and how much it matters now in the Age of Control.
Now for the hard part of your response, a question of honor for me.
Jack and me.
I have read Jack's books No Man's Land, The Way of Men, Blood Rites and A Sky with No Eagles. They were all insightful and well-written. Jack also, after much pressure from mutual readers, reviewed my book Taboo You and declared that he was suspicious of my non-hierarchal view of masculinity, netting me the largest chunk of long-time readers I have received. I owe Jack.
Then, me being a total prick, after Jack stated that Taboo You inspired him to write another masculinity book—and I regard The Way of Men as still the most important book of the 20th Century—I wrote the book I figured he had conceived, datamined everything in front of him, and published it for free on line and dedicated it to him, ruining his chance to make thousands of dollars and making nothing myself.
Despite this, almost exactly two years ago, when I was very sick, Jack took me out to lunch in Portland, Oregon, paid for it and drove me home. When he met the ragged, ailing and feral dog of my host, a blind old cur with a reputation for biting strangers, Jack immediately extended his hand and petted the old boy. Also, Jack never badmouths anyone in private conversation, even immoral actors who we were both involved with. So I can't tell you about why he divested himself from very lucrative speaking engagements with Alt Right political activists other than to say that it was because the atheist leaders of those organizations denigrated the faith of their Christian supporters openly, and Jack—a committed pagan, who Christians would burn at the stake if they were still in power—walked away from that money on a point of honor.
One of my problems with debate is that it will ultimately devolve into a criticism of the messenger. So, I would not want Jack's private life to turn people away from his work.
Here is the rub—I do not know anything about Jack's private life.
From walking and driving with him through springtime Portalnd were all the little darlings and faggost were parading, I did not notice him being the least bit concerned with either sex, even as I drooled like a one-eyed dog in a meat market at the pink-haired little ponies that should have been mine to ride.
There are two big gulfs between Jack and I.
I am a violent psychopath and he is not.
He is an economic man and I am not.
I have gotten much heat about supporting Jack's work with certain people, some of them women, some of them very close to me, telling me that he is a homo.
This is gossip.
Jack never discussed his sexuality in any of the books I read of his and not in person at all. He was fulfilling an obligation to his readers who insisted that we meet, despite the fact that I could tell he found me somewhat nutty.
So, in terms of me working with men who are homos, since I do not know this about Jack and am not curious about the charges from others, I can tell you that I have one close friend and two male relatives who are gay and I find them to be pleasant company in conversation, though their lack of physical confidence causes me to slot them as women.
In general I support homosexuality for the following reasons:
Every man who takes himself out of the breeding pool leaves more pussy for me.
Almost all gay women still yearn for dick and I have enjoyed providing this for three lipstick lesbos, whose dislike for men despite their need for ritual insemination relieves me of the tiresome burden of providing non-carnal companionship for them.
My Utopia would have only one strain of heterosexual men—me and my sons and grandsons, while the rest of the men played jack-a-mole and tonsil-hockey.
In this light, I can understand women being disgusted by homos because it fouls their selection pool—so my condolences there.
The thing that bothers me most about non-breeders is not homos, not sissy incels, but masculine men—and I know a dozen of them—who are not siring children on women for various reasons, including but not limited to:
-1. Social ineptitude born of a misunderstanding of what women are based on liberal, homosexual social conditioning,
-2. Bizarre boyish beauty standards for women, which I will address in an article this coming Friday, which comes down to masculine desire for an infertile boyish body, born of homosexual fashion fetish imposed on male-to-female attraction cues,
-3. Ideological celibacy, based on the strange American belief that men should only mate with women that think like them, in other words, another projection of homosexual preference for mating with one's same type of human rather than the opposite type...
This hits me hard as I have three very close friends suffering from severe post-sexual social induction, who I have known for a combined 100 years, who remain childless, bitter and alone because they have to have a woman who (1) reasons like a non-emasculated man, that is (2) under the BMI generally necessary for fertility and impossible for most mothers, and (3) holds to masculine rather than feminine beliefs, placing freedom over security, for instance.
So, if there was a masculinity expert who was an androphile cultivating a field of more masculine men this would, if successful, would encourage a larger pool of men worthy of marrying for your daughters and sisters and nieces—because the more masculine a man is, in most cases, the more interested he is going to be in his opposite rather than defaulting to a sterile union with his variant type.
Thanks for the kind words, Fire.
But please, do not forget that I've spent 47 years trying to be the worse human possible and would like to think I have had some success here. If you could charge me with misogyny, misanthrope, thought-crimes and psychopathy on occasion, it would help boost my waning self esteem.
prev:  Woke Vests     ‹  blog  ›     next:  Writing in Mordor
honor among men
son of a lesser god
masculine axis
logic of steel
supplicant song

ShepApr 23, 2021

I love The Way of Men and A Sky Without Eagles—in a very manly way, of course.

Also, I think it would take a lot of guys to outnumber Jack, and if they ever try to burn him at the stake they'd better pack a lunch.
Add a new comment below: