Similar posts

Critical-Rationalist #sexist reddit.com

image

When no self-actualization process, no higher value and no collective achievements exist anymore because of the collapse of cultural norms, individuals tend to base their whole existence and build their ego around the fulfillment of their animalistic needs. On a biological level, this is what happens when the stress factor is removed from a species; individuals tend to excessively act on their animalistic urges (namely their two fundamental imperatives: sex and eating) and will discard anything that would prevent them from reaching these goals. It's precisely what happened in the mouse utopia experiment. It led mice in the experiment to become violent among males in order to have sex, and led females to have sex all the time, killing their babies, eating other mice and developing deviant sexual practices. In 2018 humans, this leads to abortions on a massive scale, cuckolding and pegging, as well as the end of every cultural norm that would hinder women's ability to act on their animalistic urges. This is why fat acceptance and female sex positivity are a sociocultural necessity for modern females.

The comment of this post is a symptom of this phenomenon. These people deny every cultural norm that allowed every advanced civilization, throughout the world and history, to exist. Virginity is an imperative in order to have proper pair-bonding, and thus a strong family unit that is the basis of human societies. But these people don't think of such things, they just constantly think about their animalistic needs and build their egos and their new culture around them in order to avoid becoming totally insane.

What they don't understand is that incels who post on this subreddit are, for a good part at least, aiming for self-actualization and fulfilled lives. They rightly consider that sex in itself with a whore (be it a prostitute or a modern female that starts to become Chads cumdumps in high school for validation and attention) would not help them achieving what civilized men strive for: self-realization through family construction. Self-actualization through discovering their ability to be a proper provider for a woman who they love and that respects them. An incel resents society because his "looks counterpart" of today will never be able to be such a woman precisely because of their lack of virginity and hence of pair-bonding.

By pushing this sex-positivity and denying the inherent virtue of virginity denying men and women a fulfilled life, degrading everyone in the process, these people destroy lives for selfish and animalistic reasons. They will shame incels for their current subhuman status, but it is them who are leaving humanity.

HaifischGeweint #fundie freethoughtblogs.com

For the purposes of relative brevity only, I am limiting the content of this post to HIV/AIDS discrimination in Canada, and will not be addressing the racial component (i.e., which racial groups are at highest risk). It should go without saying that this is already a loaded topic. I’m going to warm this post up by providing you readers with a video link for the trailer of a powerful documentary about the life-long effects of discriminatory North American laws (specifically in the U.S.) on HIV-positive people, before I break down some basic terminology:

HIV Is Not A Crime – A 2011 Documentary by Sean Strub

Relevant Terminology

Now, partly for the purposes of reducing the space it takes to say “living with HIV/AIDS”, and partly as a sign of compassion for those individuals who are thusly described (some of whom are my friends), for the rest of this post, I am going to use the word poz instead. I will be using it like any other adjective, just like how I don’t talk about my friends who are poz any differently than anyone else unless the topic at hand is specifically about social barriers against people who are poz. Previously, one might have said “infected”. But is this person a zombie or a rabid animal? I think we can all afford to be a lot more sensitive, and just use the word poz instead.

Furthermore, on the issue of the term “infection” (and sometimes even its cousin, “transmission”) — some people are born poz, some people became poz relatively unintentionally (i.e., not engaging in high-risk behaviours, such as bare-backing with someone they knew at the time was poz or sharing needles), and some people who became poz at one time now have such a low viral load that it can’t even be detected (let alone transmitted in any way to another individual). It is for sensitivity to all of these people and, really, most people who are poz (and not currently dying from complications of AIDS), that many prefer to speak of becoming converted. Most people who are poz aren’t walking around with such an active and excessively contagious infectious process coursing through their circulatory system that it is in any way appropriate to refer to them as “infected”. And in fact, even for those who are so unfortunate to be dealing with a hyperbolic bloom of the virus in their system, this is usually a temporary state, often associated with the earliest phases in conversion (which can easily go unnoticed for many newly converted) or the final stages of AIDS (in which case, they are unlikely to just be out for a casual stroll like anyone else).

The point is that words like “infected” and “infection”, when talking about people who are poz, carries a connotation of uncleanliness, filth, and/or viral transmission — again, medical intervention has actually advanced to the point that many poz people are no-transmissible or even un-detectable (I’ve seen it with my own eyes while working for a doctor whose only poz patient had been non-transmissible for 13 years and started testing un-detectable). You don’t personally have to agree with this argument, but I do, so I will be referring to people as becoming converted (or at risk thereof) unless I’m quoting a source that uses different language, such as the Supreme Court of Canada.

Finally, a major component of anti-poz stigma is when people look at someone who is poz and perceive of their condition first (as though it were a disease, an infection, or otherwise just icky in socially significant ways) and then perceive of the person in front of them after the fact. Many people will see the fact that This Individual Is Poz as more important (or of a higher priority) than the fact that they are an individual. A human being, not just a body that carries a perceived threat of invisible death and some sort of unseen contagious filth. A person. This attitude of seeing some isolated quality before recognizing the full personhood (or even not being able to see past this isolated undesired quality) of the individual concerned is called essentialism. If you’re already familiar with the role of essentialism in racism, sexism/misogyny, homophobia/transphobia, and ableism, among many other forms of systemic oppression, yes I am talking about the same thing here. Essentialism is the driving principle in anti-poz stigma, but bigotry is the behaviour of application of that principle — the line is razor-thin.

Criminalization Of HIV In Canada

Now that I’ve established the terminology you will be seeing in this blog post and likely elsewhere if you choose to look for resources (especially in gay and queer communities, where I’ve personally seen poz and converted/conversion used most often), I can start talking about the criminalization of HIV. I’ve actually known about a law that exists in Canada now for a few years, whereby if a person who is poz engages in unprotected sex without disclosing their status to their partner, they can be tried and convicted of aggravated sexual assault (i.e., rape). I found out about it because, though he had not converted either of two known casual partners with whom he engaged in unprotected sex, a CFL football player named Trevis Smith was being put on trial and his reputation permanently destroyed for not disclosing his status to his partners. To the best of my knowledge, Smith’s wife has never charged him, presumably because she’s not looking at her husband as some sort of infectious pustule. Other people have been convicted on similar charges under similar circumstances prior to and since Smith faced sentencing that marked him a sex offender, but his particular case was what brought this issue to my attention. I’ll be getting to what the law actually states momentarily.

First, for the record, while I personally very strongly disagree with engaging in unprotected sex without first having an honest conversation about STIs and safer sex (no matter what your status), I can fully empathize with someone who can’t quite get the words out until after the first encounter. This is also simply not the same as lying when a partner enquires. I talk about why that is in this blog post I wrote in May 2011 when I found out that a bunch of my friends-at-the-time, who all still claim to be sex-positive, were apparently sex-positive-unless-you’re-HIV-positive. The short version is I have experience not being able to get the words out soon enough, and though that person continued to see me and not use protection for nearly a year, when we broke up, he threw it back in my face — I’m talking about human papillomavirus, which I was exposed to before the first time I consented to sex as a young adult (take all the time you need to think about that). But what I didn’t mention in that post is that I also have experience being directly lied to about someone else’s STI status, and being directly lied to about someone going to get tested . While I can be compassionate to someone who couldn’t find a way to bring it up (assuming we are speaking of someone who is poz and either non-transmissible or undetectable, or someone who knows their poz status and uses a condom to protect their partner), I cannot stand by someone who lies about their status when asked about it or who (regardless of their status) deliberately avoids getting tested and/or practising safer sex. Full stop.

I firmly believe that the media circus around Trevis Smith, and the existing law around non-disclosure, bolstered already pre-existing widespread stigma and a dangerous avoidance of personal responsibility (that really need not be further exacerbated) on the part of people who can’t rest assured of their status because they won’t get tested for fear that they will test positive for conversion. People already avoid getting tested so that they can keep a false sense of security. I dated multiple such individuals and have talked to countless people who haven’t the faintest idea of how to actually practice safer sex (it’s more than just a fucking condom) or who assume that if their prospective partner doesn’t say anything, it’s because they have nothing to disclose (these are people who are recklessly negligent towards themselves). Criminalizing HIV isn’t going to make it go away, any more than not getting tested will reduce your chances of conversion. So what does Canadian law actually say about HIV?

In 1998, R. v. Cuerrier set the precedent for HIV criminalization in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled, at the time, that someone who is poz who is engaging in protected or unprotected sex without disclosing their HIV status to their partner, obtained consent under fraudulent circumstances, and therefore has committed an aggravated sexual assault. The default assumption here is that people who are poz are frightening, are rapists, and unsuitable sexual partners for anyone who isn’t poz. Whether or not the sexual partner(s) pressing the charges was/were converted is irrelevant, as is whether or not the person who is poz even has a sufficiently high viral load that they can convert anyone else; and in fact, as in Trevis Smith’s case, Cuerrier’s two partners were not converted. It’s also unclear whether or not the complainant must demonstrate to the court that they were of HIV-negative status prior to the encounter, although in one case, a failure to demonstrate that resulted in an aquittal. Well, the law changed recently. Very recently. Now you can be charged even if you are undetectable or non-transmissible, if you didn’t use a condom. And you can still be charged even if you did use a condom, no matter what your viral load was at the time. Of course, the media spins it as “now you can be HIV-raped without a condom and you won’t even know it! Clutch your pearls!” Here’s the actual statement in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision two months ago:

[ “This Court, in Cuerrier, established that failure to disclose that one has HIV may constitute fraud vitiating consent to sexual relations under s. 265(3)(c) Cr. C. Because HIV poses a risk of serious bodily harm, the operative offence is one of aggravated sexual assault (s. 273 Cr. C.). To obtain a conviction under ss. 265(3)(c) and 273, the Crown must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant’s consent to sexual intercourse was vitiated by the accused’s fraud as to his HIV status. The test boils down to two elements: (1) a dishonest act (either falsehoods or failure to disclose HIV status); and (2) deprivation (denying the complainant knowledge which would have caused him or her to refuse sexual relations that exposed him or her to a significant risk of serious bodily harm). Failure to disclose may amount to fraud where the complainant would not have consented had he or she known the accused was HIV-positive, and where sexual contact poses a significant risk of or causes actual serious bodily harm.

[…]

The evidence adduced in this case leads to the conclusion that, as a general matter, a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV is negated if: (i) the accused’s viral load at the time of sexual relations was low and (ii) condom protection was used. This general proposition does not preclude the common law from adapting to future advances in treatment and to circumstances where risk factors other than those considered in this case are at play.” ]

In other words, if you would consent to sex with someone assuming that they are HIV-negative but doing nothing to either rule out the possibility that they are poz or even protect your own sexual wellness (as any responsible sexually active adult should), but your attitude towards that person does a 180 in the event it turns out they are poz, the Supreme Court of Canada will answer you by registering your former sex partner as a sex offender and sentencing them to prison, for up to a maximum of a life sentence. And yet the Supreme Court of Canada just can’t see how this could possibly be abused. Well, the BC Civil Liberties Association can. So can Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and their coalition of allied organizations, which released this statement on the same day as the Supreme Court’s decision. Because not every person who is poz who dares to have sex with a consenting adult is actively trying to convert HIV-negative people without their consent (again — in that case, I do not stand by his actions and think he should be criminally punished), but the Supreme Court of Canada ruling criminalizes every HIV-positive body in the country; unless, as Michael Vonn says, you freeze and label your used condoms and get signed waivers from all your sex partners indicating that they knew your status before you had sex. Anyone with a bone to pick against a poz sex partner in Canada now has a golden ticket to ruin that person’s life, livelihood, public reputation, and ability to maintain and secure gainful employment, safe housing, or custody of their own children, by dragging them through a guaranteed media circus and criminal court. Race is a significant factor in this, that is already too complex to address even briefly, except to say that the guaranteed majority of people who will be impacted by this are racialized individuals. You can take that to the bank.
Changing The Record

To some people, sex-positivity means sex is a positive thing that you should gleefully embrace at every possible opportunity. If that’s what floats your boat, fine, but sex-negative abstinence “activists” and pro-lifers alike would like nothing more than to paint all sex-positive activists and their ideology thusly. And of course, it is this very slippery misappropriation of the term “sex-positive” that leads the same people who embrace it to recoil in disgust at the audacity of anyone who is poz to have a sex life at all — to say things like “Well if I found out I had sex with someone who was HIV-positive and they only told me afterwards, they may as well have held a gun to my head and raped me, because if I knew they were HIV-positive, I never would have given them my consent.” One of my long-term partners actually posted this online in a discussion led explicitly towards this conclusion by a local self-proclaimed sex-positive activist (who, funny thing, has since used that website and Twitter to repeatedly libel me and multiple others — but especially me, because I’m too poor to hire a lawyer to stop her). I just about barfed on my keyboard when I read the words my so-called friends, allies, and lovers had contributed to this conversation, and when I managed to contain myself, I seriously contemplated spontaneously ending my romantic relationships over it. Amazingly, these are people who rub shoulders with, fuck, and maintain a leather family with at least one person who is terrified to tell anyone too loudly that they have herpes, for fear of being treated like a Pariah. But none of them see the connection.

Sex-positivity is for everybody. It means an approach to sex education that teaches individual people that they have the right to prevent unwanted pregnancies and unwanted sexually transmitted infections, the right to self-respect, the right to say “no, not right now, but maybe later”, and the right to say what they want without fear of being ridiculed or shamed (and to stand up for themselves if they are ridiculed or shamed). It means being aware, up-to-date, and educated about what safer sex means and your individual and general risks of inheriting or transmitting a sexually transmitted infection with any of your sexual partners. For instance, if you aren’t having penile sex, how do you protect yourself (obviously condoms are out) and what is your risk of inheriting or transmitting something like HIV or chlamydia from the different activities you are engaging in? (Hint: enzymes in human saliva eliminate the HIV virus but not chlamydia; some infectious processes such as heat blisters from herpes or aphthous ulcerations from bad oral hygiene or smoking can compromise either your lips or gingiva, increasing your risk of inheriting even infections that your saliva would normally eliminate.) Sex-positivity means not feeling ashamed to be tested regularly for sexually transmitted infections while you’re sexually active (and for a few months after) and even encouraging your primary sexual partner to go with you so you can get tested together (or even immunized where possible and desired, such as for Hepatitis A & B). It also means all sorts of fun stuff like dropping in together at the sex shop down the street from the clinic and picking out a new toy to play with.

Don’t want to be converted? You don’t have to be an anti-poz bigot to reduce your risk of exposure and promote prevention. Both risk-reduction and prevention are critical aspects of sex-positivity. It’s sad that both “sex-positive” activists and the Supreme Court of Canada have left poz people even further marginalized on this issue than they already were. And if you think it’s pretty bleak in Canada but haven’t watched that 8-minute video, I’ve got news for you: it’s so much worse in the states, I might wind up doing a second blog post just about that.


Assuming that someone has nothing to disclose because they didn’t say anything isn’t informed consent. I realize my opinion is going to be unpopular among people who are not poz, but please (everybody). Take some responsibility for what you’re doing with whatever you’re packing between your legs. It’s one thing if you asked and they lied — which I flat-out disagree with and think they should be criminally punished in that case — but it’s another thing entirely when you don’t ask (especially when they used a condom anyway) and then get the person registered as a sex offender because YOU failed to take the same degree of personal responsibility as you secretly expected from them (but only if they were poz, because if they weren’t, then you don’t expect them to take that degree of personal responsibility because you don’t)

THAT’S where the discrimination is taking place here. One standard of behaviour for people who are poz, and another for people who aren’t. Criminal punishment for people who are poz (even with low viral load, non-transmissible status, or undetectable status), but never for people who aren’t. Are people who are poz not entitled to be assured that the person they are about to have sex with is a safe partner, because they’re already poz?

I find this “informed consent” requirement from people who are poz, but not from people who aren’t (because I guess… why… because they have nothing to disclose, and they’re the “victim” here?) motivated by thinking of HIV/AIDS as how the SCC laid it out: threat of bodily harm. Only it’s not that black-and-white. Low viral load, non-transmissible viral load, and even undetectable viral load, do not present threat of bodily harm.


Have you ever had unprotected sex with someone who was not, at the time, a virgin? Congratulations. You’re INFECTEEED with HPV, and your body can now INFECT your future partners with a virus that could kill them with cervical cancer over roughly the same time span in the absence of treatment as untreated HIV typically becomes AIDS and takes a life.

Shouldn’t you be telling all your partners about your status? After all, you’re potentially killing someone by having sex with them.

HPV is even transmitted via skin-to-skin contact, so either one of you wearing a condom doesn’t protect you. And if you think oral sex is your way out, think again. That’s how people get throat cancer from HPV.

Eivind Berge #fundie eivindberge.blogspot.hr

Beware of sex-negative MRAs
A casual observer might get the impression that the Men's Rights Movement is growing, since there clearly are more self-identified MRAs now than ever. But actually, most of this growth sadly consists of a cheerleading chorus for the feminist sex abuse industry rather than any real antifeminism.

There is a deep schism in the MRM between sex-positive and sex-negative MRAs which is well illustrated by how Angry Harry is now treated at A Voice for Men. Angry Harry is a venerable old MRA, a founding father of the movement, and for him to be ostracized like that just for being eminently reasonable is a travesty.

AVfM purports to be an MRA site but is actually a cesspool of feminist filth, where they worship radical feminists like TyphonBlue. She is a particularly nasty promoter of the feminist sex abuse industry including the lie that women are equally culpable for sex offenses. TyphonBlue is so extreme and clueless in her feminist thinking that she even attributes my former rage over celibacy to "processing (badly) some sort of overwhelming sexual trauma from his past." In the feminist worldview, sexual abuse is the only explanation for every perceived problem, and any man who disagrees with feminist abuse definitions must have been abused himself and is in denial.

TyphonBlue, the AVfM crowd and other feminists have a special poster boy for female-on-male "rape" in the former marine James Landrith. I always felt James Landrith was one of the most unsavory characters on the entire Internet, as his advocacy for the expansion of rape law has disgusted me for many years now. Even if he were telling the truth, it is patently absurd to take his sob story of female sexual coercion seriously as rape. The story inspires jealousy in normal men instead of sympathy and Landrith is a hypersensitive outlier to be traumatized by whatever experience he had. Angry Harry says so himself,
Furthermore, even if these particular memories were 100% correct, it seemed very unlikely to me that a 'normal' man would be so traumatised - and remain traumatised even 20 years later - by the incidents described in his article. So, as I said, I groaned inwardly, being somewhat depressed at the thought that false memories and/or 'particularly sensitive' victims were invading one of my comfort zones in cyberspace.
Now it turns out this feminist poster boy is exposed as not only a preposterously sensitive moron but a fraud as well. Angry Harry has caught James Landrith carefully changing his story and relying on recovered memories just like any other feminist accuser of the most untrustworthy kind. Now Landrith even claims, based on memories recovered in therapy, that the woman spiked his drink before "raping" him, making the feminist melodrama complete.

I myself called out the female sex-offender charade several years ago. To me, nothing screams bullshit as loudly as claims of sexual abuse by women. I have emphatically stated that women cannot rape men nor sexually abuse boys. I regard it as crucially important for MRAs to make it perfectly clear that we do not acknowledge female sex offenders even in principle. It was clear to me from the beginning that the female sex-offender charade only serves to promote feminist sex laws that ultimately hurt men immeasurably more than it can help a few rare particularly sensitive outliers who are traumatized by female sexual coercion (if they even exist). It is unreasonable to make laws based on hysterical outliers, and most importantly, the laws they want correspond exactly to the most hateful feminist sex laws which hurt innocent men every day. Therefore, I cannot emphasize enough that anyone supporting the female sex-offender charade is not a true MRA. This is a very good test to separate the wheat from the chaff -- ask how someone feels about female sex offenders, and if they respond that male victims of women are marginalized and female sex offenders need to be prosecuted more vigorously (or at all), then they are most certainly not one of us.

The word for such people is feminist or mangina. And now I've got some bonus advice for manginas: If you want to be sex-negative, then there are ways to go about it without catering to the feminist abuse industry and without advertising how stupid you are. For someone brought up in a feminist milieu this might be difficult to grasp, but guess what -- there are ways to prohibit and punish undesirable sexual activity without defining it as "abuse" of some helpless "victim." Traditional moralists have done so for millennia. One example is Islamic sharia law. Another is traditional Christianity and our laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy and so on in place until recently. Even obscenity can be dealt with on grounds of morality rather than the hateful and ludicrous persecution of "child porn" we have now, where teenagers are criminalized as sex offenders for sharing "abuse" pictures of themselves. A blanket ban on obscenity such as in the old days would be infinitely better and more fair than this charade. I don't agree with the sex-hostility of traditional morality either, but at least it isn't as retarded as the false-flag MRAs who apply feminist sex abuse theory to males. So if you want to be taken seriously, it would serve you better to advocate for traditional moralist values and laws instead of the feminist sex-abuse nonsense.

When a boy gets lucky with an older woman such as a teacher, quit insisting he was "raped" or "abused," because sexual abuse is not what is going on here. Forcing these relationships into a framework of "rape" or "sexual abuse" designed for women only serves to showcase your lack of intelligence and ignorance of human sexuality. It is also not needed in order to proscribe such behavior if you really believe it needs to be a criminal matter. You can punish the woman (or both) for fornication and/or adultery if you insist on being so sex-hostile. No victimology is needed! No denying the boy got lucky and ludicrously attempting to define him as a "victim." No sucking up to the feminists and no display of extreme imbecility on your part.

I can't really argue with moralism, because it basically consists of preferences about what kind of society you'd like to live in or claims about the will of some deity. It is not in the realm of rationality, so beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing, there isn't all that much to say. But when you make claims about abuse and victimhood like the feminists do, those claims can be tested because they bear relation to the real world and human nature, which is what science is about. Thus scientific methods such as is employed by evolutionary psychology can greatly illuminate the nature of rape and sexual abuse, and whether women can be perpetrators, and it can easily be shown that feminist jurisprudence makes thoroughly unscientific claims. Feminist sex law is neither based on evidence, rationality nor morality and should not be taken seriously. It is mere pseudoscience concocted to justify an ulterior motive. If you still insist on it, you are left with pure absurdity, as is easily demonstrated by a simple thought experiment.

Feminist sex abuse is so arbitrarily defined that if you are blindfolded and transported to a random jurisdiction where you meet a nubile young woman, you would have to consult the wise feminists in the local legislature before knowing if you can feel attracted to her without being an abuser (or even a "pedophile" if you are utterly brainwashed). And if you see a romantic couple, you similarly cannot know if the younger one is being "raped" without consulting the feminists you admire so much. That's how much faith manginas place in feminists -- they allow them to rule their most intimate desires and defer to them unquestioningly. Manginas are feminist sycophants and the MRM is now full of them in places like AVfM, The Spearhead, and the Men's Rights subreddit.

What is going on is this. The manginas are so steeped in feminist propaganda that the only tool in their intellectual toolbox is "abuse." And so in Western countries, even conservatives and religious fanatics (barring Islamists) will only ever argue that any type of sexual activity needs to be banned because it constitutes "abuse." Old concepts of sin or crimes against nature/God have been almost entirely supplanted by the feminist sex "abuse" paradigm. In terms of "abuse" is now the sole means available to conceptualize anything you disapprove of regarding sexuality, so everyone, including devoutly religious people, jumps on the bandwagon and promotes the politically correct abuse industry. Even prostitution is now to be legislated exclusively in terms of sexual exploitation or "trafficking" of (mostly) women -- traditional morality does not enter into it and of course all whores are themselves only innocent victims while the johns are the abusers. Feminists and manginas simply cannot help themselves because they know no other morality after a lifetime of being exposed to feminist propaganda. Feminist theory is so pervasive, any alternative is literally unthinkable for liberals and conservatives alike these days. This is how you get the bizarre charade of putting women on trial for "raping" willing and eager 17-year-old boys. Prosecuting female sex offenders is the most comical and perverse legal charade in history, yet false-flag MRAs support it along with the feminists because they have been that well indoctrinated with feminism. Brainwashing really works. Last night I got a comment from a true believer which well illustrates the profoundly obtuse mindset of a male feminist:
if he says no, it is rape. if he is forced, it is rape. if he is under the legal age, it is rape and child molestation. plain and simple. same laws for all...and if women want to enjoy the privileges of modern society, they must be held accountable under the same laws and to the same degree.
Such blind devotion to feminist sex law is the hallmark of a mangina. They neither comprehend that men and women are different, nor do they see anything wrong with these hateful sex laws when applied to men either. Instead they unflinchingly support equal injustice for all. We real MRAs need to denounce these fools. Don't be led on by these impostors who claim to be on men's side while promoting the very worst aspects of feminism. Rest assured that real MRAs are not like that and we do exist. The real MRM will trudge on despite our depressingly small size at the moment.

Rassimov #sexist incels.co

[Blackpill] We are living in a PATRIARCHY

You don't get to call yourself blackpilled if you unironically believe that women want to liberate themselves from patriarchal customs — they don't. The goal of radical feminism was never some sex-positive egalitarian utopia where we will get to shamelessly flirt with girls and screw around like jackrabbits; that is 1968' male boomer cringe. Instead what feminism™ actually brought us back was polygamy, violent porn and Chad worship.

You simply know you're living in a patriarchy since the core defining feature of a patriarchal society isn't monogamy — it's POLYGAMY. Female hypergamy inevitably leads to polygamy which in turn reinforces patriarchy as women are ready to backstab each other, humiliate themselves, even neglect their own children in the ruthless competition of a small number of top tier men. Forget the notion that in a patriarchy shut-in spergs would get their qt 3.14 wifey, historically it was about filtering out millions of unfit men by making them die in tribal race wars - today women filter out alien skullcels with tinder.

Feminism has now reached it's counter point at the realization that being submissive feels empowering for women. I shit you not as there is a positive correlation where the stronger a woman will become, the more independent she will get, the more money she will make — the more a desire for a tall, broad shouldered, masculine type making over six figures becomes non-negotiable. Because at this point a Chad Prince is the only thing that can make her can feel protected and feminine again. Did I mention that empowered women enjoy reading sadistic porn novellas on their way commuting to work? Women are now lurking for sadistic porn like never before.

tl;dr In the olden times the alpha leader got to fuck all the women; in modern times women get to fuck the alpha leader.

Some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: Cultures that have ‘third genders’ don’t prove transgenderism is either ubiquitous or progressive

(LittleOwl12)
There's a lot of "noble savage" romanticism in trans ideology. They don't respect these cultures enough to learn anything in depth about them. They just want what they want out of it,

(baremon7)
It looks more like a barbaric practice of mainly men that don't embrace a sexist toxic form of masculinity to set them apart from women, but see themselves as non-men. it is enforced in the hierarchy of a male system.

Women that don't feel like women can just be killed by their family.

(lefterfield)
That's been my conclusion from reading about the vast majority of third gender cultures. It's infuriating when libfems try to justify transgenderism with it, when it's clear they know nothing about the practices or the cultures.

(LumpyTrust)
And how many of these "third genders" treated the person as a member of the opposite sex? Unless they were treated identically to members of the opposite sex, it's not comparable to modern trans.

They say "Transwomen are women", not "transwomen are a third category/transwomen are a category of biological males".

(Elle_Ciel)
Having extra genders doesn't make any sense unless the culture already had a rigid gender role binary. Not to mention the implication that being gay or GNC makes you a less valid or valuable member of your sex so you get tossed into the "non-man" category. None of these cultures viewed GNC men the same as actual women, and certainly not the same as being biologically female. Were they even allowed to have relationships or marriages with other men? Just because this is better than how they'd be treated in most cultures influenced by Abrahamic religions, that doesn't mean all these tribes lived in progressive, queer-affirming, sex-positive intersectional feminist utopias. /eyeroll?

I'm no anthropologist so feel free to chime in with any evidence to the contrary, but it seems like a lot of "third genders" are just for males. What did they do with the lesbians or transmen?

(womenopausal)
Married off and repeatedly impregnated is my guess.

Lance Welton #fundie vdare.com

Two hundred years ago, human beings were subject to harsh Natural Selection. People born with mutant genes, those who had a poor immune system, simply didn’t grow old enough to procreate. Forty percent of us died before we reached adulthood. This is now down to negligible levels in developed countries.

Accordingly, Woodley of Menie and his team aver that Calhoun’s experiment–which created a “Mouse Utopia”–will provide a good indication of what will happen to us.

In Calhoun’s “Mouse Utopia” at the University of Maryland, there were no predators, no bad weather, no possibility to escape, and no epidemics, because the mice were ensured to be healthy when they entered. There was a huge amount of space. It was, in other words, paradise for mice.

In July 1968, the experiment began. The parallels with the Industrial Revolution are simply spooky. Just as with the Industrial Revolution, which witnessed the collapse of child mortality due to improved medical science and living conditions, there was an enormous population spike. Numbers doubled every 55 days until there were 620 mice.

At this point population growth began to slow down, just as happened in Western countries in the early Twentieth Century. Doubling then only occurred every 145 days. And, just as in the West, Calhoun started to see more and more elderly—and even senile—mice.

By day 315, Calhoun started to notice interesting behavior changes in the mice. More and more males became what he called “the beautiful ones.” These effete males would make no attempt to fight or copulate with females. They simply spend their time washing each other and eating.

By contrast, female behavior became increasingly aggressive: they would attack males, throw their offspring out of the nest too young, attack their young, and actively avoid sex.

...

Calhoun put this collapse down to the consequences of overcrowding. But Woodley and his team showed that the colony was nowhere close to overcrowded when the population growth began to decline. Woodley and his team see the problem as much more fundamental.

They argue that all health problems, both physical and mental, are interrelated. This is because they all reflect the same phenomenon: what the team call “high mutational load.”

For example, consider autism. It is definitely a result of mutant genes because it is more likely to develop the older your father is, meaning it a result of defective, mutant sperm. Autism is associated with all manner of other mental and physical health problems.

The Woodley of Menie team further argue that the brain is extremely sensitive to mutation, because it is fantastically complicated. 84% of our genome relates to the brain. This means that even a small number of mutations can have a massive impact on behavior. The effect is magnified in social animals like mice and men behavior is learned and mutations can interfere with social processes which allow adaptive behavior to be correctly taught.

Woodley of Menie calls these “spiteful mutations.” And as the carriers grow in number, they can pressure even non-carriers to conform to their maladaptive behavior.

For example, childless women may encourage other women not to have children. Mothers are shamed as “failures” because they didn’t focus on a career. Even non-carriers of maladaptive behavior are impacted.

In other words, mice have key evolved instincts which allow them to survive. Every generation, some mutant mice—who lack these instincts–are born. But their maladaptive instincts—no desire to breed or fight, or zero maternal instinct—are a product of mutation. They also carry other mutations, leading to poor immune systems or physical weakness. So they die young, and don’t pass on their mutant genes.

But in Calhoun’s mouse experiment, these mice survived and had children. The children survived and more and more mutations built-up until the potentially normal mice were a tiny minority who didn’t have the chance to learn appropriate behavior or how to relate to other mice.

And, ultimately, almost all the mice were mutants. The rest were totally maladapted and the population died out.

This “Mutational Meltdown” is happening in the West. The authors present clear evidence for it: huge spikes in autism and genetic disorders. This could be extended to include the prevalence of eating disorders, homosexuality, sexual identity problems, and the desire to not have children.

“Spiteful mutations” undermine things like religion, which is little more than a way of promoting evolutionary imperatives. For example: go forth and multiply, cooperative with each other, repel the invader.

But we now have liberal religion, which is basically post-modernism plus a vague religious sense. It reflects the increasing number of people whose instinct is to destroy their own genetic interests.

Humans have evolved instincts. In the past, those with mutant genes causing them to lack them died young without passing on their genes. Now, this is not the case. They live to adulthood, often pass on their own genes and, even they don’t, they still alter the carefully selected nature of the group.

Put simply, we are living in a society increasing composed of and dominated by mutants. And they can be tentatively identified by the fact that they reject the behavioral norms and views which were the unquestioned norm only a few generations ago.

But there is crucial difference between Mouse Utopia and the West. We are the scientists who are maintaining our own utopia. There is a growing body of evidence that intelligence is decreasing. Eventually we won’t be intelligent enough to sustain utopia and we will collapse back to pre-industrial levels of Natural Selection.

The current model of society, like the “Mouse Utopia,” is heading to collapse.

The only questions are whether we can turn it around.

And, if we can’t, what will succeed it.

VisVoi #sexist incels.co

They are most likely just trying to eliminate all shame in western cultures. Shame (i.e. being held accountable for your actions) feels bad. Women operate on feelings alone - it is all that matters to them when making a decision. Since shame feels bad, women feel bad whenever people are shamed for degeneracy (such as premarital sex or cheating).

tl;dr females support homosexuality for the same reason they support sex-positivity, body-positivity, etc.

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

The successful pair-bond is the successful polarity-bond. Ever try to squeeze two magnets of the same pole together, as feminists and manginas insist we all do? REPULSION!

The dominant man<–>submissive woman is the strongest magnet in the known universe. The submissive man<–>submissive woman or the dominant man<–>dominant woman are the weakest bonds. In warped sexual markets, the submissive man<–>dominant woman couple can work — for a while — but it’s a coupling of egoistic convenience rather than one of passion. Its bond is reliable enough for tax purposes but also weak, and marked by frequent resentments that can provoke unfaithfulness.

The current Western sexual market is riven with submissive man<–>dominant woman couples, which doesn’t bode well. It’s why assortative mating along arid criteria like credentials and political ideology are the norm now instead of the exception, and why mating along hot wet passionate criteria like masculine-feminine frisson and provider-nurturer sex-based roles is becoming less the norm and more the exceptional act of rebellion.

Hard times will bring back the ideal Darwinian bond of strong men coupling with submissive women.

Austin Ruse #fundie rightwingwatch.org

The toxic stew of the modern university is gender studies, it’s “Sex Week,” they all have “Sex Week” and teaching people how to be sex-positive and overcome the patriarchy. My daughters go to a little private religious school and we pay an arm and a leg for it precisely to keep them away from all of this kind of nonsense. I do hope that they go to a Christian college or university and to keep them so far away from the hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities, who should all be taken out and shot.

Alan F. Alford #fundie bibliotecapleyades.net

WHERE did we come from?
Are we the product of a Divine Creation?
Did we evolve through natural selection?
Or is there another possible answer?


Introduction

In November 1859, Charles Darwin published a most dangerous idea - that all living things had evolved through a process of natural selection. Although there was almost no mention of mankind in Darwin’s treatise, the implications were unavoidable and led to a more radical change in human self-perception than anything before it in recorded history. In one blow, Darwin had relegated us from divinely-created beings to apes - the culmination of evolution by the impersonal mechanism of natural selection.

But are the scientists right in applying the theory of evolution to the strange two-legged hominid known as ‘man’? Charles Darwin himself was strangely quiet on this point but his co-discoverer Alfred Wallace was less reluctant to express his views. Wallace himself was adamant that ‘some intelligent power has guided or determined the development of man.’

One hundred years of science have failed to prove Alfred Wallace wrong. Anthropologists have failed miserably to produce fossil evidence of man’s ‘missing link’ with the apes and there has been a growing recognition of the complexity of organs such as the human brain.

Such are the problems with the application of Darwinism to mankind that Stephen Jay Gould - America’s evolutionist laureate - has described human evolution as an ‘awesome improbability’.


In Search of the Missing Link

Speciation - the separation of one species into two different species - is defined as the point where two groups within the same species are no longer able to inter-breed. The British scientist Richard Dawkins has described the separation quite poetically as ‘the long goodbye’.

The search for the missing link between man and the apes is the search for the earliest hominid - the upright, bipedal ape who waved ‘a long goodbye’ to his four-legged friends.

I will now attempt to briefly summarize what is known about human evolution.

According to the experts, the rivers of human genes and chimpanzee genes split from a common ancestral source some time between 5 and 7 million years ago, whilst the river of gorilla genes is generally thought to have branched off slightly earlier. In order for this speciation to occur, three populations of common ape ancestors (the future gorillas, chimpanzees and hominids) had to become geographically separated and thereafter subject to genetic drift, influenced by their different environments.

The search for the missing link has turned up a number of fossil contenders, dating from around 4 million years ago, but the picture remains very incomplete and the sample size is too small to draw any statistically valid conclusions. There are, however, three contenders for the prize of the first fully bipedal hominid, all discovered in the East African Rift valley which slashes through Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania.

The first contender, discovered in the Afar province of Ethiopia in 1974, is named Lucy, although her more scientific name is Australopithecus Afarensis. Lucy is estimated to have lived between 3.6-3.2 million years ago. Unfortunately her skeleton was only 40 per cent complete and this has resulted in controversy regarding whether she was a true biped and whether in fact ‘she’ might even have been a ‘he’.

The second contender is Australopithecus Ramidus, a 4.4 million year old pygmy chimpanzee-like creature, discovered at Aramis in Ethiopia by Professor Timothy White in 1994. Despite a 70 per cent complete skeleton, it has again not been possible to prove categorically whether it had two or four legs.

The third contender, dated between 4.1-3.9 million years old, is the Australopithecus Anamensis, discovered at Lake Turkana in Kenya by Dr Meave Leakey in August 1995. A shinbone from Anamensis has been used to back up the claim that it walked on two feet.

The evidence of our oldest ancestors is confusing because they do not seem to be closely related to each other. Furthermore, the inexplicable lack of fossil evidence for the preceding 10 million years has made it impossible to confirm the exact separation date of these early hominids from the four-legged apes. It is also important to emphasize that many of these finds have skulls more like chimpanzees than men.

They may be the first apes that walked but, as of 4 million years ago, we are still a long way from anything that looked even remotely human.

Moving forward in time, we find evidence of several types of early man which are equally confusing. We have the 1.8 million year old appropriately named Robustus, the 2.5 million year old and more lightly built Africanus, and the 1.5 to 2 million year old Advanced Australopithecus. The latter, as the name suggests, is more man-like than the others and is sometimes referred to as ‘near-man’ or Homo habilis (‘handy man’). It is generally agreed that Homo habilis was the first truly man-like being which could walk efficiently and use very rough stone tools. The fossil evidence does not reveal whether rudimentary speech had developed at this stage.

Around 1.5 million years ago Homo erectus appeared on the scene. This hominid had a considerably larger brain-box (cranium) than its predecessors and started to design and use more sophisticated stone tools.

A wide spread of fossils indicates that Homo erectus groups left Africa and spread across China, Australasia and Europe between 1,000,000-700,000 years ago but, for unknown reasons, disappeared altogether around 300,000-200,000 years ago. There is little doubt, by a process of elimination, that this is the line from which Homo sapiens descended.

The missing link, however, remains a mystery. In 1995, The Sunday Times summarized the evolutionary evidence as follows:
The scientists themselves are confused. A series of recent discoveries has forced them to tear up the simplistic charts on which they blithely used to draw linkages... the classic family tree delineating man’s descent from the apes, familiar to us at school, has given way to the concept of genetic islands. The bridgework between them is anyone’s guess.
As to the various contenders speculated as mankind’s ancestor, The Sunday Times stated:
Their relationships to one another remain clouded in mystery and nobody has conclusively identified any of them as the early hominid that gave rise to Homo sapiens.
In summary, the evidence discovered to date is so sparse that a few more sensational finds will still leave the scientists clutching at straws.

Consequently mankind’s evolutionary history is likely to remain shrouded in mystery for the foreseeable future.


The Miracle of Man

Today, four out of ten Americans find it difficult to believe that humans are related to the apes. Why is this so? Compare yourself to a chimpanzee. Man is intelligent, naked and highly sexual - a species apart from his alleged primate relatives.

This may be an intuitive observation but it is actually supported by scientific study. In 1911, the anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith listed the anatomical characteristics peculiar to each of the primate species, calling them ‘generic characters’ which set each apart from the others. His results were as follows: gorilla 75; chimpanzee 109; orangutan 113; gibbon 116; man 312. Keith thus showed scientifically that mankind was nearly three times more distinctive than any other ape.

Another scientist to take this approach was the British zoologist Desmond Morris. In his book, The Naked Ape, Desmond Morris highlighted the amazing mystery of mankind’s ‘missing hair’:
Functionally, we are stark naked and our skin is fully exposed to the outside world. This state of affairs still has to be explained, regardless of how many tiny hairs we can count under a magnifying lens.
Desmond Morris contrasted Homo sapiens with 4,237 species of mammals, the vast majority of which were hairy or partly haired. The only non-hairy species were those which lived underground (and thus kept warm without hair), species which were aquatic (and benefited from streamlining), and armoured species such as the armadillo (where hair would clearly be superfluous). Morris commented:
The naked ape [man] stands alone, marked off by his nudity from all the thousands of hairy, shaggy or furry land-dwelling mammalian species... if the hair has to go, then clearly there must be a powerful reason for abolishing it.
Darwinism has yet to produce a satisfactory answer as to how and why man lost his hair. Many imaginative theories have been suggested, but so far no-one has come up with a really acceptable explanation. The one conclusion that can perhaps be drawn, based on the principle of gradiented change, is that man spent a long time evolving, either in a very hot environment or in water.

Another unique feature of mankind may provide us with a clue to the loss of body hair. That feature is sexuality. The subject was covered in juicy detail by Desmond Morris, who highlighted unique human features such as extended foreplay, extended copulation and the orgasm. One particular anomaly is that the human female is always ‘in heat’, yet she can only conceive for a few days each month.

As another scientist, Jared Diamond, has pointed out, this is an evolutionary enigma that cannot be explained by natural selection:
The most hotly debated problem in the evolution of human reproduction is to explain why we nevertheless ended up with concealed ovulation, and what good all our mistimed copulations do us.
Many scientists have commented also on the anomaly of the male penis, which is by far the largest erect penis of any living primate.

The geneticist Steve Jones has noted it as a mystery which is ‘unanswered by science’, a point which is echoed by Jared Diamond:
... we descend to a glaring failure: the inability of twentieth-century science to formulate an adequate Theory of Penis Length... astonishing as it seems, important functions of the human penis remain obscure.
Desmond Morris described man as ‘the sexiest primate alive’, but why did evolution grant us such a bountiful gift? The whole human body seems to be perfectly designed for sexual excitement and pair bonding.

Morris saw elements of this plan in the enlarged breasts of the female, the sensitive ear lobes and lips, and a vaginal angle that encouraged intimate face to face copulation. He also highlighted our abundance of scent-producing glands, our unique facial mobility and our unique ability to produce copious tears - all features which strengthened the exclusive emotional pair-bonding between male and female.

This grand design could not be imagined unless humans also lost their shaggy coat of hair and so it might seem that the mystery of the missing hair is solved. Unfortunately, it is not that simple, for evolution does not set about achieving grand designs. The Darwinists are strangely silent on what incremental steps were involved, but however it happened it should have taken a long, long time.

There are three other interesting anomalies of ‘the naked ape’ which are also worthy of note.
The first is the appalling ineptitude of the human skin to repair itself. In the context of a move to the open savanna, where bipedal man became a vulnerable target, and in the context of a gradual loss of protective hair, it seems inconceivable that the human skin should have become so fragile relative to our primate cousins.

The second anomaly is the unique lack of penis bone in the male. This is in complete contrast to other mammals, which use the penis bone to copulate at short notice. The deselection of this vital bone would have jeopardized the existence of the human species unless it took place against the background of a long and peaceful environment.

The third anomaly is our eating habits. Whereas most animals will swallow their food instantaneously, we take the luxury of six whole seconds to transport our food from mouth to stomach. This again suggests a long period of peaceful evolution.
The question which arises is where this long and peaceful evolution is supposed to have taken place, because it certainly does not fit the scenario which is presented for Homo sapiens.

Nor have Darwinists explained adequately how the major changes in human anatomy were achieved in a time frame of only 6 million years...


The Mystery of the Human Brain

The greatest mystery of Homo sapiens is its incredible brain.

During the last fifteen years, scientists have used new imaging technologies (such as positron-emission tomography) to discover more about the human brain than ever before. The full extent of the complexity of its billions of cells has thus become more and more apparent. In addition to the brain’s physical complexity, its performance knows no bounds - mathematics and art, abstract thought and conceptualization and, above all, moral conscience and self-awareness.

Whilst many of the human brain’s secrets remain shrouded in mystery, enough has been revealed for National Geographic to have boldly described it as ’the most complex object in the known universe’.

Evolutionists see the brain as nothing more than a set of algorithms, but they are forced to admit that it is so complex and unique that there is no chance of reverse engineering the evolutionary process that created it.

The eminent scientist Roger Penrose, for example, commented:
I am a strong believer in the power of natural selection. But I do not see how natural selection, in itself, can evolve algorithms which could have the kind of conscious judgments of the validity of other algorithms that we seem to have.
What does the fossil record tell us about our evolving brain capabilities? The data varies considerably and must be treated with care (since the sample sizes are limited), but the following is a rough guide.

The early hominid Afarensis had around 500cc and Habilis/Australopithecus had around 700cc. Whilst it is by no means certain that one evolved from the other, it is possible to see in these figures the evolutionary effects over two million years of the hominid’s new environment.

As we move forward in time to 1.5 million years ago, we find a sudden leap in the cranial capacity of Homo erectus to around 900-1000cc. If we assume, as most anthropologists do, that this was accompanied by an increase in intelligence, it represents a most unlikely macromutation. Alternatively, we might explain this anomaly by viewing erectus as a separate species whose ancestors have not yet been found due to the poor fossil records.

Finally, after surviving 1.2 to 1.3 million years without any apparent change, and having successfully spread out of Africa to China, Australasia and Europe, something extraordinary happened to the Homo erectus hominid. Perhaps due to climatic changes, his population began to dwindle until he eventually died out. And yet, while most Homo erectus were dying, one managed to suddenly transform itself into Homo sapiens , with a vast increase in cranial capacity from 950cc to 1450cc.

Human evolution thus appears like an hourglass, with a narrowing population of Homo erectus leading to possibly one single mutant, whose improved genes emerged into a new era of unprecedented progress. The transformation from failure to success is startling. It is widely accepted that we are the descendants of Homo erectus (who else was there to descend from?) but the sudden changeover defies all known laws of evolution. Hence Stephen Jay Gould’s comment about the ’awesome improbability of human evolution’.

Why has Homo sapiens developed intelligence and self-awareness whilst his ape cousins have spent the last 6 million years in evolutionary stagnation? Why has no other creature in the animal kingdom developed an advanced level of intelligence?

FloridaTulpamancer #sexist reddit.com

My Explanation for How the "Normie Platitudes" Originated...

1. Standpoint Theory.
This is an idea used by Marxists and Feminists. The rundown is that incels and noncels have different lives and thus develop different experiences and attitudes about the world. Further, a noncel will have difficulty identifying with an incel's plight. Think of it this way: You know that severely impoverished people exist, but can you fathom what it would be like to live like them? You probably take clean water and shelter for granted because of your economic position. In the same way, sex and relationships for noncels are easy or at least possible, thus they assume that their experience must be true for all people. This is why you hear "take a shower and socialize" as if that will fix everything. For them, it DID work, but not due to it's own devices: They were simply more attractive than you are. The first person who said "Be yourself" was likely a Chad, because that's truly all he would need to do, and he probably didn't understand that non-chads do not share his genetic privilege, or he was willfully ignorant, which leads to my next point:

1. Denial of the Nature of Sexual Selection.
Sexual Selection is one of the fundamental pillars of our understanding of how sexually reproducing creatures evolve. However it comes with a very uncomfortable implication: If mating is nonrandom and based on genetic inheritance, than there must be some members of the species that have the qualities being selected for and others who do not, through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. This flies in the face of "there's someone for everyone" because it implies that there must be some members who are the objective losers of the mating game. It also implies that if someone has a spouse, that person is attracted to them for reasons which they have no control (looks) rather than for their honest achievements which they have worked for. We want to believe that women love us "for who we are" and that we ALL have a chance at pair-bonding, despite all evidence of the contrary. This is why you're often told that it's "your fault" you can't get laid for whatever reason.

1. Denial of the Nature of Sexuality Itself.
Sexuality is much like which foods we like or what colors we like in that it is malleable, but ultimately INVOLUNTARY. We don't choose which aspects of a person we are attracted to, what things are turnoffs, etc. Why would anyone purposefully choose to be a pedophile, for example? This truth has another bad implication: If we wind up having an attraction which we do NOT like, there's nothing we can do to change it. This is important because it explains why women are called "shallow" for being attracted solely to looks. We don't like the idea that our love is based on eugenics-esque factors which we have no control over, and would prefer if people loved based on "personality." Thus, if someone demonstrates attraction based on "bad" factors, we say it must be their fault somehow, as if they chose to be attracted to bad boys or skinny women, because to do otherwise would open the door to criticizing sexuality itself. This is where "Personality is what really matters" and "you're chasing the wrong women" comes from: It's a criticism based on the wishful-thinking of how sexuality works rather than the reality.

(Submitter's note: Yes, the sections are really all numbered 1.)

Tuthmosis Sonofra #fundie #sexist returnofkings.com

7 Traits of the Male Feminist


Tuthmosis Sonofra
Tuthmosis is a Columnist-at-Large at Return of Kings. His work has been covered by major media outlets such as The Huffington Post, Cosmopolitan, Vice Magazine, The Daily Mail, and Yahoo Shine. He's also been profiled by BuzzFeed and The New Statesman. You can follow him on Twitter.

The only reason radical feminism has managed to achieve such an influential and mainstream position in Western society is through the vital reinforcements provided by turn-coat gender traitors who willfully cannibalize other men to please their female overlords. This is the male feminist. These are men whose entire personas are predicated on keeping others from offending their female bosses. They shame natural male behavior and spread the intellectualized delusion that are today’s feminist talking-points. They publicly self-castrate, lying to themselves and others about their own sexual impulses and imperatives.

The great irony—and secret—is that they have the same ends as guys who learn game: to get the women into the sack (loath as they may be to admit it), except they do it by trying to curry their favor through obsequious groveling.


1. Lispy, effete voice.
There’s good science that shows that today’s men are being exposed to greater quantities of female hormones. Among the causes is a contaminated water supply with trace amounts of birth-control compounds from women’s urine. The mass consumption of soy products—a natural source of estrogen—is another likely culprit. Whatever the origins, there is an epidemic of ostensibly heterosexual men with “gay voice,” none more clearly than the male feminist, who deliberately takes the bass and manly tone out of his voice so as to not offend.

2. Condescending, snarky girl-tone and eye-rolling.
Added to the character of his voice is a patronizing, dismissive tone (often with “upspeak” and vocal fry) common with obnoxious teenage girls and a certain cross-section of (actual) gay men. Rather than disagree with an argument on its merits, they sigh through it like Al Gore at a presidential debate. To make matters worse, he artificially laces his speech with profanity, which rather than toughness, comes off like a moody girl cussing at her boyfriend.

3. Slovenly appearance, featuring a vegan-style beard.
The uniform of the male feminist is a non-threatening cocktail of emasculating hipster-wear, with an unkempt beard—the badge of today’s weak guy—and anything else that makes it patently obvious he never hits the gym and poses no danger whatsoever to anything.

4. Parrots word salad of incoherent feminist talking points.
The male feminist repeats all of the made-up jargon of the hysterical feminist (science fiction-sounding utterances like “cis-gender” and “sex-positive”). They also participate in the misappropriation and abuse of once-sound, useful English-language words like “consent,” “patriarchy,” and “privilege.”

5. Rape alarmist.
Like any lock-step feminist, the male feminist drops the Rape Card several times in any discussion, irrespective of subject. Like the word “smurf” in the 80s cartoon, the word “rape” is slowly being eroded of meaning by its catch-all use for anything and everything. The goal of this repeated invocation is to further whip up an exaggerated hysteria around rape, make everyone believe there’s a rapist on every corner, and make it sound like everyone’s whispering “rape jokes” when women aren’t looking. I can count on one hand how many rape jokes I’ve heard in my entire life, and still have enough fingers left over to stimulate the clitoris of a pixie cut-wearing, female-bodied individual.

6. Enabling feminist hysteria by providing excuses for bigoted behavior and by demanding that others also walk on egg shells.

According to this guy—and all feminists—it’s okay to be permanently scared of men if you’ve ever been victimized by them, however real or imagined that victimization may have been. By this rationale, I can permanently remain “apprehensive” and “have fear” of black people “as a category” because I was once robbed, at gun point, by a black guy. Furthermore, he excuses feminist hate-speech as simple “making-fun-of-you” not to be taken seriously, while simultaneously labeling anything said by the opposing side as 100-percent-serious hate-speech.

7. False veneer of intellectualism and academic grounding.
To lend some kind of legitimacy to his specious, problematic logic, he cites oblique academic-sounding references in a poorly constructed straw-man argument about what “men’s rights advocates” use to prove the existence of misandry. He engages in the typically feminist mental acrobatics that—when it’s all said and done—have turned night into day, made up into down, and rendered men into women.

Like any outsider-turned-convert to a religion, the male feminist is always more radical—and dangerous—to the non-believer. If, like many men, you have the misfortune to have to be around them, tread carefully. Always looking to prove his loyalty, the male feminist will do everything in his power to cut down a confident, masculine man—fabricating stories, running to the authorities, and anything else to throw you under bus—all to (hopefully) score a few points with his female overlords.

Cyralea #fundie reddit.com

Women want to be raped by a high value man

Not pussyfooting around this one. Title is literal.

If anything could ever be classified as a Feminist's Nightmare, it's the irreconcilable notion that women are extremely aroused at the thought of being able to make a high value man so lustful that he loses control and has to have her. Many women have struggled with this concept. Some have cleverly come up with positive terminology to deflect from the dissonance; they'll use terms like "ravishment" to doll it up, as if simply assigning a new word takes away from the reality of what's going on.

Here in TRP we do not shy from these realities. What goes through a woman's head when she contemplates being ravished is that she is of such high SMV that men lose their control just to have her. This is a level of validation few women get to truly experience. The male equivalent would be a pair of beautiful women demanding that you have a threesome with them.

I've no doubt this type of post causes SJW's to froth at the mouth, but their impotent rage doesn't invalidate reality. Consider the success of 50 Shades of Grey. The basic synopsis is that a powerful, rich, alpha man completely lusts and forcefully dominates a perfectly boring average woman. You'd think this banal concept would only sell to a fringe that gets off on this kink, but the book sold 70 million copies in 8 months. That's more than any Harry Potter novel. And now that the movie is out I guarantee it will be a box-office hit. Let women scream and "Wow, just wow" at you all they want -- their words mean nothing in relation to their actions. Women want to be taken by force by a high value man.

So when is it rape instead of ravishment? Aside from obvious cases of drugging someone or having sex with the unconscious (for the feminazi retards: No one here condones these instances of legitimate rape) the difference is strictly in the disparity of your SMV's. The stranger-in-the-bush is often characterized as some seedy low-life thug. This evokes intense fear. Being forcefully held down in bed by the muscular CEO of a Fortune 500 company does not evoke this fear. No woman alive is comfortable by the idea that she enjoys rape, so she needs to reframe it. Be aware of that.

So how does the average TRP'er benefit from this? If you're already sexually active with a woman, discuss the concept of a safeword. Even though women love the idea of being taken, there's always the chance that she may be in one of those emotional frames where she genuinely isn't up for sex, this is a failsafe. Once you've established that, next time you're looking to sexually escalate simply ignore her token attempts to refuse. She turns her lips away from a kiss, you force her against a wall and take it. She tries to push you off, you squeeze her. You grab her and throw her onto the bed, then lay into her with your weight so she can't get away. And so on.

Paradoxically this creates intense arousal and pair-bonding in women. I encourage you to try this. Of all the women I've had sex with only ~5% genuinely hated rough, aggressive sex. The other 95% beg for more afterwards. Surprising how many victims offer to make food and drink after their "trauma".

Anton Hagen #fundie returnofkings.com

5 REASONS WHY BISEXUALS CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY
[…]
Anton Hagen is a multilingual writer from the UK whose joys and woes living in different parts of Europe inspired him to contribute philosophical pieces to the manosphere, with the odd caustic joke.

The topic of bisexuality keeps cropping up time and time again. It’s constantly rammed down our throats: taking the form of either vacuous gossip about the “bi-curious” escapades of an acquaintance or vapid celebrity, or the even more tiresome bilge concerning “biphobia” and bigotry.

In this article, we shall examine how refusing to take bisexuals seriously is a perfectly rational point of view to hold, after having examined certain aspects of this phenomenon in closer detail.

1. The Ludicrous myth of “Biphobia”
[“Dancing with the Stars” Logo]

In the 21st Century, it is becoming increasingly more and more laughable to suggest that homophobia is rampant, when all television, entertainment and culture seem to be catered towards the tastes of gay men: just looking through a TV guide or turning on the radio confirms this assertion.

Yet it is even more ridiculous to suggest that we live in a culture of “biphobia.” There has been extremely little evidence in history which suggests that bisexuals have been more severely treated than homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Despite this fact, “biphobia” has become an accepted term. Furthermore, it is used incorrectly to describe anyone who questions bisexuality in any shape or form, as opposed to denote those who genuinely loathe and despise bisexuals (of whom there are very few).

By classing the opinions of those with whom they disagree as an irrational “phobia,” LGBT activists are able to shun counter-arguments as being inherently flawed and diseased, without having to tackle the assertion with reason and evidence. This tactic is a favorite among leftists (e.g. transphobia, homophobia, etc.)

[Picture of a hippie-looking woman.
Transcript: Your Rights End where my feelings begin.]

[…]
The term “biphobia” has just become a means of suppressing reasoned arguments and healthy skepticism by portraying their opponents as being mentally deranged. It could not be more typical of the totalitarian progressive movement.

There is no such thing as biphobia: there are only those who do not wholeheartedly embrace bisexuals and shower them in praise and compliments for being so open-minded and adventurous; there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

2. They’re trend-followers
[Picture of 2 female celebrities kissing]
Far from being a minority of poor, oppressed, counter-cultural victims, bisexuals are extolled and exalted in modern culture. From Madonna and Britney Spears’ kiss at that god awful music show all the way up to the Mozart and Beethoven of our age (Lady Gaga and Katy Perry), bisexual behavior is portrayed as “cool” and fashionable.

Impressionable youths therefore gravitate to such behavior because it gives them a sense of identity and excitement. They engage in bisexuality as an expression of faux-individualism, in an attempt to distance themselves from what they believe to be the bigoted, narrow-minded majority.

They are of course, all completely deluded. They think they’re unique, yet all they are doing is following a trend which has been concocted for them by MTV and record companies. Bisexuality has simply become a fashion statement, and very little more.

3. They’re promiscuous
In Tuthmosis’ famous article, he lists claiming to be bisexual as a major slut tell. This could not be more true. Many of the other signs mentioned in that article stem from an adolescent, pseudo-rebellious attitude (e.g. tattoos, piercings, swearing, drugs etc.)

Bisexuality is simply another form of immature revolt: by challenging the supposed “heteronormative” culture, they are trying to affirm themselves as individualistic, exciting people. This childish attitude manifests itself in bisexuality, promiscuity, and self-destructive behavior.

Very often, youths do not have any major achievements or unique personality on which to define themselves; they therefore jump at any opportunity to stand out from the crowd. Unfortunately, the “sex-positive” bisexual culture of today just happens to be the means to that end.

4. Bisexuals cannot form long-term relationships
The rebellious, childish youths described above are not fit for long-term relationships. It is impossible to be bisexual and maintain a monogamous commitment: one half of one’s sexuality must be renounced before entering into a relationship with a single person. Unfortunately the bisexuals will argue that they have the right to “be who they want to be” and claim “I am what I am.”

Monogamous relationships are based on self-restraint, compromise, and mutual understanding. Someone who continues to assert that they wish to sleep with members of both sexes whilst in a long-term relationship simply lacks the above virtues and has no empathy for their partner’s feelings, only caring for themselves and their carnal desires.

Were someone to vow full commitment to a single partner, they would obviously have to abandon any desire for someone of a different sex to their partner. This is a perfectly moral and reasonable expectation. Bisexuality is usually confined to the pre-adult phase of sleeping around and experimentation. It is therefore very difficult to view it something mature and worthy of anything other than condescension.

5. Evidence suggests it doesn’t even exist
Having said all the above, there is still reasonable scientific doubt as to the actual existence of bisexuality. A recent study investigating this naturally attracted a lot of negative attention from the liberal media powerhouse. In this study, it was determined that thirty males who identified themselves as bisexual were indistinguishable from homosexuals in their hormonal responses to pornography. The study can be read online here.

Dr. Michael Bailey, one of the conductors of the study, noted: “I’m not denying that bisexual behavior exists, but I am saying that in men there’s no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation.”

Skepticism over the existence of bisexuality continues to this day. We still cannot determine at this stage whether it categorically exists or doesn’t, but it is downright foolish and disrespectful to label those who question it as having a “phobia” or being “bigoted.” The burden of proof remains on those who argue for its existence, rather than those who claim its absence.

Conclusion
It is not irrational or incorrect to hold a healthy, skeptical attitude towards bisexuality. Furthermore, those who doubt it should not be classed as intolerant or bigoted. Upon closer examination of the matter, it appears to be linked to juvenile irresponsibility and typically millennial, liberal attitudes towards sex, relationships, and politics. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to cast doubt upon it.

Undoubtedly, the leftists will jeer, howl and screech their vitriol against such an objective examination of their degenerate habits. Questionable behavior such as bisexuality should be repudiated if we are to gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us as a whole.

Kaitlin Prest #fundie pluralist.com

Just Because a Woman Puts a Penis in Her Mouth Doesn’t Mean She Consented, Says College Sex Expert

?"If you go in somebody’s dorm room and she touches you, and places your penis in her mouth, she has not conveyed consent."
?
An educational consultant who advises students expelled from their colleges for sexual misconduct described a real-life circumstance in which one of her clients was found to not have obtained affirmative consent from a sexual partner, even though the alleged victim had initiated sex by placing his penis in her mouth.

?In a piece for Tablet Magazine published this week, Kat Rosenfield highlighted an October exchange from the popular Radiolab podcast between Kaitlin Prest, a sex-positive ?feminist and podcast producer who often discusses the issue of consent, and educational consultant Hanna Stontland.

During a segment titled "In the No," Stontland and Prest discussed many of the hoarier questions that surround the consent debate, particularly the "gray zone" areas of the issue: The ?myriad ?cases that involve a woman expressing regret over a sexual encounter with a man, but where it's not clear whether she was truly victimized.

During the conversation, Prest, a steadfast supporter of requiring men to obtain affirmative consent from women without exception, was resistant to Stontland's skepticism about the idea that affirmative consent is a salve for the many complications that arise from modern day hookup culture.

Stontland attempted to get Prest to reconsider her unflagging support for affirmative consent as a cure-all by introducing several real-life counterexamples that muddled the issue.

She discussed the case of a recent client suspended from school for two years, even though he had obtained affirmative consent, because his sexual partner claimed the affirmative consent she'd given was produced under duress.

And perhaps most striking was the story Stontland related involving a girl who initiated oral sex with another of her clients but never gave a verbal "yes": "If you go in somebody’s dorm room and she touches you, and places your penis in her mouth, she has not conveyed consent," she said.

Tablet's Rosenfield argued that the current fixation on affirmative consent promoted by many feminists is in fact ?damaging to the same women the movement seeks to defend.
?
?"But if your goal is to protect women at all costs from feeling bad about their choices—because you don’t think they can handle it, and they probably don’t know what they want anyway—then we already have a word for that," she wrote.

"It’s not feminism. It’s paternalism. And it denies women a fundamental if unglamorous freedom: to not just make decisions, but to live with and learn from the consequences of their less-than-great ones."

Eivind Berge #fundie eivindberge.blogspot.no

Sex Difference Explained by Steve Moxon
I have been getting some stupid comments lately claiming that "Evo psych hasn't been taken seriously since around 2009." Well, that is nonsense, of course, and as luck would have it, now there is a brand new publication on the subject by Steve Moxon. An entire monograph, in fact, written from an MRA point of view and with an up-to-date bibliography:

Sex Difference Explained: From DNA to Society – Purging Gene Copy Errors
Abstract

This is a ‘layman’s guide’ – for, the interested rather than the merely general reader – to recent major scientific insights that together reveal a comprehensive, holistic understanding of the sexes: what actually distinguishes them and why. A much needed overview drawing together hitherto disparate topics outlining how several principles mutually relate; it’s a simplified distillation and update of the several topics that are the subject of other review papers, which provide more detailed and precise accounts and further sources.

No prior knowledge is assumed, so any other than common-knowledge scientific terms are either explained or replaced with less formal terms (where they are not too imprecise). Notably, instead of the formal, easily confused terms intra-sexual / inter-sexual, the terms within-sex / between-sex (or same-sex / cross-sex) are used. The word 'sociality', is also used despite its unfamiliarity; because it's useful shorthand for social system / dynamics. The term gender (sic) is specifically avoided - other than in 'scare' quotes since it is an ideological rather than scientific term.
And the blurb:
In SEX DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED: From DNA to Society – Purging Gene Copy Errors, Steve Moxon argues that all major aspects of male-female human sociality necessarily stem from biological principles; which all arise in solving the core problem faced by all life-forms: the relentless build-up of mistakes in the repeated copying of genes. The 'genetic filtering' to deal with this is the function of the male: why males came into being, and why men so fiercely compete with one another to form a hierarchy.

The female contribution is carefully to choose only the most dominant/prestigious males, cross-checking that indeed they do possess the best gene sets. This ensures genetic mutations and other errors that would seriously compromise reproduction are purged from the local gene pool.

Pair-bonding serves to exclude lower-ranked, whilst allowing access by still higher-ranked males; and to provide a serial father of children, thereby in effect projecting forward in time a woman's peak fertility, compensating for her deteriorating store of eggs, and consequent declining fertility and attractiveness.

With men tied to a hierarchy, women evolved to 'marry out' to avoid in-breeding. In preparation for this, girls have a very different social organisation, rehearsing for when later they have to make close bonds with non-kin, stranger-females for mutual child-care. This explains why female grouping is so tight and exclusionary, whereas males group all-inclusively.

Moxon sees the underlying sex dichotomy as being perfectly complementary, with the sexes of equal importance in what amounts to a symbiosis.

The book is not only available from Amazon in paperback and Kindle editions, but also open-access, with the full text downloadable at New Male Studies Publishing.

I will start reading it now and then post a review, and I encourage you all to do the same.

Norwegian readers should also check out this article by Terje Bongard:

Det menneskelige grunnfjell: Følelser som tilpasninger til et førhistorisk liv

And if anyone wants to argue that evolutionary psychology is wrong, please state some actual arguments, because it is plainly false that is not taken seriously by the scientific community.

Some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: Where Does Organized Male Evil Come From?

I just got finished reading this article about the rapes of Rohingya women and the persecution and slaughter of their people: http://www.thejournal.ie/rohingya-rape-3745266-Dec2017/

I know it's not uplifting to read this stuff, but it's also important not to turn away.

I want to know what causes such organized male evil. It doesn't matter whether it's a dispute over territory or religion or ethnicity, it is men who do this in an organized fashion. It has always been men.

Is it as simple as "patriarchy?" Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch describes the creation of capitalist evil through the weaponization of men and male sexuality, the formal institution of patriarchy, the enslavement of women, and the colonial/imperial ventures of the new world order.

Although it's true almost no corner of the human world has gone untouched by the Western project of colonialism and imperialism, other cultures have their own ancient histories of warfare, bloodshed and male rule that predate Western history.

I know the advent of agriculture and the dawn of land ownership have been cited as the reason for growing institutionalization of patriarchy and subjugation of women and expansion of territory--but really--I struggle to understand how men can commit such horrific atrocities in an organized fashion. If women ruled the world, would we do this? Would we?

I have never given much credence to notions of biological determinism and I still don't; if men are like this by dint of nature as well as nurture the power of human socialization can change them. So far is has mainly been used to cement these violent, hierarchical tendencies it seems.

I just never used to believe there could be this fundamental difference between men and women where under the right circumstances men could join together to commit such atrocities in a way that women wouldn't. Is it because women have been stripped of their power that we don't see them band together to exercise it in such horrific fashion? Or is there really a fundamental, biological difference between us that makes men more susceptible to committing violence?

I also struggle with the connection between sex and committing violence so often seen within cultures and among mostly male individuals across the world. Is it male or is it masculine?

(anxietyaccount8)
No it's not just as simple as patriarchy. I once believed that but now I don't. Men really are just more violent than women. Male sexuality is also very different than female sexuality (in general) and I don't think anybody could have socialized me into being interested in some of the crazy things they are interested in.

I think that the reason a lot of people dismiss these claims is because they are reminded of evolutionary psychology, which for the most part is not very scientific at all. But the thing is that just because things like "women are naturally better at cooking" are BS it doesn't mean that everything that sounds like evopsych is wrong. For example we know that male and female animals act differently. We know that males and females have different body types, hormone levels, and different ways of reproducing. Would it really be so insane to suggest there are mental differences too?

Now to be fair, I am not really sure if this is true, and none of us will be sure unless we have substantial evidence, but this is my personal theory. It just feels really obvious to me.

(Unabashed_Calabash)
This was my point to another poster. To what extent can the behavior of other mammals, including our closest relatives chimpanzees and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) be interpreted to reflect on our own?

Not only the male correlation of sex and violence but specifically the far greater incidence of male sexual fetishes (about the same as the disproportionate ratio of male vs. female violence, 10 to 1) causes me to believe there's something more than socialization going on here. Scientists who study human sexuality say it has to do with a more intense focus from males as a group on sexuality in general, heightening fetishes. But how often do you hear of women who like to pretend to be baby boys and wear diapers? (Seriously?) And like to be burped and breastfed and rocked to sleep? (I would really like formal studies of how often these bizarre fetishes occur in males as compared to females. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a result of porn and therefore male domination arising from social reasons because how much of porn is men pretending to be infant girls and breastfeed? Please don't tell me).

I am not saying this to be in favor of gender or against it. "Gender" as we know it is a social construct. Any innate evolutionary differences in the sexes--say, of violent vs. pacifist, or systematizing (from, say, hunting more often than women in most prehistoric societies) vs. integration (from the greater social relations of gathering and building)--need not be our fate if detrimental. We are highly social animals almost entirely at the whim of our socialization, which has been civilizing in some respects but in others greatly lacking.

I agree that just because evolutionary psychology has become a crutch of sexist males it does not mean absolutely none of it is true. It's more important than ever we separate the wheat from the chaff.

(anxietyaccount8)
Right, and it's important that people recognize radical feminism's criticism of gender actually does not contradict this existence of innate differences. We are all born into a society where we have to follow prescribed gender roles, and this social construct bleeds into all aspects of our lives and causes differences of its own. If some differences are innate this social construction makes them much more prominent and worse.

Also it doesn't mean that there is a distinct male or female brain, or that trans people really do have the brain of the opposite sex. Even if, hypothetically, a trans woman did actually act in ways that women are biologically supposed to, they are just proving that there is variation and a male can be that way too.

(Unabashed_Calabash)
Lol at the downvotes. I also don't understand how butthurt men get about this subject. It is quite clearly true (unless you prefer "violence" to "evil" because you don't believe in imposing moral values on human actions), and I am merely asking why and where it comes from.

Humanity will never change until men reckon with their own and their fellow men's actions.

(bigoltreehugger)
Ew. So many men came in caping for other men in response. I miss the days when this sub didn't have as many dudes hanging around. I'm sorry I can't engage your question properly but I just wanted to say that I've always appreciated your input on this sub.

(descending_wisdom)
fundamental biological differences. Sexual selection theory easily explains male violence. Watch some videos on organized warfare in some troops of chimpanzees.

(sunscreenonface)
Gonna leave this write up from notcisjustwoman here:

"Patriarchy pre-dates both the agricultural revolution and hunter-gatherer societies, because the basis of the oppression of women, indeed the very basis for oppression itself, is rape.

Male animals have been raping female animals since before the first humans, or even the first primates, appeared on earth. Events like the agricultural revolution codified male oppression of women into a more organized system, and religion has evolved over time to become an enforcer and moralizer of male violence, but neither of things things created patriarchy. Patriarchy began the first time a man raped a woman, and instead of being beaten to death by her tribal/family group, he was rewarded with fathership of her children.

It’s not comfortable even for most radical feminists to see this full and complete scope of the history of patriarchy, because it means that things are much more complicated than mere socialization, but it is a brutal truth we must confront in our analysis."

To expand upon this, here's a previous write up I did once I'd read notcisjustwoman's blog:

"I don't think this will make anyone feel better, but I've recently been thinking a lot about the various species of animals across this earth that have been known to rape...and it turns out most animal species have some form of rape. Ducks, squirrels, dolphins, dogs, gorillas, etc. all have observable males who rape and aggress females.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that aggressive males who rape will pass on their aggressive traits to their offspring that are conceived via rape. I don't think it's a stretch to say that male homo sapiens might be more likely to aggress and rape females since they inherited a tendancy towards violence from their male ancestors who were conceived via rape. (Reminder: I could be completely wrong about this!)

Does this make rape ok? NO!!!! Even if rape and aggressive sexual behavior is 'natural', 'natural' does not instantly equal something good or beneficial for a species. Homo sapiens dying of tooth decay at 22 is quite natural, but it's horrific and traumatizing for everyone involved.

All I'm saying is my understanding of men's GLOBAL and CONSTANT violence toward women became easier to understand once I started to think about sexual violence as an issue often found in primate species and not as something completely 100% culturally-bound.

Here's a link to a tumblr write-up that spawned my thoughts on this: http://notcisjustwoman.tumblr.com/post/175761393959/what-is-good-for-the-gander-is-not-always-good-for#notes

(Unabashed_Calabash)
I've read about the extremely complex history of rape among animals of all kinds (they have highly evolved methods of rape--an actual sexual arms race between males and females, as females also evolved to try to avoid rape--in fact, some believe the reason we walk upright is because women first stood up to avoid greater vulnerability to gang rape from behind, and that these gang rapes were so violent many of the females of our prehistoric ancestors who did not stand up did not survive). The species in which pair-bonding and good fatherhood are the norm are not the norm.

There's a reason that male sperm in all species is a complex chemical cocktail. In humans it's designed to lull/drug the mate and bond females to males even at their own expense.

My gut feeling and experiences tell me notjustciswoman is right.

There's a reason rape as committed by men is so normalized and also so easy for men to commit. Behavioral scientists have discussed the not-so-mythical "rape switch" and posited that all or most men have one.

Reading stories of men's mass raiding/raping parties, I'm inclined to agree. (My own experience aligns with this as well. I have actually witnessed a man struggle with his own desire to rape when confronted with a woman highly vulnerable to it. He had a low "rape threshold" certainly, but I don't actually think it's all that unusual. I think human men--because human beings can feel remorse and regret--may struggle with what they have done or the harm they have caused, if society or the victim force them to reflect on this, but they still did it and wanted to do it anyway). Neither the normalization of rape nor its prevalence despite official messages all over the world that it's wrong would be so common if rape were not somehow natural to the males of this species.

I remember an author saying "we cannot deal with violence until we admit uncomfortable truths, such as the thrill of war." The same is true of rape/sexual abuse; there's no way we can combat it without understanding it, and understanding why some men like to do it even when it's officially discouraged, or why men as a class can be easily encouraged to commit it under the right circumstances, is, I think, important if we ever hope to combat it.

(And yes, the history of conquest and invasion in our species is the history of rape. There's a reason so many men in the world carry the same Y chromosome).

Eivind Berge #fundie eivindberge.blogspot.com

The bizarre behavior exhibited by the manginas in the Men's Human Rights Movement (MHRM), found at A Voice for Men (AVfM), whereby they embrace the most absurd and hateful feminist ideals regarding sex, and even more bizarrely, apply these standards to women as well, is puzzling in the extreme. After thinking long and hard about what might possess these nincompoops to behave in such a deranged manner, and rereading the Unabomber Manifesto, I think I have figured it out. I thought for a long time that they must be some kinds of autistic freaks or something, but the explanation may be found in the far more pervasive concept of oversocialization. The buffoons at AVfM fancy themselves as rebels against feminism, but of course they are nothing of the sort. They are feminists of the more extreme kind. I hate feminists, but most of them have the decency to at least back off the most absurd manifestations of their odious worldview in practice -- for example if you were to apply their sex-hostility literally to women as well as men. The buffoons in the MHRM have no such barriers. They are loose cannons among radical feminist, who will cling desperately to feminist tenets no matter how absurd it gets in the real world.

Here is yet another example of their idiocy: Boys raped more often than girls.

Any person just a few short decades ago would laugh his ass off if you told him women can "rape" boys. An honest biologist would still laugh his ass off at such an imbecile notion, as would any halfway rational or commonsensical person. Biologists know perfectly well that because the sexual superiority of women is the prime fact of life for deep evolutionary reasons, women committing "rape" or "sexual abuse" is not a meaningful natural concept but a legal fiction you have to be oversocialized to take seriously. But the manginas in the MHRM do take it seriously, because they have been oversocialized into feminist ideology.

Thus the manginas at AVfM attempt to oversocialize their natural attraction to teenage girls away (whatever age of consent local feminist legislators decree, the manginas will unquestioningly accept and internalize in the most servile fashion), since their feminist ideology will not permit them to think any "unclean thoughts." This would merely be laughable if these clowns didn't take their bizarre oversocialization one step further and insist that underage boys who get lucky with women are actually victims. And of course they also support all the hateful feminist sex laws and abuse-industry nonsense applied to men and women alike, so they are frankly as pure evil as the scumbags in law enforcement who put feminism into practice, and must be exposed as such. There is simply no nice way to put it; they are feminist scum.

I suppose the Unabomber has correctly identified this as a leftist phenomenon. A leftist is above all else a conformist. The leftist does not think for himself; he merely absorbs the political correctness of his times, and if these ideals conflict with human nature, then human nature be damned. And in this day and age, the pinnacle of political correctness is the ideology of ubiquitous sexual "abuse" (or usually and increasingly just called "rape" regardless of the details). The more socialized you are, the more you see "rape" or "sexual abuse" everywhere, until "abuse" encapsulates all of human sexuality (and beyond -- as even an image of a baby breastfeeding can qualify). With sufficient oversocialization, it is even possible to insist on the existence of female sexual abusers with a straight face. This is the pathogenesis of the female sex-offender charade, which has caused me so much headache. Never mind that common sense, natural science and experience all tell us it is preposterous to hold women culpable for sex crimes. The oversocialized leftist mangina will insist on his internalized politically correct hogwash even if all his senses and reason as well as science contradict him. Thanks to the Unabomber for identifying the word for it. I know my ranting against the female sex-offender charade for the umpteenth time probably won't sway any of the manginas, but at least now we know what to call the phenomenon that rots their brains.

The Unabomber is brilliant in some ways, foolish in others. One way he was wrong was thinking he had to kill people in order to get his message out. With writing skills like his, there is no need for violence, at least not in the Internet age. Rather than wasting away in a supermax prison, he could have had a popular blog now if he had only waited for the rise of the Internet. It is also completely unnecessary to use violence to bring down industrial civilization, since peak oil will take care of that beautifully. Soon there will be no occasion for what the Unabomber derides as "surrogate activities," as any survivors of the imminent Malthusian catastrophe will have no choice but to struggle to stay alive by the sweat of our brows, rather than leisurely sit by as fossil fuel slaves do the work. My attitude now that I am aware of peak oil is that unless you are already incarcerated, then insurrection against the feminist establishment is largely superfluous.

As I have said before, the Men's Rights Movement has not grown. There are only 3 sex-positive MRA sites that I know of beside myself: The Anti-Feminist, Human Stupidity and Angry Harry. The rest is merely feminist oversocialization, although I suppose The Spearhead should get an honorable mention for lately at least somewhat acknowledging the insanity of feminist sex-hostility as codified in law, as well as the foolishness, if not the biological absurdity, of men trying to assume the role of victims of rape by women (Price has, however, written some embarrassingly naive articles on the female sex-offender charade in the past where he has parroted the feminist narrative in much the same way as AVfM). I have no hope that there will ever be an effective Men's Rights Movement, but we don't need it anyway, because with peak oil comes peak feminism. If the feminists and manginas want to do something enduring for their cause, they might get busy trying to figure out how to keep up mass incarceration in a low-energy world. Rather than dreaming up ways to identify more sex offenders, they ought to be seriously worried about how to even keep the sex offenders they got incarcerated long enough to serve out their sentences. John Michael Greer has got a post up about seven sustainable technologies that may be practiced in our low-energy future, and the industrial prison system is not among them. I don't see how anything like the feminist sex abuse industry can possibly exist without the abundant energy flows provided by fossil fuels. Look back to the prison population in the era before fossil fuels, and you get an idea of how many people a low-energy society is capable of imprisoning. It is no accident that mass incarceration was unheard of before the Industrial Revolution, and for most of history, incarceration wasn't even recognized as a standard punishment. (Slavery did exist, and can in theory arise again if most of the prisoners are coerced into manual agriculture, but there will be insufficient energy available to make the transition to sustainable slavery in our coming dark ages, not least because the feminists don't even realize that time is running out for reorganizing their infrastructure if that were to be accomplished). Since the prison is a cornerstone of feminist society, there is reason to rejoice even as all the things we care about and depend on are about to disintegrate. Technology has been convenient and fun, but we also see what kind of sex-hostile dystopia it leads to, which gets worse for every passing year. So perhaps peak oil is a good thing even with the extreme hardship and die-off it necessarily entails, because the alternative for men is surely prison unless you put on the charade of an oversocialized mangina.

cantfightnature #sexist cantfightnature.tumblr.com

[Source NSFW]

Social justice warriors with dyed hair are invariably sluts. It’s hilarious. Think about how much time that could be spent fighting the patriarchy is wasted dying your hair for a man’s attention. Get them alone and they’ll drop to their knees like any other whore–I’m sorry, “sex-positive feminist.”

Roosh #fundie rooshv.com

Not long ago I proposed that decreasing birth rates in the Western world is happening due to some cosmic force that is seeking balance upon the universe. I missed the mark. The force is not something cosmic or metaphysical, but human. After studying the evidence, it’s clear that there is a conscious scheme to control the human population through both cultural and biological means, which allows the elite to sustain or elevate their power and wealth.

The first piece of evidence showing you have been primed to favor depopulation is that you most likely agree to at least two of the following three statements, even if you consider yourself “red pill”:

“Agendas or schemes by the global elite should be first considered a 'conspiracy theory.'”
“There are too many people on planet Earth.”
“Needs of the environment must come before plans to increase human fertility.”

It’s not a coincidence that you are already on board with depopulation agenda, and if you live in a Westernized nation, you came to that conclusion “naturally” because since you were in grade school, you have been bombarded with messages about the dangers of over-population and the fragility of the environment. It turns out that all the progressive ideas being spread in the West have one thing in common: they all limit human reproduction.

Here is a short list of progressive causes that have percolated from intellectuals and later sponsored or hijacked by billionaire activists and major government institutions of the West.

1. Abortion is a bodily “choice,” not human murder. Result: it decreases population.

2. Birth control is a “choice” that allows women to better practice consumer lifestyles. Result: it decreases population.

3. Female empowerment in the form of feminism and egalitarianism pushes women into corporate work with the goal of delaying motherhood (or eliminating it outright). Result: it decreases reproduction and family formation.

4. Promotion of sterile human relationships in the form of homosexuality and transsexuality can’t possibly result in the creation of life. Result: it decreases population, reproduction, and traditional family formation.

5. Promotion of atheism, nihilism, individualism, and consumerism as suitable alternatives to traditional living via nuclear family units. Result: it decreases reproduction and traditional family formation.

6. The needs of the “environment” must be served before that of living humans. Result: it makes human guilty of family formation.

7. Massive waves of foreign immigrants are encouraged entry into Western nations to break bonds between tribe and neighbor that decrease notions of nationalism and patriotism while transferring fertility and economic resources from native people to foreigers. Result: it decreases relative population of native citizens.

All of the above decreases the reproductive rate, either directly through the killing of life, or indirectly by promoting guilt and alternative lifestyles that are incompatible with the creation of life. At the same time, immigrant populations are allowed to grow at a faster rate that the natives’ ability to reproduce.

...

Most corporations, whose sole motivation is profit for shareholders, have for some odd reason pathological soft spots for women and the environment. It’s no coincidence that empowerment of women into becoming corporate workers and mindless consumers shatters their reproduction while promotion of environmental concerns makes you not only guilty to have a family of your own, but inclined to give unwavering support and authority to globalist agendas that limit population in the “privileged” Western world while at the same time supporting the breeding of third-world immigrants to displace them.

Men who have come to the conclusion of depopulation arrive at it from different paths. I saw it not through politics but through sex. I saw firsthand how the government, media, and universities are deliberately trying to promote mistrust between man and woman through feminism, the myth of rape culture, and social justice ideas that allow a divide and conquer strategy to pit the sexes against each other, making every woman see a man as a potential rapist and every man see a woman as someone who could ruin his life.

...

The three main cultural mechanisms of reducing native populations is to program people to be concerned for women’s rights, third world immigration, and the environment. This is why nearly everyone on the left, including SJW’s, are fanatically supportive of all three. Leftists have been soundly convinced of issues that lead to the destruction of the family unit, the breakdown of their society’s social fabric, and their own voluntary sterilization. When you combine biological efforts that include birth control and abortion, you can see how Westerners have absolutely no chance of recovering their population compared to African, Middle Eastern, and Asian populations that do not currently face both cultural and biological bombs to reduce their birth rates, but will soon enough be targeted once the Westerners are sufficiently weakened and depopulation goals are met.

You probably now understand why when Brussels accepts a new country into the European Union, the first thing they do is mandate a gay pride parade on the capital streets, and why they immediately start screeching about the need for more women’s rights. This is the cultural attack that aims to limit the reproduction of that country so that their sovereignty can be easily dismantled within only two generations, an attack that begins even before they join the EU in order to “prove” they are ready to destroy themselves for the short term gain of big loans and free trade for that nation’s local elite.

...

I’m coming to the conclusion that the only way to defeat the evils of liberalism, feminism, social justice, and progressivism is to have huge families and create tribes that are free-thinking, self-reliant, and, most importantly, armed. The men of the future who can resist totalitarianism and unjust government authority come from the wombs of the women living today, and those women must at some point be convinced that being stay-at-home mothers who raise strong men is superior to becoming zombie consumers who poison and sterilize their own bodies.

The last thing that those in power want is for women to pair-bond with independent, masculine men who do not need the state and who place more importance and loyalty in their blood relatives and nation than to leftist ideas, iPhones, and sports teams. In the past, my fantasies were about sleeping with as many women as possible so I can be the playboy that I saw in the Hollywood movies, but now they are about creating the sons who will one day lead their people and their nation. It’s squarely up to us to create the men who can eliminate the parasites that are successfully controlling modern humanity.

The Sour Grapes Song

Mainländer #sexist incels.co

You don't know the truth Chad still fucks your wife
You don't know the truth Chad still fucks your wife

Thrusting big cock into her as a JB
Oxytocin, pair-bonding love memories
An adoration against which you right now just can't compete

And the blackpill overthrows comforting lies
Cause when she looks at her first Chad there's an altered perception
And I'd pay for a JB, but they're Chad's exclusivity

You don't know the truth Chad still fucks your wife
You don't know the truth Chad still fucks your wife
Cause you don't know the truth Chad still fucks your wife

Betabuxxing now, this ain't ascending
Cuck is worse than incel
The way I wanna be, in love with a JB
Virgin, all to myself

And cucked love is bound to fail

You don't know the truth Chad still fucks your wife
You don't know the truth Chad still fucks your wife

And you are a huge cuck

some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

It's okay, sexual abuse survivors, TIM's dicks have a "different energy" so pop a xan and get over it, cool?

(artificialgraymatter)

A trans gal's sexuality is docile, patient, hesitant, fragile.

Because a woman’s sexuality is docile, patient, hesitant, fragile—amirite?

I’m impressed they can say that with a straight face. And call themselves feminists.

But then again, they are men....

I’m even more impressed libfems can listen to that with a straight face. And call themselves feminists.

But then again, they are the “right” men.

And a woman’s sexuality is docile, patient, hesitant, fragile. Right libfems? Right?? Remember that when Mr. McDomly CisHet MRA tells you so.

(KeeperoftheSeeds)
I kind of feel the need to hunt down this other nasty article to post comparison quotes. I remember it’s some TiM claiming trans women have better sex than nasty ole boring cis women and our musty vaginas. He claims all sorts of bs like neovags/inverted penises are “fresher” than normal vaginas and that cis women are often “too frigid” in bed and that TiMs are so much more wild and aggressive and willing to be feminine and sexy.

It was a hot fucking mess and full of obvious dude being obvious that his trans identity was a kink he uses to be feminine and talk about being fucked.

Seems likes there’s a reason so many of these dudes start their trans journey with sissy or hypno porn or stealing female family members underwear. Fucking kinksters.

(LittleOwl12)
Don't see how they can be fresher seeing as they have bacteria doctors can't even identify.

(angrytardis)
Yet if you turn them down it’s all “choke on my lady dick”

(pixipod)
But somehow them saying this doesn't trigger their dysphoria.

(XXisBornFemale)

It never occurs to them that women either like doing bjs or they don't - that it's a preference we can have based on our own thoughts and feelings. They coax and coerce and go for the most manipulative hard sell. It makes me think they know jackshit about female sexuality and wouldn't appreciate anything about it if they did know.

Men don't see us as people, as individuals that want and need varied things.

Like a toaster. It exists for you to stick your bread in. You don't ask the toaster if it is ok to put bread in the slot. In fact, it's very convenient that the toaster can't talk. Because then you would have to listen to it and ignore it if it said no or explain to it that it doesn't matter if it wants bread put into the slot, because it exists to have bread put in it, and that is the only way that the existence of the toaster can be fulfilled.

This is why those sex dolls will never be programmed to talk. Unless it is to agree with everything that a man says to it.

(Red_Dahlia221)
There's zero requirement that trans people take any hormones or do any physical transition at all. Nor are they defined by any type of dysphoria, and I have seen trans males say they like their penis. It would be great if there were ANY criteria other than self ID. So this article is BS.

(KawaiiHarunezumi)
Trans women's brains are exactly the same, however, or they wouldn't write rapey shit like this.

(TerribleConfusion)
Why the fuck can't they just accept that an all-woman event focused on yonic massage might be the wrong place for them? They just want to push every fucking boundary they ever find, don't they? I'd be so uncomfortable in that situation - one person sitting around fondling their penis in a room where nineteen women are doing yoni massage.

And it really creeps me out that this person is a "sex-positive events facilitator" who has so little respect for other people's boundaries and comfort. That is a recipe for badness.

(felinecentric)

they carry a different energy.

Dafuq even is that? They make sexuality sound like feng shui or like thetans in Scientology.

A man's penis swaggers and struts, conquers and acquires, penetrates. A trans gal's genitals generally carry none of this energy

I think the translady doth protest too much. As an actual woman observing it objectively, I know that penises don't swagger and strut, they're more like eroded sausages that inflate with desperation and yearning. To hide from the melancholy nature of this, a man imagines the penis as a powerful weapon. What this writer is displaying is typical male anxiety about how sex makes you vulnerable.

And he keeps calling grown women (and men) 'gals'. Ew.

some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Ironic Hypocrisy in TwoXChromosomes right now

So over on TwoXChromosomes right now there's a post called "I was just catfished and it was kind of terrifying" posted by a transwoman. I commented before I realized. I'm not posting the link because I don't want them to get the notification and I really don't like brigading.

Anyway all the comments are like "OMG you poor thing, it's absolutely atrocious how men don't respect lesbian's boundaries and try to convince lesbians to have sex with them!"

Of course OP is a pre-op transwoman who previously posted "hey fellow women how can I make my voice cuter cause you all do that" and "does everyone want to be their favorite anime girl or is it just me?"

Reality is broken. This is peak. Seriously, how is this not an episode of South Park or the Twilight Zone?

(YahwehTheDevil)
That thread is fascinating:

"Here me out, I know you don't like dick but you haven't seen mine!" Fucking losers.

I’m a lesbian as well and have also been catfished by men, unfortunately multiple times. So many men just don’t take lesbianism seriously, and view it as a challenge.

You just don't appreciate the mystical power of dick! As if lesbians could actually be happy without dick, they're just deluding themselves! Then when you trick them into coming close you shove yours in their face and BOOM their delusion crumbles and they'll be desperate for your schlong.

I don't care if you are gay or straight that is not cool, who thinks anyone would want to start a relationship based on a lie?

I was supposed to meet “her” at the Walmart because it was near my house and in a public place.

If you don’t understand why a man catfishing a lesbian is creepy as fuck, you’re part of the problem

By misleading a lesbian and making that connection while in the guise of a woman, you pretty much out yourself as a creep and a liar. The connection was made via deceit

I'm of the opinion that, although adults should be allowed to get SRS and HRT, and that they shouldn't be discriminated against because of those things, people have a reasonable expectation for a man to have an actual, functioning penis, and for a woman to have an actual, functioning vagina. Genitals, while not a sufficient condition for attraction, are for most people a necessary condition, and to call yourself a woman when you don't have a vagina is deceptive.

I wonder if that thread would play differently if everyone know that OP was a pre-op trans.

(radfemanon)
It's almost like trans ideology is super duper homophobic.

(DifferentAirGC)
Off-topic, but I wonder if TIMs think the name of that subreddit is exclusionary and "TERFy"

(contecorsair)
There's a few xx subs like that, like xxketo for example, which I like/hope is for actual women and transmen, because biology matters, especially when specifically talking about something that effects your hormones and so many women, myself including, have absent or two week+ menstruation from keto or are using keto to help with diabetes and ovarian cysts. (And no transwomen are not "just like women with PCOS". Gag me.) There was this "I'm an XY women am I welcome?" Seriously, who other than trans ask if they are "welcome" on a sub? People are free to subscribe and post to any sub as long as it's relevant. Why ask? Even GC doesn't have a "no Transcribers" rule. They are just fishing for validation at our expense. Like, if I'm uncomfortable with it, like I am, what am I supposed to do? Say, "Actually, this sub is not for you, it's for people talking about the specifics of dealing with keto and how it changes the female body."? No. I'll be downvoted to hell and labeled transphobic. So they come seeking validation, I'm just asking an innocent honest question, no hate plz~ but we all know that there's only one allowed answer to the question or you get banned, downvoted, or threatened.

(lesbianisntabadword)
Go sort by “top of all time” on xxketo and you’ll find a post at the very top welcoming a TIM with open arms.

Many even suggest changing the name because xxketo is “exclusionary” and “chromosomes shromosomes”. And that was as of 74 days ago.

Many even had the audacity to say that women with PCOS could “relate to his androgen problems” so he should fit right in.

Uhh... seriously? I have PCOS and that does NOT make me relate more to a man, Tina. Get out.

So annoying!!

(SeverelyModerate)
I’m sorry .... WHAT?!!?! Are you fucking kidding me!? That’s enraging!!! Chromosomes DO matter when it comes to the expression of literally every gene in the body. Your risk of osteoporosis, certain cancers, certain diseases ... it doesn’t give a flying fart what the patient “identifies” as. I promise. And the PCOS thing has my head spinning like Beetlejuice. I can’t. It’s too stupid.

(lethalmachine)
I was just part of a thread where a TIF called me a dick. I said “I’m a cunt if you want to be technically correct” so he sent me a PM calling me a terf and all of those pleasantries. When I said “isn’t using genitals as an insult kind of terf-y?” He blocked me right after. The irony is ALWAYS lost on them.

(That90sCaliChick)
Oh trust me. There was a thread where a mother posted about her daughter being 18 and already being a cam girl. I suggested that there could be a chance she was groomed into it and I was dogpiled by these idiots who were pro sex industry!

That's so disturbing, you're probably right! I bet they were like oh no don't tell her to stop, give us her camera name

They didn’t ask for her camera name, but they were making the typical sex pozzer libfem arguments:

“But what if she knows other cam girls”

“You’re perpetuating the stigma.”

(Candentia)
I'm hoping if nothing else that seeing the dogpile on you would convince the mother to refrain from taking pro-porn arguments to heart. If she legitimately cares about what may be happening it's better that her daughter could have someone to talk to about it instead of being left to handle it alone...or worse, with no one but other sex-positive individuals (far more likely to find around her age today) who will offer nothing but encouragement for doing it.

(artificialgraymatter)
The guy in that thread that says lesbians and women should give him a chance as a platonic friend....

Women always owe men something.

*Edit: And I haven’t even gotten to the incel yet.

(Hooksandfangs)
Remind me why we’re not supposed to say these men are utterly revolting, again?

(Burbseverywhere)

LOL. This guy thinks that this other guy has anything in common with his lesbian mother.

I’m glad you’re safe...I should mention that I am a straight married male, but I grew up with a gay mother and I couldn’t imagine someone trying this to her, if you need any help trying to figure out witch VPN to go with I have a few in mind that should help you on all platforms, just let me know if you need any help

I love how these men white knight for trans but when a woman is harrassed it is her fault.

Silly womens acting so sensitive. /s

Conservapedia #fundie conservapedia.com

[Re: The lifestyle of Ardipithecus ramidus]

According to Lovejoy, males pair-bonded or married females, showing traditional marriage is as old as 4 "million" years according to so-called evolutionary science. This finding supports the Biblical definition of marriage as being between a man and a women -- "Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her"

Lance Welton #fundie vdare.com

Atheists are genetic mutants who, for the most part, would never have been born if we hadn’t managed to break free of pre-industrial conditions of Darwinian selection. This was the conclusion of a paper published just before Christmas in the leading journal Evolutionary Psychological Science[The Mutant Says in His Heart, “There Is No God”: The Rejection of Collective Religiosity Centred Around the Worship of Moral Gods is Associated with High Mutational Load Edward Dutton, Guy Madison & Curtis Dunkel. (PDF).] and it sent establishment psychologists into spasms of rage.

To be sophisticated, these days, means that you’re an atheist. Academia is overwhelmingly atheist and average intelligence weakly correlates with not believing in God [High IQ turns academics into atheists,’ Times Higher Education, byRebecca Atwood, June 12, 2008]. For SJWs, the religious are at best stupid and, at worst, racist bigots who vote for Donald Trump and Brexit. So it’s no surprise that the paper was greeted with disbelief by the SJWs who fill departments of psychology.

Reactions ranged from “Amazing!” to condemning it as the worst paper of the year and “one of the most egregious papers I’ve ever read.” Reported in newspapers worldwide [Atheists more likely to be left handed, study finds, by Olivia Rudgard,Daily Telegraph, December 21, 2017], its authors presumably delighted in the reaction.

And the reaction was all the more ferocious because the paper’s conclusions are difficult to dispute. The researchers—British anthropologist Dr Edward Dutton, Swedish psychologist Prof. Guy Madison and Western Illinois University psychologist Curtis Dunkel—presented a beautifully simple case:

Until the Industrial Revolution, we were under harsh conditions of Darwinian Selection, meaning that about 40% of children died before they reached adulthood. These children would have been those who had mutant genes, leading to poor immune systems and death from childhood diseases. But they would also have had mutant genes affecting the mind. This is because the brain, home to 84% of the genome, is extraordinarily sensitive to mutation, so mental and physical mutation robustly correlate. If these children had grown up, they might have had autism, schizophrenia, depression... but they had poor immune systems, so they never had the chance.

Under these conditions, prevalent until the nineteenth century, we were individually selected for but we were also “group selected” for. Ethnic groups are simply a genetic extended family and some groups fared better against the environment and enemy groups than others did, due to the kind of partly genetic psychological adaptations they developed.

Among these, the authors argue, was a very specific kind of religiosity which developed in all complex societies: the collective worship of gods concerned with morality. Belief in these kinds of gods was selected for, they maintain, because once we developed cities we had to deal with strangers—people who weren’t part of our extended family. By conceiving of a god who demanded moral behaviour towards other believers, people were compelled to cooperate with these strangers, meaning that large, highly cooperative groups could develop.

Computer models have proven that the more internally cooperative group—which is also hostile to infidel outsiders—wins the battle of group selection [The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation by Max Hartshorn, June 2013]. This very specific kind of religiousness was selected for and, indeed, it correlates with positive and negative ethnocentrism even today.

The authors demonstrate that this kind of religiousness has clearly been selected for in itself. It is about 40% genetic according to twin studies, it is associated with strongly elevated fertility, it can be traced to activity in specific regions of the brain, and it is associated with elevated health: all the key markers that something has been selected for.

And it is from here that the authors make the leap that has made SJW blood boil. Drawing on research by Michael Woodley of Menie and his team (see here and here)they argue that conditions of Darwinian selection have now massively weakened, leading to a huge rise in people with damaging mutations. This is evidenced in increasing rates of autism, schizophrenia, homosexuality, sex-dysmorphia, left-handedness, asymmetrical bodies and much else. These are all indicators of mutant genes.

Woodley suggests that weakened Darwinian selection would have led to the spread of “spiteful mutations” of the mind, which would help to destroy the increasingly physically and mentally sick group, even influencing the non-carriers to behave against their genetic interests, as carriers would help undermine the structures through which members learnt adaptive behaviour.

This is exactly what happened in the infamous Mouse Utopia experiment in the late 1960s, where a colony of mice was placed in conditions of zero Darwinian selection and eventually died out. [Death squared: The explosive growth and demise of a mouse population. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, January 1973(PDF)].

So Dutton and his team argue that, this being the case, deviation from this very specific form of religiousness—the collective worship of moral gods in which almost everyone engaged in 1800—should be associated with these markers of mutation. In other words, both atheists and those interested in spirituality with no moral gods (such as the paranormal) should be disproportionately mutants.

And this is precisely what they show. Poor physical and mental health are both significantly genetic and imply high mutational load. Dutton and his team demonstrate that this specific form of religiousness, when controlling for key factors such as SES, predicts much better objective mental and physical health, recovery from illness, and longevity than atheism.

It’s generally believed that religiousness makes you healthier because it makes you worry less and elevates your mood, but they turn this view on its head, showing that religious worshippers are more likely to carry gene forms associated with being low in anxiety. Schizophrenia, they show, is associated with extreme and anti-social religiosity, rather than collective worship. Similarly, belief in the paranormal is predicted by schizophrenia, and this is a marker of genetic mutation.

Next, they test autism, another widely accepted marker of mutation, as evidenced by the fact that it’s more common among the children of older men, whose fathers are prone to mutant sperm. Autism predicts atheism.

They then look at data on left-handedness. In agricultural societies we are overwhelmingly right-handed. Left-handedness means an asymmetrical brain and thus, to some extent, mutation. They show that there is a weak but significant trend whereby the more strongly religious you are the more likely you are to be right-handed, just as the theory would predict. Finally, they turn to plain ugliness—asymmetry. This shows that your immune system is so deficient that you haven’t been able to maintain a symmetrical phenotype in the face of disease or that you simply have mutant genes that make you asymmetrical. Believers in the paranormal have less symmetrical hands than do controls.

...

Dutton & Co.’s research is so incendiary because it is presenting the SJWs with what they really are: mutants; maladapted people who undermine carefully evolved, evolutionarily useful structures—such as religion—meaning they make even non-carriers maladapted; discouraging them from breeding or from defending their ethnic group.

Under normal Darwinian conditions, prevalent until the Industrial Revolution, these mutants would simply never have been born. They are, just like the mutant mice, people whose influence will ultimately lead to the collapse of society, as intelligence declines, and we return to a new Dark Age in which people are likely to be very religious indeed.

But perhaps there is some good news. It’s quite clear from the Mouse Utopia experiments that if the mutants are removed, then the society will recover.

Matt Staver #fundie #conspiracy #quack lc.org

The top 5 COVID vaccines are made using the livers, thymus, lung and eye tissue of aborted children. Our client Sandra Merritt is right – murdered babies are being sold for profit and now their tiny body parts are being used to create "humanized mice" for the COVID vaccine.

As you may recall, our client Sandra Merritt is the whistleblower who videotaped and exposed Planned Parenthood's outrageous "Baby Parts for Sale" scheme.

We continue to defend Sandra from the onslaught of lawsuits and trumped-up criminal charges Planned Parenthood and their pro-abortion prosecutors brought against her. However, Sandra's explosive work continues to reveal the dark underbelly of the medical world even to this day.

Documents just obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reveal that aborted baby parts, like the ones Sandra exposed as being sold by Planned Parenthood, have been used to create "humanized mice" and the COVID vaccine.

One of the companies exposed by Sandra's undercover videos was Advanced BioScience Resources (ABR). According to the new FOIA documents, ABR sold "fresh, never frozen" aborted baby livers and thymus to the National Institute of Health. Those aborted baby organs were then spliced with rodents to create "humanized mice."

In fact, Dr. Anthony Fauci's own NIAID held seminars on the benefits of those humanized mice back in 2018. Humanized mice, it turns out, are the basis for the top 5 COVID vaccines currently under development.

Moderna, Inovio, CanSino, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson's Janssen Pharmaceuticals and others are using aborted baby cells to fuel their research and build their vaccines, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and other sources. And a quick search of the internet shows that "humanized mice" are a readily available, "hot" commodity among researchers.

Two of the vaccine makers mentioned above, AstraZeneca and Janssen, have been approved for the Food and Drug Administration's "warp speed" program, meaning their aborted baby-derived vaccines will likely be the first to market… and the first to be pushed as a mandatory vaccine. The DNA of murdered children will be injected into the bloodstream of anyone who takes those tainted vaccines.

Certainly, the decision of whether to inject a vaccine into ones' body is a deeply personal issue and there are many who object to vaccinations not just for philosophical and religious reasons, but for medical reasons as well.

But such a decision should NOT be forced on people, especially when the impetus for mass vaccination may be nothing more than sheer profit-making on the part of Big Pharma.

As I mentioned above, Liberty Counsel continues to defend Sandra Merritt from the onslaught of lawsuits and criminal charges trumped-up by Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion prosecutors. Sandra's case has been the most expensive legal case in Liberty Counsel history.

While the death culture abortionists have hundreds of millions of dollars to fund their lawsuits, Liberty Counsel has God's grace through generous donors like you. YOUR donations allow Liberty Counsel to defend the sanctity of life, family values and religious freedom free of charge.

One of our generous supporters has established a Challenge Grant whereby every dollar donated to our legal fund right now will be doubled in impact! Please, take a moment now to donate generously today. America's future relies on it.

anwarfathy #conspiracy #wingnut #sexist godlikeproductions.com

the NWO is not just an organization/cult/secret society
it is a system of government and a dogma/belief system
it mix Sunni-Islam with new totalitarian dictatorial version of liberalism that is made from mixing a new inhuman extreme version of capitalism with radical misandrist version of feminism and with limited superficial version of diversity without any real political democracy, personal/individual freedom or human rights


i think it could be better -at least for me- if these governments was to be taken down and replaced with anti-NWO governments that:

1-it's social system is "male chauvinism/real conservatism" that give males all authority, money and respect and that don't allow women to vote and force females to stay and work in home and strictly punish them if they forced their men to be cuckolds like by having sex outside marriage


2-it's economical system is "real socialism/communism" that nationalize all companies, determined the Prices of products and provide appropriate government jobs, free health care, free Residence to all people not just to the ones who already found work or pay taxes


3-it's belief system is anti-Islam, non-religious, occult free thinking that teach real magic in the schools instead of teaching religion and training children to be slaves for god, the rich, authority/goverment and the capitalist


4-it's political system is a version of democracy that have real free elections, free art and free press
and that respect all males dignity, personal/individual freedom and human rights


the NWO main weapons are deception, intimidation and vilification so the NWO usually fake news, twist Concepts, Misrepresents text, defraud the law and pretend to be right-wing or left-wing to use them as tools or to make people hate them

the NWO believe i 4 laws:
1-"the thoughts is like the actions"
it means they treat mind fantasy as intention and treat intentions as real actual Acts

2-"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged"
it means that if you judged a woman by being a bitch or corrupted they will never rest until they make you a bitch or corrupted or make you look like it
even

3-"karma law"
it means that if you do anything they can deceive themselves and call it corruption, deception, injustice, harm or evil whatever your reasons and your circumstances was and whatever what you did was insignificant and even if they was the ones who pushed you to do it
in all these cases they believe that what you did give them the right to deceive any way they want you and inflict upon you any kind or degree of harm and injustice they want

3-every one have free will/choice
they consider choices that is made based on ignorant as real free will/choices
also they manipulate, intimidate, deceive, corrupt, lure, people and exploit their ignorant, weakness, flaws, urgent needs and desires to control their choices
they use the notion of free will/choices to legitimize their rule/control and justifies their deception

4-"everything is justified in war" or "the end justifies the means"
it means that if they want to take your money they just have to provoke war with you, then it is moral/justified/right for them to con you and take your money

asiancuckandcuckoldress #sexist asiancuckandcuckoldress-deactiv.tumblr.com

(Please tell me this is just made up)

My Thoughts and Experience on Racial Cuckolding

Hi everyone. I appreciate all the support that I received from my friends and followers on my Tumblr blog. I made a conscious decision to share a very personal and intimate part of my life in hope that it will shed light on the topic of Asian/white racial cuckolding (a scenario where an Asian couple invites a white bull to pleasure the wife). I’m also writing this piece in response to my husband’s personal struggle with our cuckold marriage. While some of the martials on my page are sexual fantasies, I hope this piece to be more serious and informative.
I first wanted to write something meaningful about racial cuckolding due to my continual frustration at the lack of Asian cuckolds willing to appear on my upcoming documentary. The documentary is a short video exploring the ever increasingly popular theme of Asian and white cuckolding. These Asian guys were initially very enthusiastic about starring in a documentary that features a sexual fetish they’re into. But the initial enthusiasm fissured and ultimately died out after they were informed that their faces will be in full view.
Asians are particular sensitive about pride, hence the term “saving face” originates from Asian countries. So having their faces in full view is the ultimate “loss of face.” But I was puzzled and bothered by the fact that they feel it’s something to be embarrassed about. Although the documentary is not a porn in any stretch, it’s nonetheless a documentary that deals with an erotic subject. I always thought that since there’s lack of an Asian male presence in American adult films, cuckolding movies/porn can change that. That shame and humiliation felt by these Asian cuckolds are similar to what my husband went through (and still is). So it’s only appropriate that I begin this piece with my husband’s story.
My husband is a great guy. He’s very smart and resourceful. We’re also best friends as well. Plus, I do feel a special connection to another Chinese person, so dating and ultimately marrying him was the best decision I ever made.
But while he’s a great person, he’s not someone I’m physically nor sexually attracted to. It’s honestly not just about the penis size like everyone else make it out to be. While he’s very under endowed, it’s also has to do with his other inadequacies in the sex department. He has problems with premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction as well.
While we still dating, we try to get “intimate” couple times and it was a disaster. I felt so turn off by the sight of him naked and unable to perform. I only dated and slept with white guys before him so it saddened me to see the stereotype about Asian guys being true. I know he’s the only Asian guy I ever see naked, but it just confirmed my long time beliefs about Asian guys.
I first cheated on my husband with one of my white ex. That ex was a total jerk and asshole, but sex was something that he always great at. I realize that I can never go back with this asshole, but why not just have him as a sex partner. But the guilt of being a cheater is a lot for me to bear and especially cheating on my then bf with an ex. I stopped seeing the ex and try to feel some sort of sexual attraction with my bf. Once again we tried to get intimate, but he got really anxious every time, and his inadequacies grew even more.
Not having someone for physical pleasure made me a cranky and bitchy person to be around. I grew so annoyed at everything he does even though he’s a sweetheart and always try to please me. Then one night when I was out with some of my Asian gfs, they said that they have the same problem with their Asian bfs and husbands, while the ones who dated white guys didn’t have this problem. I talked to one girl in particular and she said that she had the same problem with her Asian husband. She was active in cuckolding at the time, but didn’t disclose her activity since it’s a very taboo subject at the time (still now). It wasn’t until we became close that she said she was a cuckoldress and it saved her marriage. I was shocked at her admission about this lifestyle and didn’t really ask further.
Anyways, I dated my husband for 4 years before getting married, and during the time we dated, I openly cheated on him with other white guys. He knew I cheated and it’s an open secret but he never confronted me about it out of fear he might lose me. Whilst it’s an uncomfortable situation, I felt the cheating was necessary since it makes my emotional relationship with my husband better. I didn’t turn into a complete bitch around him and we are happy while we’re together since I’m getting the sex on the side.
The sex was not the only thing that made me cheat. My husband and I can talk forever and we like being around each other at home, but we share little in common when it comes to social activities. He’s smart and into academic things. He’s a movie buff and like action and western films (he’s an Americanized Chinese). While not at all anti-social, he’s more comfortable with a small group of close friends and prefer to do things at home. I’m like the polar opposite. I’m into fashion, dancing, and the nightlife. This makes it difficult for me to find him physically attractive since I like guys who are more out-going and social. As we hung out with different groups of friends, the cheating becomes even more common. Not only do I sleep with these other guys, but we also went out to clubs and lounges every weekends (I was still young at the time).
My husband was very understanding and never said a word about my infidelity and activities. He’s very passive and it’s not in his personality to be confrontational. Not only did he not confront me, but he felt it’s his fault for us being in this situation. So he tried to make it up by pleasing me in other ways. Like doing dishes, laundry, cooking and other domestic duties. I felt awful about it, but I’m quite useless when it comes to house work. I was the only child and my parents spoiled me and never made me do chores.
Such a loving and caring individual is someone I always want to be married to. He understands me more than anyone. It’s only natural that we got married. He’s a great person and being married to him was truly a blessing for me. He tolerates and put up things about me that most guys would not.
But again the issue of intimacy comes up. What kind of married couples don’t have intimacy? And since we’re married, cheating is out of the question. While I know what is a cuckold, I never knew it was an actual lifestyle. It wasn’t until I heard the word cuckolding in a movie somewhere and looked up what it means. Googling the word online brings up so much information. Lots of the things I see are fetishes and porn, so it turned me off immediately since I thought it’s for sexual deviants. After hours of research (and lots of porno lol) on cuckolding, I said that I can leave the fetish part out and just do it for the sex. I brought it up with my hubby and he very reluctantly agreed. I promise him the situation will be open and transparent and that he will know who I’m with at all times. There will be no lying nor deceiving behaviors by me.
The first couple guys I met were relatively vanilla and didn’t know much about the cuckolding thing. They just thought they’re having sex with a married woman. All these changed when I met the guy who’s now my current stud. He loves Asian women and dated mostly Asian girls his entire life. He’s very much into the racial aspect of cuckolding and it’s a big turn on for him.
I was clueless about this fetish at the time but he slowly got me into it like he did with his two other girlfriends. The two girls and I talked. The Korean girl is young and naive, and it’s just about the sex for her. But the Chinese girl is very much into the fetish. She and the stud talked to me about the fetish and I quickly became interested and turned on as well. They told me that not only is it a turn on for the Asian wife and the white stud, but the Asian cuckold husband will be turned on as well. It was hard to believe but I took their words for it.
It turned out they were not entirely right about the Asian husband part. My husband was horrified when I told him about it. Being the nice and wonderful person he is, he’s willing to go through with it. It’s been 8 months since I’m with my current stud and my husband is still very reluctant and uncomfortable with the whole thing.
I’m hoping to make this relationship more mainstream and less taboo to eventually make it less uncomfortable for my husband and other Asian husbands who are either reluctant or on the fence about it. I try to tell my husband that the whole humiliation and racial aspect of Asian/white cuckolding is just a fetish and role play. I still respect my husband as an individual outside the bedroom.
I hope my tumblr page is the first step toward getting a better understanding of this lifestyle. My page uses images, videos, and writings in a tongue in cheek manner to break down the misunderstanding and taboo nature of the subject.
The use of pornography on my page is not only intended to spice things up, but serves a much more important role. Porn is the most honest thing in the world when it comes to sexual attraction and preferences. You watch a particular porno because it genuinely appeals to you. A person’s preference in porn says a lot more than his/her preference in choosing a partner. Guys watch Asian porn because they like Asian girls, but a guy who dates an Asian girl can do it for so many other reasons besides pure attraction (like she’s rich or smart). Porn does not have to be politically correct like so many things in life. I personally don’t watch too many porno, but I feel it serves a very noble purpose of being the ultimate truth in terms of sexual preference. The porn, visual images, and writings on my page are not intended to promote self-loathing nor racial hatred, but to make racial cuckolding fetish more mainstream and help everyone be happy in their own skin (no pun intended lol).
I remain optimistic that racial cuckolding will be more mainstream. My page is to indulge and promote this lifestyle. I love to hear from anyone as long as the conversation remain respectful and civil. Please message or email me any of your personal thoughts or experiences on this subject. Thank you all for reading this.
Your Asian Cuckoldress,
Mei

ToriNoell #fundie rr-bb.com

Even little mice pray!
Had a real God moment today when I stopped in the pet store to look at all the cute and furry critters. At the mice cage there was this one really pretty little black and white mouse. She was sitting on her hind legs, eyes closed and her two tiny front paws folded in prayer. Cutest thing ever!!!! I wonder what she was praying, "oh, please Jesus let me find a good home where there are no kittehs."

David Pearce #fundie abolitionist.com

(This is a part of an essay calling for all predatory animals to killed off or genetically engineered into herbivores to end all suffering in the biosphere.)

More controversial than the case of tapeworms, cockroaches or locusts would be reprogramming or phasing out snakes and crocodiles. Snakes and crocodiles cause innumerable hideous deaths in the world each day. They are also part of our familiar conceptual landscape thanks to movies, zoos, TV documentaries, and the like - though a relaxed tolerance of their activities is easier in the comfortable West than for, say, a grieving Indian mother who has lost her child to a snakebite. Snakes are responsible for over 50,000 human deaths each year.

Most controversial of all, however, would be the extinction - or genetically-driven behavioural modification - of members of the cat family. We'll focus here on felines rather than the "easy" cases like parasitic tapeworms or cockroaches because of the unique status of members of the cat family in contemporary human culture, both as pets/companion animals and as our romanticised emblems of "wildlife". Most contemporary humans have a strong aesthetic preference in favour of continued feline survival. Their existence in current guise is perhaps the biggest ethical/ideological challenge to the radical abolitionist. For our culture glorifies lions, with their iconic status as the King of the Beasts; we admire the grace and agility of a cheetah; the tiger is a symbol of strength, beauty and controlled aggression; the panther is dark, swift and elegant; and so forth. Innumerable companies and sports teams have enlisted one or other of the big cats for their logos as symbols of manliness and vigour. Moreover cats of the domestic variety are the archetypal household pets. The worldwide domestic cat population has been estimated at around 400 million. We romanticise their virtues and forgive their foibles, notably their playful torment of mice. Indeed rather than being an object of horror - and compassion for the mouse - the torment of mice has been turned into stylized entertainment. Hence Tom-and-Jerry cartoons. By contrast, talk of "eliminating" predation can sound sinister. What would "phasing out" or "reprogramming" predators mean in practice? Most disturbingly, such terms are evocative of genocide, not universal compassion.

Appearances deceive. To get a conceptual handle on what is really going on during "predation", let's compare our attitude to the fate of a pig or a zebra with the fate of an organism with whom those non-human animals are functionally equivalent, both intellectually and in their capacity to suffer, namely a human toddler. On those rare occasions when a domestic dog kills a baby or toddler, the attack is front-page news. The offending dog is subsequently put down. Likewise, lions in Africa who turn man-eater are tracked down and killed, regardless of their conserved status. This response isn't to imply lions - or for that matter rogue dogs - are morally culpable. But by common consent they must be prevented from killing any more human beings. By contrast, the spectacle of a lion chasing a terrified zebra and then asphyxiating its victim can be shown on TV as evening entertainment, edifying viewing even for children. How is this parallel relevant? Well, if our theory of value aspires to a God's-eye perspective, stripped of unwarranted anthropocentric bias in the manner of the physical sciences, then the well-being of a pig or a zebra inherently matters no less than the fate of a human baby - or any other organism endowed with an equivalent degree of sentience. If we are morally consistent, then as we acquire God-like powers over Nature's creatures, we should take analogous steps to secure their well-being too. Given our anthropocentric bias, thinking of non-human vertebrates not just as equivalent in moral status to toddlers or infants, but as though they were toddlers or infants, is a useful exercise. Such reconceptualisation helps correct our lack of empathy for sentient beings whose physical appearance is different from "us". Ethically, the practice of intelligent "anthropomorphism" shouldn't be shunned as unscientific, but embraced insofar as it augments our stunted capacity for empathy. Such anthropomorphism can be a valuable corrective to our cognitive and moral limitations. This is not a plea to be sentimental, simply for impartial benevolence. Nor is it even a plea to take "sides" between killer and prey. Human serial killers who prey on other humans need to be locked up. But ultimately, it's vindictive morally to blame them in any ultimate sense for the fate of their victims. Their behaviour supervenes on the fundamental laws of physics. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner. Yet this indulgence doesn't extend to permitting them to kill again; and the abolitionist maintains the same principle holds good for nonhuman serial killers too.

Lance Welton #sexist unz.com

Since the beginning of the “Me, too!” movement, “patriarchy”—and the very idea that females prefer to be feminine—is under attack as never before. The Swedish capital Stockholm has banned ads that portray female stereotypes [Stockholm bans “sexist” and “degrading” adverts from public spaces, By Sara Malm, Daily Mail, 13 June 2018]. An Austrian museum about James Bond will cut out “sexist” aspects of the movie series about the Alpha male and his assorted scantily-dressed Bond girls [Not Licensed to Offend, By Tim Walker, Guardian, June 11, 2018]. On Father’s Day, fathers were supposed to receive “feminist” gifts, to undermine the patriarchal undertones of the celebration [9 Feminist Father’s Day 2017 Gifts For The Dad Who Believes In Equality, By Lindsay Mack, Romper, 7 June 2017, ].

But if a theory recently presented by two female researchers from Britain is correct, then patriarchy only evolved because of the male need to give women what they wanted, females are literally evolved to like and accept the patriarchal system, and, by implication, we’d have no civilization if it hadn’t developed.

...

Grant and Montrose argued that patriarchy is, therefore, entirely understandable in evolutionary terms. In China, women’s feet were bound so they couldn’t run away and have affairs. In the Islamic world, women are concealed in public so that no potential cuckolder can be attracted to them. Religions render these traditions—as well as general obedience to the male will—as the desire of the gods, making it even more likely to be obeyed.

And females who fail to obey risk severe punishment, including simply being killed to restore the families’ honour. There are, the authors report, about 300 honour killings in Pakistan annually, with sentences being very lenient compared to those for other murders. In the Middle East, women are killed for actual or alleged adultery, for refusing arranged marriage, for not being virgins when they get married and for being raped, as this implies that they were not being chaperoned by a male relative as mandated. Most societies give daughters far less freedom than sons. Not only are daughters worth more—in the sense that their child will definitely be your grandchild—but we’ve been selected to control them.

The fascinating result of this, argue the authors, is that females are literally evolutionarily selected to accept patriarchy. Those who refuse to have their feet bound, or be circumcised so they can’t enjoy sex, will not be able to get married and so won’t pass on their genes. Such refusal to obey the rules also elevates the likelihood that they’ll be ostracised—in societies where laws make it very hard to be an independent female—or directly killed. Grant and Montrose argue that abortion is particularly problematic in patriarchal societies because it allows women far too much control over themselves.

What this system means is that males—trusting that their investment in the female and her offspring will be worth it—can afford to be less violent, less jealous and more cooperative. They will invest more of their energy in looking after their children, making these children less short-term oriented, able to create stronger social bonds, and likely to be more cooperative.

And so a civilization will duly be able to develop.

This is a compelling theory and the authors also present some clear ways that future researchers can test it: Cuckoldry rates should be lower, and fertility higher, in more patriarchal societies and fundamentalist sub-cultures; the more fundamentalist and patriarchal a society the faster growing its population will be, as women will have no control over their bodies and no option but motherhood; and patriarchy will be stronger in polygamous systems, like Islam, because there will be more women for a husband to control.

Anecdotally, at least, this all these seems to be the case.

So, reducing these findings down to their basics, patriarchy is a result of the evolved psychology and physiology of females. Its development has, in turn, pushed females, for biological reasons, towards being more accepting of patriarchy.

Could it be that the rise in “feminism” is not just due to the collapse of patriarchy but, more profoundly, due to weakened Darwinian selection, due to the less harsh life created by the Industrial Revolution? (See Social Epistasis Amplifies the Fitness Costs of Deleterious Mutations, Engendering Rapid Fitness Decline Among Modernized Populations, By Michael Woodley of Menie et al., Evolutionary Psychological Science, June 2017).

This would mean more “mutant genes” not being removed through high child mortality or spinsterhood for “undesirable” women, such as those which might make people challenge patriarchy?

The authors insist “It’s a Man’s World” but it only became that way due to the power women have over men to force them to bend to their evolved desires for investment and status, as evidence of the ability to invest in resources in their children.

“It’s a Man’s World”—and it’s Women’s Fault?

Rudra Chakrin #conspiracy absolutoracle.com

Do not fear the New World Order. Do not fear their pseudo-Muslim “terrorist” attacks on their own people in America, Britain and Europe. Do not fear their artificial Bird Flu pandemic they are trying to create. Do not fear their pollution of the air with Chemtrails. Do not fear their wars of conquest or the war-crimes they are committing. Do not fear their false democracy or their rigged elections. Do not fear their police state surveillance, attacks on privacy, or their ugly drive to put microchips in everybody. They are indeed evil and doing great harm, but they will not be allowed to go too far and break the Cosmic Law of Karma that pervades and upholds the entire Timespace Universe. They cannot get their hideous controls, vaccines or microchips onto or into every last individual in the world.

There are extraordinary cosmic forces working behind the scenes to keep the evil New World Order manipulators within necessary Karmic boundaries during the transition of the Earth humanity from the Ascending Kali Yuga into the Ascending Dwapara Yuga. There has to be a necessary elimination of redundant, unevolving human beings and corrupt human institutions to create a clean slate for future evolution of humanity. The evil New World Order controllers of America, Britain and Europe are not the only rotten and corrupt hidden manipulators. There are others in Russia, China, Japan, India, Pakistan and so on. All the present political, economic and military leaders will be allowed to do a great deal of lying and harm, but then they will themselves be taken out by incoming Cosmic Forces. Everything will happen in accordance with Cosmic Command as the Real Power in all God-conscious Ultraterrestrials and Extraterrestrials who are working together in harmony. So, hold on—something wonderful is going to happen.

The Bilderberg Evil Illuminati New World Order of deliberate disease, death, dehumanization and destruction of the natural environment of the planet Earth is criminally insane and cannot endure. These people have no soul or conscience; they are puppets of dark entities (demons, mind-parasites, fourth dimensional reptilians) of bad Karma of humanity. You cannot reason with them. As people, they are unreal, psychotic and subhuman. Their causal bodies are twisted abortions that cannot evolve. They will have to be melted down in Hell and start all over again. They love to torture people because they are themselves mentally tortured cowards. Also, many of them are homosexuals who hide from societal persecution by being in government. Why do you think there are so many homosexuals in governments? But it also leads governments to promote the mass killing of women and children in the wars they arrange, as in Iraq and Lebanon.

You cannot change the world, but you can change yourself for the better by awakening to a more evolutionary, spiritual and cosmic perspective on the world. Truth is deathless and leads into superconscious self-realization, which can bring permanent perfection to the causal, subtle and even physical bodies of a genuine human being.

Awaken to greater and greater Truth. Have faith in the Guiding Spirit of Cosmic and Divine Self-discovery, the Guru God, Who is not some pathetic little God of one of the local Earthbound religions like Allah, Vishnu or the stupid “God” of the Christians and Jews. All the Gods of human insular cultures are petty, distorted and useless Gods. As for all my Avatars, such as Rama, Krishna, Buddha and so on—they cannot do fuck-all for you! I am Baba Kalki Himself, and I tell you that you do not need faith in Me either! Have faith in your own Godself and in the Absolute Spirit of Guidance of the whole Universe beyond all religions anywhere. My presence here is an impersonal adjustment of the overall system of the evolution of the Solar System. I am like The Mule in Asimov’s Foundation sci-fi novels. My Divine and Cosmic job is to simply organize and restructure Divine and Cosmic Truth for the seekers and teachers on Earth in the future. As Rumi once rightly said, “Do not look at me, but take what is in my hand”.

Do not be a member of any religion or organized traditional or big spiritual movement. All human institutions on Earth are corrupt and false. None of them are going to make it. The Power-of-Life alone endures. Harness the Power-of-Life in your own breathing with the mantra that is most alive and strong in your own understanding and inspiration. Your own private, anonymous Yoga is everything! Whoever has Mantra and Yoga is protected from the Bilderberg Evil Illuminati New World Order. Mantra and Yoga neutralize all subhuman police and inhuman weapons. The Power-of-Life is beyond all governments and their false, oppressive so-called “laws”. Be clear about this.

I am the Universe’s own appointed champion of the Free Spirit, the True Individual. I am Brahman and the Paramahansa, the Supreme Swan of Cosmic Consciousness and Nondual Oneness is My natural vehicle I ride in every breath I take.

Five great ascetic Swamis in Samadhi in the Himalaya are the fingers of My Right Hand and five great all-fucking Immortals who wander the Earth in secret are the fingers of My Left Hand. Shivo’ham, I am Shiva, I am God; I am Rudra, I am the Wielder of the Wheel of Time, the Kalachakra; I am Baba Kalki; I am the Mule. I am all these things and I am none of them. There is no boundary to Self-discovery for anyone!

There is no future for prejudice, pettiness, nastiness, violence, police state or government oppression. There is no future for lying. There is no future for trying to make free individuals conform to their relatives, neighbors or societal stupidity. There is no future for false, pretentious guides, gurus and teachers who lack Real Knowledge and Divine Experience. There is no future for the swaggering braggarts who are constantly chatting uselessly on the Internet and trying to control the white noise of it all in favor of their own frustrated little corners of superficial influence.

Overwhelming Cosmic Power is watching Earth, humanity and its vile leaders. The day and the hour of Compassionate Intervention grows ever nearer.

AndyB #fundie netmums.com

Dear Headteacher

During the Passover Half Term I took (Daughter) and (classmate) to the Cotswolds. We entered a Library and (classmate) ran over to an adult book about Yoga which was on display and enthusiastically looked through it. I asked her how at her age (10) she even knew about Yoga. "We do it in PE at School" She replied. (Daughter) was sheepish in confirming this as it is one of many subjects I have taken time to give reasons why it is not something to be involved with, especially as they are Christians. I take (my Daughter and her classmate) to Sunday School in Stony Stratford.

Please withdraw (Daughter) from all further Yoga lessons including any New Age meditation, Centring, or such like.

I understand many in the west are ignorant of what Yoga REALLY is so I've quoted below from books I have on the subject to clarify my position.

"This is a serious decision. Yoga is not a trifling jest if we consider that any misunderstanding in the practice of Yoga can mean death or insanity. That a misunderstood Yoga can be dangerous has been proven by many a student..." Hans-Ulrich Rieker author of The Yoga Of Light.

"Actually, the sanskrit root word for Yoga means "to yoke, to unite or to bind." It also means "union" or "communion". The whole point of Yoga is "Self-Realization"-that is, to experience your divinity as you yoke yourself to Brahman (the "Infinite", the "Universal Spirit," the impersonal force that the Hindus call "God"), thereby theoretically releasing yourself from the bondage of endless reincarnation. That is the ultimate aim of ALL Yoga"

"As author and TV Yoga teacher Richard Hittleman said, "The movements themselves become a form of meditation." The continued practice of the exercises will, whether you consciously intend it or not, eventually influence you toward an Eastern/mystical perspective. That is what it is meant to do! as Deborah Rozman has pointed out, "The real purpose of Yoga exercises is to put the body in a state where meditation on the One is possible." There is, by definition, no such thing as "neutral" Yoga. As Author Dave Hunt dryly observed during a lecture, "No Yoga is good Yoga."

"The practice of the postures, breathing techniques, and meditation exercises is designed to arouse powerful energies which the Yogis identify as the kundalini serpent force. Unless the devotee has meticulously prepared himself beforehand, those "energies" (which are in fact demonic beings) can indeed destroy him. The literature of Yoga is filled with warnings and case histories of illness, insanity, moral degeneration, and even death of those who practised Yoga, thereby arousing kundalini. Johanna Michaelsen Like Lambs To The Slaughter (Your Child and the Occult) & The Beautiful Side Of Evil.

In summary there is no such thing as Yoga for fitness/stretching only as the postures in themselves are prayers to Hindu gods!

I could go on and talk about transcendental, astral plane experience via vibrating at the correct frequency by making the OMM sound so prevalent in Yoga but I think the above more than enough information to prove my point!

I look forward to hearing from you on this serious matter which is a rare black mark on an otherwise outstanding School in my opinion.

Various Incels #sexist incels.co

RE: [RageFuel] This is what awaits after you "ascend"

(squirrelsonfire2)

betabuxxing isn't ascension

Only animalistic sex where the woman offers to pay for lunch etc, is ascension.
Edit:
Well actually it isn’t ascension because that implies that you were born with inferior genes and worked your way up

(Shin no Shi)

Just like pottery and /pol tells me that having nuclear family is the best thing ever. The only ever good thing is fucking women when needed and popping kids for the next generation. That's about it

(radishman)

Pump and dump if you can, nothing more. If it ain't a doll it ain't loyal.

(TheIncredibleIncel)

Fitness instructor

Cheating with the fitness instructor. Such a stereotypical situation that it makes me wonder why men are so naive and more of them aren't paranoid/wary when it comes to this shit. Why are men even allowed to instruct females? Shouldn't it be males instructing males and females instructing females? Anyways, no doubt those 18 years of him slaving away meant fuck all to her. This is why you live your life for yourself and not someone else. Especially if they aren't your child. You live your life for women and you will end up disappointed.

(MartinLutherCoon)

never ever marry a femoid.
it is not worth it, foids don't have the brain or the empathy too stay that long with one man.
PUMP AND DUMP IS THE ONLY THING WOMEN DESERVE.

(PoodankMcGee)

Brutal MGTOWpill tbh. Even if a non-Chad does "succeed" romantically women still only see you as a disposable money dildo, ready to be tossed aside when a "better" man comes along. Fidelity is fake, love is a lie

(Feces)

Its simply over at that level. That man is too old to delusionmax like many do here with anime and coping. He should just focus on his one child and make sure that child knows the nature of foids to the maximum

Gilamut #racist stormfront.org

Re: Principles of a White Society

Why White Superiority?

It comes down to several, very basic things. The mantra of "every race deserves it own land" is just a non-starter. In today's radio show, the comment was made that "genetic superiority has never gotten us anywhere, and that pressing for White rights or White survivalism is the way to move forward" (or something to that effect). I completely and utterly disagree.

Where has whining about our "rights" gotten us? Absofreakinglutely nowhere. Where has believing and supporting "genetic superiority" gotten us? From the dawn of time to the 1960's, that's where. Thousands of years worth of history versus the past 50 years. OK, I'm getting in front of myself.

Up until the past 50 years, it was common belief in both actions and words that whites were superior to non-whites. It wasn't something that only fringe militants put forth, it was recognized as a simple fact that nobody would shy away from. Whites looked upon non-whites, in fact, as inferior, dirty, nasty, animalistic, dangerous, unintelligent, uncivilized, etc. Whites segregated themselves from non-whites in our personal lives, and in our professional lives......and socially, the thought of miscegenation with them was almost inconceivable. This recognition of the fact that non-whites were not our equals prevented rampant miscegenation and social mixing for millennia. The "every race deserves its own land" NEVER entered the equation.

It was not until the educational indoctrination and special interests gained enough traction to officially (and systematically) push the "equality" myth that the biological imperative to self segregate was overridden. Non-whites were no longer viewed as alien races, but (at first) "different, but the same" - and eventually just "the same"........"equal".

It has gotten to the point that the kwans no longer acknowledge "race" publicly or socially. And if they do, they only mention it is mere passing, with extreme guilt, and stress the "unimportance" of it.

So, let me ask all of you people that believe "Every race deserves its own land" something.

If the general public no longer recognizes "race" and believes that "we are all the human species"......what makes you think they would EVER, for one second, support the notion that there needs to be lands for each race? You know.....that thing they don't even acknowledge exists?

That's the crux of the problem. The general public has been so indoctrinated for the past 2 (going on 3) generations to believe in equality, we are all the same, we all bleed red, there is no real genetic difference between the <ahem> "different peoples of this world", we all share the planet.........they will never support the notion of "each race deserves its own land" until they (once again) acknowledge that there are genetic differences......severe genetic differences between our race, and the other races.

Until the myth of equality is crushed......until things like "economic disadvantage, cultural/religious uniqueness, etc" are completely and utterly defeated as excuses for the alien races' differences, a "racial" territory will never be supported in any way, shape, or form.

In short, the general public has to be made aware (as it was throughout history until the past 50 years) that the differences in race are not simply cultural, but biological. That, IMO, is the first step.

And that is the purpose of white_usa_'s memes. They illustrate, in the most basic and uncertain terms, that there is most definitely a huge difference between *us* and *them*. A difference so large, that it can not simply be excused away as cultural, educational, or economical. Even the poorest of Whites simply cannot fathom ever living the way these aliens do (in their own lands). Even the most uneducated of Whites simply cannot ever relate or imagine themselves acting, behaving, or living like they do.

These memes, the message, plays on the biological impulse to immediately get away from something that is revolting, that makes you simply say "Yuck!" much in the same way that the "dangerous, violent thug" memes are designed to make a person feel unsafe (for good reason) around these non-whites.

No other race on the planet, besides us Whites, has the slightest inclination of believing in "equality". This is a phenomina that is ours, and ous alone. It is one that has only recently (historical) been popularized through systematic indoctrination. And this indoctrination is so strong, so pervase, that even those in our own community shy away from challenging it.

There will never be support for any racial homeland until people believe in race.

People won't believe in race until they acknowlege racial differences are biological, not cultural.

It's just that simple.

We can and should debate the best methods to re-instil the belief in this simple natural fact, how to develop targeted messaging for specific groups of people, etc. But the conversation has to begin there first.

Just my .02

Scott Bennett, Ph.D. (abd) #conspiracy veteranstoday.com

There may be more to the New Zealand shooting event which just occurred than meets the eye. In fact, there is a very real possibility that it may have been the “Pearl Harbor” attack in a long campaign against President Trump, designed ultimately to neutralize the conservative republican base, weaken President Trump, and take-over America in a blitzkrieg of political turmoil. Here’s how, theoretically, the plan seems to be unfolding.

FORENSIC ANALYSIS:

Now let me first start out by saying that after thoroughly examining the 17 minute video of the shooter frame-by-frame, and after applying deductive reasoning in the forensic analysis, I am convinced this was a false-flag event for the following reasons:

• No bullet holes or shattered wood or glass or clouds of sheet rock or exploding plaster or cement can be observed or heard as the guns are firing into them and the victims. This is possible only when no solid projectile is fired from the muzzle, which means no solid bullets were fired into the walls, doors, windows, or victims bodies—only the concussion of air—which means either blanks or paint or gas or other non-solid projectiles were fired from the guns. This means, essentially, nothing solid impacted the victims bodies, therefore no physical damage resulted, which means no living person was lethally wounded or killed by an outside force. It’s simple physics, which Newton’s law establishes in the theorem: a body at rest stays at rest; a body in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Applied to this situation, we might similarly establish that a living body remains living unless impacted by an outside force that lethally disrupts the body’s life processes, such as a bullet destroying arteries and vital organs.
• No blood splatter from the close-range impact of the high-caliber bullets upon the victims can be observed anywhere on the walls, doors, floors or furniture. Several of the victims are shot at point-blank range as they are crawling or passing by the shooter, yet no visual impact of the bullets can be observed, which would have undoubtedly “kicked” or “thrown” the victim with tremendous force. Only one victim lying on the ground appears to have a red spray appear next to his head as he is allegedly shot, but this could be explained as a “paint round”, since no physical impact of the bullet or explosion upon the head is observed.

Additionally, no pools of blood can be seen either around the bodies on the floor after being shot, except from one body which strangely appears lying next to the first victim in the doorway, which was not present when the shooter initially entered. So this suggests the body or actor was placed in that position, with blood added afterwards.

• The victims’ physical reactions to being shot, especially at close-range, are not at all typical human reactions, as military and law enforcement experience and data confirm. Typically, the moment a person—especially a civilian—is shot, they instantly fall into a state of hysterical physical and emotional shock, delirium, panic, and desperation. Their bodies are flooded with adrenaline, triggering them to violently sprint, run, or crawl away from the source of the muzzle blast and deafening concussion. They do not simply fold up and fall to the ground like a sack of sand, and lie motionless. It is pure subconscious, animalistic instinctual self-preservation. Their body and instincts explode with movement in the first three (3) seconds, and their minds have no ability to stop it. There are also no screams of horror, rage, fear, or agony filling the air, only seemingly muffled moans.
• Upon leaving the Mosque, the shooter allegedly fires at a woman about 25 feet away at a corner of the yard, and upon walking outside, finds crying, “Help me, help me”, and lying on her side on the street, her face looking away, and holding her right wrist with her left hand. The shooter aims and fires at her at about 5-7 feet away, blowing a wad of her hair off of her scalp and seemingly causing a red substance to exit her wrist—which may have been a controlled device activated by the woman’s left hand which was holding her right.
• The presence of music playing in the background during the shooting event is also quite significant. At the beginning of the event, as the shooter is walking around the property, a pipe and drums band is playing an American patriotic tune, suggesting some kind mission equivalent of a “American Founding Father type revolution.” Then as the shooter reenters his car to escape, a voice giving a religious sermon begins screaming a bombastic “fire-and-brimstone” punishment type intro to a song that plays as the shooter drives away, running over the woman allegedly shot on the ground.
• Finally, as the shooter is driving down the street, several times he presses his shotgun muzzle against the windshield of his car and fires, but the windshield is not damaged or broken or penetrated by any bullet. Instead a smoky cloud bursts against the window and temporarily fills the cab of the car.
• He then fires out of the side passenger window at a man, and seemingly shatters the passenger door window. This may have been caused by the muzzle of the shotgun hitting the window of course, and not the result of a projectile being fired through it.

The shooter then drives off with music playing in the background, either from his car radio or bluetooth headset, that resembles some kind of hokey Pulp Fiction type soundtrack, as he comments on the shooting thrills and challenges to his Youtube type audience. The video then stops.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

People have been asking me what secular albums are "safe" to listen to. As a good guideline, ask yourself this... "Does the band / music you wish to listen to include any of the following themes:

Rebellion
Violence
Nihilism (belief in nothing) / Apathy
Escapism / Suicide
Drugs / Alcoholism
Sexual Perversion / Fornication / Pornography

Self-Mutilation
Dissonant / Offensive Sound
The Occult / Satanism
Anti-God / Anti-Authority
Cult-like Organization, Terrorism

If so, you should steer well clear. The Bible, God's Word, teaches us anything that promotes or embraces any of these factors is predominantly anti-Christian, and against all that God's Word stands for. The following are just a few God-haters you should definitely avoid like the plague...

Rock Music: Straight From The Pits Of Hell!

AC/DC: song Hell's Bells, inspired "Night Stalker" serial killer, pentagrams on album art (Highway to Hell), violent cover art (If You Want Blood You Got It), guitarist admitted to being 'possessed' while on stage. Band-name AC/DC purportedly stands for Assault Christians Destroy Christians. Promote pedophilia (guitarist dresses like a school boy on stage), extremely offensive and harsh sound, produces a spirit of hatred and anger. Lead singer, Bon Scott "drank himself to death" at age 33. Avoid this band like the plague.

Aerosmith: drug and alcohol abuse, equating sex and religion on "Angel," glorifying homosexuality and cross-dressing on “Dude looks like a lady”

Agnostic Front: violent and rebellion-themed album art (Cause for Alarm)

Amen: objectionable album art (Disorderly Conduct)

Anthrax: violent album art (Fistful of Metal)

Bad Religion: objectionable band name, objectionable album art (Back to the Known)

Bauhaus: backwards Latin Satanic incantation in "Father, Son and Holy Ghost", Satanic imagery, anti-Christian lyrics

Beach Boys: Brian Wilson said they were trying to create "witchcraft music" in 1966. One band member drowned when he fell drunk off a boat

Beastie Boys: more than 90 references to drug and alcohol abuse on Licensed to Kill

Beatles: promote Communism in "Back in the USSR," sexually degenerate lyrics... "Why don't we do it in the road (1968)," rebellion, fornication, false religion (Catholicism and Eastern Mysticism). Lennon called Jesus a 'garlic eating fascist bastard.' Paul McCartney is an admitted atheist. 'Sgt. Peppers' album cover has Aleister Crowley's face on it

Billy Idol: rebellion, fake crucifixion in "Hot in the City" video, mock crosses in "White Wedding" video, has 'Idol’ as name (Blasphemy - There shall be NO Idols before God)

Birthday Party: likened Jesus to "bad seed", indecipherable lyrics about "post-crucifixion baby"

Black Flag: violent and suicide-themed album art (Family Man)

Black Market Baby: objectionable band name and album art (Senseless Offerings)

Black Sabbath: number of the beast, crucifixion imagery, objectionable album art (Born Again, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath)

Blink 182: rebellion, tattoos, perverted lyrics about sexually abusing animals (F*ck a dog)

Blaspheme: objectionable band name and album art (Last Supper)

Blue Oyster Cult: the occult, promotes Satan worship in the song 'Don't Fear The Reaper'

Boston: promotes fornication, wild immoral parties, drug abuse, indifference, smoking pot, lead singer commit suicide in March 2007 (left a suicide note saying, "I am a lonely soul")

Britney Spears: bi-sexual whore, promotes sexual immorality, lasciviousness, and feminist rebellion

Carlos Santana: Says he's been communicating with a demon named "Metatron" regularly since 1994, promotes New Age, immorality.

Cheap Trick: promote rebellion against parents, fornication

Celtic Frost: use crucifix as slingshot on album cover (To MegaTherion), occult links, rebellion

Christian Death: Gnosticism, sex- and occult-themed album art (Only Theatre of Pain, The Scriptures, Sex and Drugs and Jesus Christ, What's the Verdict)

Coil: devotees of Aleister Crowley

Alice Cooper: on-stage mutilation, rebellion, "School's Out" prevents mice from solving mazes, objectionable album art (Constrictor)

Cramps: "degraded" sexuality (Date With Elvis)

Crass: crucifixion-themed album art (Christ the Album, Yes Sir I Will)

Crown of Thorns: objectionable band name and album art (Pictures)

Cure (The): alcohol abuse, blasphemy in "The Blood" and "Holy Hour", Satanic imagery in artwork

Cradle of Filth: openly satanic music, t-shirts proclaiming 'Jesus is a c*nt, mockery of Christ, anti-Christian lyrics

Danzig: Use satanic imagery

Damned: crown of thorns imagery (Grimly Fiendish)

Dark Angel: objectionable band name and album art (Darkness Descends)

Dark Wizard: objectionable album art (Reign of Evil)

David Bowie: occult, recorded "Quicksand" about Crowley. Promotes rebellion in "Rebel, rebel."

dc Talk: This so-called "Christian" Rock band is of the Devil. DC Talk's Kevin Max Says, "I'd love to hang out with him [Marylyn Manson]." They also promote Jesus as being a "freak."

Dead Kennedys: objectionable album art (In God We Trust, Inc.)

Death: objectionable album art (Scream Bloody Gore)

Death Cult: objectionable album art (Death Cult)

Def Leppard: Promotes pornography in the song, "photograph"

Depeche Mode: songs about sex and sadomasochism, recorded "Blasphemous Rumors"

Deftones: rebellious message, encourages violence

Deicide: vocalist claims to be antichrist, burns inverted crosses on his head, blasphemous lyrics, Satanic imagery

Diamanda Galas: recorded album Litanies of Satan, proclaimed herself the Anti-Christ ("Sono l'Antichristo"), provided music for voodoo-themed movie The Serpent and the Rainbow, objectionable album art (Divine Punishment)

Dickies: mock Jesus on album art (Second Coming)

Doors (The): Patricia (Kennealy) Morrison is a devout Wiccan witch.

Eagles: 'Hotel California' is a tribute to the Church of Satan, proven by COS founder Anton LaVey's picture inside the album cover.

Earth, Wind, and Fire: occult imagery on albums, promote New Age

Electric Hellfire Club: promotes Satanic ideologies

Elton John (Sir): open homosexual legally married to another man, promotes New Age

Elvis Presley: sexual degenerate, fornicator, music promotes lewdness and immorality

Eric Clapton: promotes drug abuse in the song 'Cocaine,' immorality, worldly lyrics

Eurhythmics: "Missionary Man" warns listeners away from salvation

Exodus: album art shows union of God and Satan

Fog Hat: promotes immoral sex

Foreigner: promotes sexual immorality in songs "Dirty White Boy" and "Urgent," also promote alcoholism in "Double Vision"

Frankie Goes to Hollywood: rebellion, songs about sex and sadomasochism, objectionable album art (Welcome to the Pleasure Dome), ruined Live Aid, homosexuality

Good Charlotte: nihilism, rebellious lyrics 'young and hopeless'

Godsmack: voodoo

Generation X: objectionable album art (Valley of the Dolls)

Guns 'n' Roses: "sexual violence" in music, album art; inverted cross (Appetite for Destruction), music caused Virginia Tech Massacre

Harvey Danger: promotes Satanism, nudity, blasphemes Jesus Christ, and mocks the King James Bible.

Helloween: objectionable album art (Keeper of the Seven Keys, Part 2), Has the word 'Hell’ in band name.

Impaler: objectionable album art (Rise of the Mutants EP), eating raw meat on stage

INXS: recorded song "Devil Inside," committed suicide

Iron Maiden: mascot Eddie told fan to kill himself; necromancy, occult, rebellion, objectionable album art (Killers, The Number of the Beast, Seventh Son of a Seventh Son)

Jimi Hendrix: hypnotizing people through music, voodoo rhythms, rebellion, violence, "If 6 Was 9" used in interstitials

Jane's Addiction: drug abuse, objectionable album art (Nothing is very shocking)
Judas Priest: suicide, rebellion, objectionable album art (Hell Bent for Leather, Sin After Sin)

Jimmy Page: "one of the leading occultists of the rock generation," owns occult bookstore, bought Aleister Crowley's former home and had it refurbished by a Satanic decorator

John Lennon: Original member of The Beatles and solo artists for many years. Blasphemed the name of Jesus Christ, promoted immoral sex, substance abuse, rebellion, Communism, false religion.

Killing Joke: mock Christianity in video, promote satanic ideologies

KISS: bloody stage show, sex, rebellion, violence, perverted bassist sticks his tongue out frequently (A major blasphemy in the Bible), band name KISS purportedly stands for Knights In Satan’s Service. Lead singer, Gene Simmons, claims publickly to have had sex with over 4,600 women in his lifetime

KMFDM: promote satanic ideologies, inspired Columbine High School Massacre

Kreator: objectionable album art (Pleasure to Kill)

Led Zeppelin: backward-masked messages and references to Pan on "Stairway to Heaven," Zoso = number of the beast. Guitarist Jimmy Page idolizes Satanist Aleister Crowley, and even bought his castle.

Linkin Park: encourage violence, rebellious lyrics

Madonna: bi-sexual whore, sexual degenerate, promotes fornication, rebellion, and Satan worship. In the song, "Beautiful Stranger," she mentions the 'Devil,' calls him beautiful, and says "To know you is to love you."

Marilyn Manson: too many evils to mention here, blasphemy, ties to Church of Satan, mocks God, rebellion. Manson tears up Bibles in concert and leads the audience to praise Satan.

Megadeth: occult, rebellion, objectionable album art (Killing Is My Business... And Business Is Good)

Mercyful Fate: "take their Satanism seriously", rebellion, occult, objectionable album art (Don't' Break the Oath)

Metal Church: objectionable album art (Metal Church)

Metallica: promote suicide on "Fade to Black"

Monster Magnet: Use occult symbols on album art

Moonspell: songs about vampirism, paganism

Motley Crüe: equate sex and violence, used pentagram in album art (Shout at the Devil)

Motörhead: crucifixion-themed album art

Mudvayne: promotes Satanic ideologies

My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult: Satanic message, objectionable album art (I See Good Spirits and I See Bad Spirits)

Neko Case: sings, "It's the Devil I love"

Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds: Satanic imagery

Ozzy Osbourne: rebellion, attacking Jim Bakker in "Miracle Man," Satanic imagery on album art (Blizzard of Ozz, No Rest for the Wicked), promote suicide on "Suicide Solution," released album 'Mr. Crowley' devoted to Aleister Crowley, scary face

Offspring: rebellion

Papa Roach: Use occult symbology on album art

Pink Floyd: lyrics about rebellion

Poison Idea: mutilation-themed album art (Kings of Punk)

Iggy Pop/the Stooges: bloodletting at concert

Nirvana: nihilism, anti-Christian lyrics, violent lyrics, song 'rape me', mock the crucifixion, singer committed suicide, hardly a role model for fans everywhere, and led to fans committing suicide to emulate him.

Nine Inch Nails: rebellious lyrics, nihilism, sex, sick lyrics 'f*ck you like an animal/closer to God.'

Petra: falsely so-called "Christian" Rock band, cross-dressers, purported to be homosexuals.

P.O.D.: (Payable On Death) is another falsely so-called "Christian" Rock band. They blaspheme Jesus Christ with their "Rasta Jesus."

Possessed: general Satanism and witchcraft

Psychic TV: music arm of Crowley-linked sect Thee Temple of Psychick Youth, objectionable album art (Live at Thee Circus)

Queen: backward-masking, drug abuse, homosexuality, cross-dressing; perverted lead singer, Freddie Mercury, died of aids at age 46 (he was purported to have lovers all around the world).

Red Hot Chili Peppers: use occult symbols on album art, rebellion, inspired violence and arson at Glastonbury '99

Rod Stewart: bi-sexual, promotes immoral sex

Rolling Stones: recorded song "Sympathy for the Devil" on Their Satanic Majesty's Request, objectionable album art (Goats Head Soup, Undercover, Tattoo You), bankrolled sect called The Process, made Satanic movie Invocation of My Demon Brother. Mick Jagger curses in God's name in the song 'Beast of Burden,' and in other songs.

Sex Pistols: rebellion, self-mutilation, rotten designed t-shirts with upside-down crucifixion

Sepultura: promotes Satanic ideologies

Silverchair: song 'israel’s son’ made 18 year old goth Brian Bassett murder his parents

Siouxsie and the Banshees: recorded song "Sin in My Heart"

Sister: pentagrams

Sisters of Mercy: Satanic imagery

Slayer: used pentagram on album art, lyrics glorifying the Devil (Reign in Blood)

Slipnot: use Satanic imagery on album art, violence in lyrics

Smiths: Satanic imagery

Sonic Youth: obsessed with death ("Death Valley '69")

Spooky Tooth: album cover depicts Jesus with hand nailed to head (Ceremony)

Styx: promotes fornication, shacking up, rebellion

Suicidal Tendencies: pentagrams

Suicide: promote suicide

Therion: promote satanic ideologies

Tori Amos: 'father Lucifer' Satanic lyrics, claimed she wanted to marry Satan in interview

Throbbing Grissle: promote Satanic ideologies

Twisted Sister: rebellion, wear women’s make-up, violent album art (Stay Hungry)

Van Halen: cross-dressers, bi-sexual, promote every sin imaginable, including Satan worship in "Running With The Devil," promote immorality, rebellion, extremely offensive and harsh sound, produces a spirit of hatred and anger

Venom: album title Welcome to Hell, pentagram and goat imagery

White Zombie: Anti-Christian imagery, Singer looks like a Zombie (Not a good role model for impressionable children)

Wednesday 13: Too many to mention — This freak is as dangerous as Manson

And of course all black metal bands, as all promote Nazi, pagan and anti-Christian ideologies.

And hundreds more...

Sheikh Muhammad Munajid #fundie telegraph.co.uk

Mickey Mouse is a corrupting influence and must die, a Muslim cleric has declared.

...Sheikh Muhammad Munajid claimed the mouse is "one of Satan's soldiers" and makes everything it touches impure.

...The cleric, a former diplomat at the Saudi embassy in Washington DC, said that under Sharia, both household mice and their cartoon counterparts must be killed.

SilverGryphon #sexist reddit.com

As depicted in the awesome movie called The Matrix, the act of taking in the red pill allows Neo to see the world as it truly is, a simulation designed to subdue mankind and use them for their bodily energy resources. In our case, the matrix is the social construct in which we reside. Since our childhood we are tricked into believing that acting like white knights is a sure fire way to get laid. Women repeatedly state that they only care about a guy’s character and nothing else and yet they still end up banging the hottest stud that they can lay their nails one. When you try and confront them about this lie, they usually always ignore you or steer the conversation away from the uncomfortable question.

TRP allows men to realise that in reality, women mostly care about your status/looks and are primarily attracted to the bad boys. At the very least, it stops many beta males from being providers of money, attention and validation. This very statement alone is enough trigger feminists into a meltdown, even though there is no misogyny about it. When more and more men take in the red pill, women start losing their obiters. Without beta males answering their beck and call, high SMV women would have to actually get things done with their own hands and for them that is terrible since they are so used to having men to do the dirty work.

We are also told that women are generally not interested in sex unlike their male counterparts, whom are far hornier. Some would argue that since there are far more female prostitutes than male ones is proof of this. In reality women are just as horny as men and they simply have an easier task of obtaining sex, unless they are of a very low SMV. In fact if you ever hang around such low value women you would notice that they can be worse than men in terms of being horny. The disproportion in the number of female and male prostitutes reflects the disproportionate difficulty that the sexes face when finding mates. This is another truth that TRP reveals to men, something which women would rather keep hidden and unknown. Women hate it when men discover that women love sex as much as men do and that we can use this fact to our advantage.

Despite their independence, aggressiveness, brutality and general hatred towards men, the mythological Amazons still needed men, known as the Gargarians to mate and reproduce. In the real world, feminists face the same issue. You require both a man and a woman to be able to reproduce. Even if it is done via IVF, you still need sperm from a man and eggs from a female. We all know that good genetics are paramount to having a strong and healthy species.

This is where Chad comes in. Chad is usually gifted with good genetics and women can smell them from miles away. They instantly know that by having sex with them, their offspring has a good probability of having quality genes. This is why Chad gets to act like a total jerk and yet still get good quality women. The need for good DNA overrules everything else and the human race would suffer without good genetics. Unfortunately for women, Chad is not likely to stick around after conception and so they need to find other men to provide them with the significant amount of resources required to raise their offspring.

In a nut shell, Chad has all the fun and the betas do all the hard and dirty work. This works for the human race since good genes are spread and the offspring is taken care of. Some countries such as France have even enacted laws that make paternity testing illegal without a court order. This is so that Chad can freely fuck and spread his valuable genes with little fear of being forced to pay child support as that is the job for beta cuckolds.

This situation is extremely unfair for the beta males and hence more and more men are realising that our society, which is the matrix we live in, is defrauding them. Just like Neo who unplugs himself and eventually causes the downfall of the matrix, a sufficiently sized group of men can bring the whole system down and pave the way for a completely new society, one in which only the maters are the majority providers. The burden on taxes caused by single mothers would sky rocket. If more and more men choose the MGTOW way, there would be fewer taxes to collect as men who decide to give up on women would work less as they only need to think about themselves. Less work means fewer taxes to collect, which would be a problem for any country.

In such a society, there are those who stand to lose a lot, namely the elite ruling class. Ever since democracy came about they had to devise a new way of controlling the population. One such way is having a bunch of cuckold men slaving away at their workplace so that they can be providers of children which are not theirs or for women who divorced them and are now collecting child support. Being overworked, these men have little energy to follow politics and try and challenge the status quo. The women on the other hand are too absorbed in their self-centred lives and couldn’t care less about what goes on as long as the money comes in.

This is why women hate TRP and anyone who dares spread its teachings. TRP allows many men to turn the table around make women the ones who have to work for the relationship instead of the men. Women fear the eventual social overall that it seeks to create, one in which true equality would prevail. Since men are so used to doing the hard work, most would be fine, but the women would suffer the most as they are no longer used to do any real hard work. The sooner this matrix in which we live is destroyed and rebuilt, the better. However it is not an easy task and the feminists, who were probably created by the ruling elite, would go out of their way to destroy any movement geared towards showing the masses the truth.

Jeremy Choate #fundie sufficient-reason.tumblr.com

It is difficult for the proponent of the individual right to keep and bear arms to understand how any person would wish to outsource their own personal safety to another human being and surrender their right to defend themselves. Law enforcement officers are sheepdogs, standing in defiance of the wolves, but they cannot be everywhere at all times, nor would we want them to be. However, when you delve into the mind of the hoplosynanthropophobe, you encounter two very powerful emotions – denial and crippling fear.

While they fire off impassioned epistles about predators using fearsome-looking weapons to destroy the lives of scores of innocent people, they live in abject denial that such a thing could ever happen to them. When their fellow citizens speak of arming themselves in anticipation of such an event, it challenges the false sense of security that their denial has provided, and they lash out in fear. They then fall back on the unjustified gun-toter stereotypes they’ve constructed and gleefully use them to validate their fear.

The most fundamental right that all human beings have is the right to protect themselves and their loved ones from those who would seek to destroy them. Conversely, human beings also have the right to waive that privilege, for whatever reason, if they so choose. However, what we cannot do is force another human being to surrender his right to self-defense simply because we are uncomfortable with the possibility that a dangerous weapon might be in our midst.

For you hoplosynanthropophobes out there, be a sheep, if you like, but don’t expect the sheepdogs of society to put on a wool coat and join you. You can label gun-owners as Walter Mittys, rednecks, or Neanderthals until your self-importance meter is pegged out, but as civil trial attorney and author Kurt Schlicter advised one of Frum’s Twitter minions, make sure you wait to do it until after they’ve saved your life.

thecrystaltems #fundie thecrystaltems.tumblr.com

men have a lot more to gain by claiming ace identities than women do, especially white men.

in fact they have everything to gain.

with an ace identity they have the capacity to claim that they are incapable of being complicit in the sexual violence perpetuated by men onto women. they can also use an ace identifier to argue that they are less voyeuristic, less fetishistic, and less prone to objectifying women than other men are.

this is huge scapegoating potential for men - for white men in particular - who are, as it stands, not the victims of discourse that posits them as hypersexual or animalistic. not only can men use this identifier to excuse them if their own misogyny, but they can also utilize an ace identity to their own racial advantage, further positing men of color as hypersexual and out of control. they can essentially use aceness as another way of blaming men of color for sexual violence against women (side note: white women who use the ace label are also absolutely capable of framing themselves as innocent victims of misogyny in juxtaposition to the “nasty” women of color who obviously “deserve” whatever violence they receive)

on the other hand, women generally don’t really gain anything when using an ace identifier (besides the above side note). in fact, it seems pretty clear that a woman who uses an ace identifier may be engaging in yet another act that increases the likelihood of her experiencing sexual harassment, assault, and even rape.

that’s what it means to say that “acephobia” is better understood as a facet of misogyny or racism rather than a standalone category of oppression.

the fact that white men stand to actively gain something by identifying under the ace spectrum is really telling of the gendering and racializing at play.

Krystian Kowalczyk #racist vnnforum.com

[Thread entitled "WHITE women travel to Jamaica to PAY for sex with BLACK men"]

...They're lucky that the commie Jews decided to elevate them above their pathetic status. Without Jewish money, power and influence, blacks would probably not even be in this country - they'd likely have been repatriated (if only!).

Black is the new color of privilege. Women want to screw blacks thanks to decades of propaganda and destruction of the patriarchal White system that would previously have considered race-mixing a taboo. Blacks are portrayed as cool and more likely to succeed. None of the images that the media and the establishment associate with blacks have any grounding in reality. Real blacks are uncivilized, vile, animalistic savages which is why White women who take up with the apes usually end up poor/unhappy/addicted or dead.

So laugh now. But in some years, your kind will still live in their own shit and the rest of the world will have moved on. You (as in all of you) have not accomplished anything of value and never will.

Jeremy #fundie conquerseries.com

New brain research reveals your habits are passed onto your children and grandchildren.

Have you ever wondered why some patterns in your family history seem to be recurring in your own life? Strongholds such as anxiety, poverty, illnesses and addictions to name a few. The Bible refers to these as generational curses, which the church has long believed was purely spiritual. But according to new brain research, this biblical principle is far more scientific than we realize.

The concept of generational curses is presented in Exodus 20:5. In the King James Version it says that God will ‘visit’ the sins of the fathers down to the third and fourth generation. The term ‘visit’ makes more sense in light of this new study which shows that generational curses can, indeed, be scientifically traced back from one generation to another.

Pioneering studies in epigenetics reveals that our life experiences and choices do change us, including our brains, down to the DNA level. And these changes can be passed onto our children and further down the hereditary line. Epigenetics gives insight to how our diets, work environment – even one-off traumatic events – can change the genetic legacy we pass onto our children and grandchildren.

WHAT IS EPIGENETICS?

Epigenetics is information that sits above the genome, which controls the programming of DNA, instructing different cells how to express themselves. In an interview from the Conquer Series, a new men’s DVD-based teaching series, neuropsychologist, Dr. Jes Montgomery explains, “Sensations we put into the brain will use the DNA to change how the cell responds. And those genes are turned ‘off’ or ‘on’ based on what that response is. While the DNA doesn’t change, the expression does.” What’s fascinating about this new study is that it reveals that our DNA is not immutable, which was the former notion, but that environment markedly affects our gene expressions and the ways we function and behave.

A BLOW TO EVOLUTION

This quiet scientific revolution could be a paradigm shift for evolutionary biology, as it pretty much refutes Darwin’s central premise. Neuropsychologist, Dr. Tim Jennings said, “Which is more scientifically accurate – the Bible or Charles Darwin? Well guess what? It’s the Bible. Darwin hypothesized that it was mutation over millions of years that caused finches to have different beaks. Science has actually now proved, it’s epigenetic modification. This is big, because science is now confirming Scripture.”

INHERITED INFORMATION

Epigenetics reveals that not only do we pass along the DNA sequence to our children, but we also pass along the epigenetic instructions to them. In other words, information can be inherited and transmitted through generations. In an experiment on ‘transgenerational epigenetic inheritance’, researchers at Emory University, trained mice to fear a fruity odor by pairing it with a mild electric shock to the foot. Ten days later, the mice were allowed to mate. Incredibly, their pups feared the odor even without having encountered the smell before. But even more fascinating is that the offspring of those pups – the grandchildren – were born with the same specific memory. We see the mice study apply to humans. One example were the attacks of 9/11. Among the thousands of people directly exposed to the attack were 1,700 pregnant women. Some of these women developed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Their children reacted with high levels of fear and stress around loud noises, unfamiliar people, or new foods. It seems the infants inherited the nightmare that their mothers experienced on that day.

SINS OF THE FATHER

It’s cathartic when you can literally put the concept of generational curses under the microscope. Suddenly your habits and experiences have far greater social implications, because you no longer live life just for yourself but for your descendants too. As Jennings points out, “The choices we make – the foods that we eat, the things that we watch – can affect how the DNA is expressed. When we have kids, we pass on the sequence to them. So if we become addicted to stuff, we can pass along to our children gene instructions that make them more vulnerable to addictions.” So take pornography addiction, for instance, since it’s the fastest growing epidemic in today’s church. According to a recent study, 68 percent of Christian men are addicted to porn. Most likely, they are unaware of the hereditary ramifications of viewing porn. “It doesn’t happen generally with one exposure to pornography. It’s the repetitive volitional exposure to pornography that will cause this type of gene expression change to happen”, explains Jennings.

These staggering statistics make you wonder what implications porn addiction will have on the church’s future. Pastor James Reeves of City On A Hill DFW, who has successfully tackled porn addiction in his church, warns, “We are raising a generation of sex addicts in the church. Young Christian men who are so exposed to pornography. What’s going to happen is as this generation gets married and has children, the spiral of their addiction will get tighter and tighter. It’s going to really sweep through the church like a tsunami wave of destruction of the family. And the church is absolutely not prepared for it.”

Dr. Ted Roberts, a sex addiction therapist and the host of the Conquer Series, said, “Probably the most devastating consequence is that God guarantees you – His Word is very clear: the curse will be visited to the third and fourth generation. If you are in sexual bondage or you are struggling with that and don’t get an effective dealing with it, it will be passed on to your kids.”

BREAKING THE CURSE

The good news is that even if epigenetic modifications are passed onto your offspring, they are reversible. In other words, it is possible to break the curse. “You can go either way. we can pass along both positive things in our life and or negative, depending on the choices we make in life”, said Jennings.

In another experiment with mice, the notion of breaking generational curses is clearly demonstrated. Scientists bred mice to have a memory impairment. In short, they were bred to be stupid. Then they took the mice and for two weeks, during their adolescence, the mice were placed in an enriched environment with lots of toys. Not surprisingly, the mice developed better memory despite their bad genes. The enriched environment caused an epigenetic modification, switching off the bad gene. But here’s where it gets interesting: the pups of the mice from the enriched environment were also born with the gene defect, but had the epigenetic modification such that the bad gene was shut off. Instead, they were born with good memory despite their bad genes.

But here’s the million Dollar question: If a Christian is set free from his past after being born-again, why are there so many believers who still see the effects of generational curses in their lives? Could it be because so many of us still live under the law? The law tells us that God’s blessings are conditional, depending on how good we are, which is based on our works, whereas grace tells us that Christ took the curse upon himself on the Cross: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”, Galatians 3:13). The law condemns us, but grace gives us the gift of non-condemnation. Once we are gripped by grace, we can truly have the mind of Christ which transforms our behavior and that infuses all our relationships. Suddenly, we are empowered to break the curses, knowing that the blood of Christ covers us. This transformation is physically revealed in the genetic changes in our bodies, but also on the legacy we will be leaving behind.

Having an understanding of epigenetics, we no longer have to be victims of predetermined genetic codes. Spiritually speaking – we don’t have to live under the curse and subject our children to it. Because of the Cross, the generational curses in our family can be broken. Science is merely discovering these powerful biblical truths. Being under grace, we can choose to turn the tide of generational curses to blessings. As Dr. Doug Weiss, a marriage counselor, said, “Don’t think of it as a battle you’re just fighting for yourself. You’re fighting for the very lineage that God gave you. And if you will break this curse, then your sons and your daughters have a better shot and your grandchildren have a better shot. My son’s name is Jubilee, because his dad took the courage to break the curses off of him. I want to invite you to do the very same thing for those you love.”

Roosh V #fundie #sexist #crackpot returnofkings.com

ELLIOT RODGER IS THE FIRST MALE FEMINIST MASS MURDERER


Since originally publishing an article describing how a male-friendly culture encouraging Elliot into self-improvement (game), legal prostitution, and foreign marriage with Southeast Asian women would have prevented his murderous rampage, I did something that most people won’t bother to do: I read his manifesto. Not even halfway through, I began to understand exactly why the media has been pushing the narrative that PUA (game) may have been the cause: Rodger was one of their own.

Here is the PDF of his manifesto (http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf). If you take the time to read it, you will likely come to the same conclusion I have that Elliot Rodger is in fact a feminist. In other words, the killings of six individuals stem in part because of his mainstream feminist beliefs that, after intersecting with his dark traits of narcissism, entitlement, loserdom, and hopelessness, led him to kill. The fantastical mainstream media articles you have come across trying to pin Rodger upon us is nothing more than a defensive measure to distance themselves from a killer that was a card-carrying member of their own progressive club.

1. He put pussy on the pedestal, just like feminists do
Feminist theory speaks a whole lot about equality, but it’s actually an ideology that seeks to absolve all women from their amusing but sometimes dangerous stream of mistakes. Feminism (and progressivism in general—they might as well be interchangeable terms) treat women as flawless snowflakes that must be coddled and spoon-fed happiness and validation. Any act by a woman, even if it results in failure or bodily harm (like an abortion), is an “empowering” statement of independence and strength, while any failure by men is seen upon as proof that they are out-of-touch doofuses, a fact that is readily displayed on television, movies, and advertising.

Rodger’s manifesto exactly matches this feminist belief. He shows little genuine hate towards the object of his affections—women—and their poor choices, instead lashing out against the men who were successful with those women. Feminists do the same, always ready to blame men for their failures in life, even going so far as saying that society would be better without men, who are mocked as mere “sperm donors.” In spite of the bad choices that women make by dating bad boys at the schools he attended, Rodger gave them a pussy pass and continued to believe that they were flawless angels who should be cherished, especially the blonde ones.

Rodger’s hate for those men isn’t much different than that hate displayed to me and my colleagues here at ROK. Just take a look at this supposedly professional woman having an embarrassing emotional meltdown on a news show because she didn’t agree with what I said, resorting to blatant distortion and lies about “rape culture” and other such nonsense that was unrelated to the piece she was critiquing:
https://youtu.be/g3w-5-b4mhM

Elevating women as the superior sex, which is what both feminists and Rodger have done, means that discrimination and outright hatred must be then applied to the “inferior” sex—men. It’s no surprise that the most violent killings performed by Rodger were on his three male roommates with a knife, who surely endured more suffering and pain than the cleaner executions he did on his female victims.

2. He was awash in blue pill knowledge

We have an often-used metaphor called the “red pill,” which stands for the pursuit of truth concerning human nature, no matter how painful those truths can be. The opposite of the red pill is the blue pill, of people who choose to be placated by lies describing reality. Both feminists and Rodger were firm adherents to the blue pill world—of believing in a way of nature that doesn’t actually reflect actual human behavior. For example:

Both Rodger and feminists believe that attraction should be automatic and easy instead of being based on sexual market value or other components that can be changed (such as game).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that men should be blamed for problems of society or personal relationships.
Both Rodger and feminists were deluded into having standards way beyond their level of attractiveness (e.g., fat feminist cows actually think they should be able to date a good man).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that all a man has to do to get a girlfriend is to be “nice” and a provider, a strategy that no longer works in today’s America.
Both Rodger and feminists hated players who did well with women
As final proof that Rodger was as blue pill as you can get, simply reverse all the gender references within his manifesto and pretend it was written by a woman. What you would then have before you is a pity party of a self-absorbed feminist who thinks that men are the cause of all her problems. If he lived a couple more years, I have no doubt that Rodger would even be a proud moderator of the Blue Pill subreddit.

3. He didn’t believe in self-improvement, just like feminists
In spite of all the loneliness and pain that Rodger went through, he still couldn’t be bothered to lift one finger to improve his station. Compare that to what we teach here at ROK, where we strongly advise you to start your game training with at least 100 approaches, with the expectation that you’ll probably have to do thousands during your lifetime. In Rodger’s manifesto, all 140 pages of it, he details only saying “Hi” to one girl and practically running away from fear. In other words, he did one aborted approach with zero follow-up. That’s not game anywhere in the game universe, and if he came to us saying that he has yet to get laid after putting such an half-assed attempt, we’d tell him to do 10 solid approaches the following day and stop whining like an entitled child.

The fact that Rodger was a member of PUAHate, an online community of social retards who despised game and believed only Brad Pitt and millionaires can get laid, further highlights how vehemently anti-game he was. Why wasn’t he open to improving himself? Why wasn’t he ready to expend the labor to make himself more attractive to women? For that answer, we might as well ask some feminists, who share the exact same belief as him in not having to lift a finger in making yourself more attractive to the opposite sex. Look no further than feminist’s cause-du-jour, fat acceptance, a culture of de-improvement—and frankly, de-evolution—where women gain massive amounts of weight and then flaunt their blubber on social media, ready to attack any man who dare finds their display to be unattractive or repulsive.

Fat acceptance has become so pervasive that we had to dedicate one whole week on ROK tearing it to shreds, but in spite of that, not much has changed. America continues to get fatter and feminists continue to attempt to normalize obesity as actually being beautiful, just like how Rodger tried to convince himself of the idea that having a BMW would be attractive to women.

Take a look at this quote by Rodger:

“Everyone treated me like I was invisible. No one reached out to me, no one knew I existed. I was a ghost.”

Does that ring a bell to you? It’s almost identical to the rant we recently witnessed on the Louis CK show when a morbidly obese female went on to whine and bitch about how being a fat ass is not getting her the man she wants. It’s no surprise that fatties rushed to praise Louis CK for his act of sedition against men and acceptable standards of beauty. There is almost no difference between Rodger and a modern American woman who subscribes to feminist thought.

Now take a look at this passage:
“All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man.”

Let’s do a swap on the genders:

“All the handsome men walked around with blonde bimbos who don’t have a good career like me and knowledge of reality television shows. These men should be going for a strong, empowered, independent, fabulous woman such as myself. Men are sexually attracted to the wrong type of woman.”

The overlap in mindset would be comical if it didn’t result in tragedy.

Another question worth asking is this: when today’s American woman can’t find the man of her dreams, does she look in the mirror and blame herself? No, she blames men for not finding her unattractiveness attractive. This is actively promoted by feminist thinkers on the most widely read American blogs like Buzzfeed, Gawker, and Huffington Post. Rodger shared this same viewpoint. His manifesto is dripping with entitlement of why girls don’t find him to be “marvelous” just because he happens to own a fancy pair of sunglasses. Feminists and Rodger, it turns out, are like two peas in a pod.

4. He believed that men should be chivalrous and kind, like feminists do
Please don’t forward us another listicle on a feminist-friendly blog about how men need to be nice, friendly, and awkwardly consensual by applying legalese speak in the bedroom before passionate fornication. Rodger believed much of the same, thinking that you had to be a “supreme gentleman” that catered to the material and emotional whims of women, doing everything possible to please them in exchange for a sexual reward. We can only imagine how nauseatingly “gentlemanly” he would have been if he actually managed to land a date on his terms.

I have no doubt he would have agreed with just about all the mainstream bullshit advice on being a gentleman, particularly the Thought Catalog piece The 20 Rules Of Being A Modern Gentleman. There is also a Buzzfeed quiz titled How Much Of A Gentleman Are You? that Rodger would have gotten an A+ on. The end result of his loneliness (killing six people) was obviously not gentlemanly, but before that rampage he treated girls with a gentlemanly shyness, reverence, and respect that feminists would have applauded him for. Rodger and feminists believed in the exact same demeanor that men should have around women.

5. He hated game, like feminists do

No one hates game more than feminists, who have gone so far as to equate it rape ([1], [2], [3]). They absolutely despise any attempt by men to improve their value in the sexual marketplace because then that would mean fewer men to put up with their obesity, short hair, or bad attitude. Rodger believed the same, going so far as becoming an active member in the PUAHate community which dedicated the bulk of their efforts to criticizing game and its adherents like a woman’s gossip circle. (On PUAhate there had been over 100 threads criticizing me and other ROK staff.)

Would you be surprised if I were to tell you right now that Rodger and a mainstream feminist shared the same views on PUAHate and game? I hope not, because that’s exactly what I found. A popular feminist writer who has worked for Newsweek, Jezebel, Buzzfeed, and Dissident magazine, Katie JM Baker, publicly declared that PUAs (i.e. us) are actually worse than PUA Hate.

“The men that lurk in the PuaHate forums are almost worse than the PUAs themselves…”

Let that soak in for a second. Feminist rage is so deep and emotional against game that they have supported a forum with “hate” in the title that cultivated and gave comfort to a mass murderer. I gave Baker a chance to change her opinion about believing a forum of hate was less worse than men who practice game:

[Image of a Twitter Feed, Transcript:

RoK: @katiejmbaker, for the record, do you still believe that we are worse than PUAHate? Or did the recent murder Rampage change your mind?

Katie Baker: lol, what are you even talking about?]

A feminist refused to reverse her position that game practitioners are not worse than Rodger’s favorite hangout. That tells me that Rodger and Baker would get along very well in their hate for men like us who teach game and try to improve men’s lives.

6. He subscribed to The Young Turks Youtube channel, a feminist darling

This is a minor point but one worth mentioning. We don’t know how knee-deep he was into The Young Turks liberal positions, but it’s a fact that he was not a subscriber to my channel or forum. We can only speculate as to how much TYT molded his pro-feminist view.

7. He hated alpha males, just like feminists do
Whenever a feminist encounters these parts, she immediately bashes our alpha/beta concept of male sexual hierarchy. She instead spouts tired cliches that are supposed to help men in their pursuit of sexual happiness but which actually do nothing of the sort:

“People are people!”
“Just be yourself!”
“Don’t be an asshole/creep/jerk/rando!”
“Having sexual standards is, like, misogynistic!”
Of course these phrases don’t explain human mating behavior and why some men get way more women than others, but that’s no matter since feminist theory does not have the slightest intention to explain the world in an accurate or truthful manner.

Like feminists, Rodger despised alpha males, who he called “obnoxious.” Here’s some relevant quotes from his manifesto:

“I noticed that there were two groups of cool, popular kids. There were the skateboarder kids, such as Vinny Maggio, Ashton Moio, Darrel, Wes, and Alex Dib. And then there were the boys who were popular with girls, including Vincent, Robert Morgan, and [redacted]. They all seemed so confident and aggressive. I felt so intimidated by them, and I hated them for it. I hated them so much, but I had to increase my standing with them. I wanted to be friends with them.

[…]

I thought all of the cool kids were obnoxious jerks, but I tried as best as I could to hide my disgust and appear “cool” to them. They were obnoxious jerks, and yet somehow it was these boys who all of the girls flocked to.”

If Rodger was alive right now, he’d be giving feminists high fives for sharing the exact same viewpoint on sexually superior but “horrible” males who have figured out the dating game and what women actually want.

8. He shared many personality traits with your modern American feminist
Rodger might as well have been a woman, which has raised speculation if he was actually gay. He took selfies like women. He was addicted to Facebook like women. He was obsessed with his appearance. He was narcissistic, vain, and materialistic. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was also addicted to his iPhone like your standard issue American woman. Heartiste does a good job of highlighting the similarities:

“[The effeminate male, like Rodger, is an] indictment of this infantile Millennial generation, which daily provides evidence that their ranks are filled with effeminate males who, like women, expect the world to cater their needs, no questions asked, no demands made. Elliot Rodger couldn’t stand how unfaaaair girls were to date uglier men than himself, how unfair life was that his car and clothes weren’t a magnet for hot white sorority chicks, how unfair the cosmic laws were to require of him a little bit of effort if he wanted to put an end to his virginity.

Egotistic, attention starved, solipsistic, passive aggressive, perpetually aggrieved, and unwilling to change when posing as a martyr feels so damn good… there’s your new American manlet, same as your new American woman.”

Like I already mentioned, a quick find/replace gender swap on his manifesto will pass the Turing test in convincing most spectators that he was actually a 22-year-old empowered feminist who participates in “Take Back The Night” walks and thinks that posting mindless #YesAllWomen tweets on Twitter comprises her good deed of the month. Rodger was effeminate and a negative person overall simply because he possessed beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by feminists.

9. He wanted to be a social justice warrior, just like feminists
He had a victim complex of being held down by invisible forces outside of his control. Feminists also believe that the “patriarchy” is holding them down, and they flock to Tumblr to reblog facile images and memes to spread lies that men make more than women for the same work, for example. These Tumblr crusades have even led to my own family being prank called at late hours, all because my words hurt their feelings, just like Rodger’s was hurt that pretty girls didn’t find him automatically attractive.

It turns out that Rodger was a budding social justice warrior, perhaps not far from establishing his own Tumblr beachhead:

“I formed an ideology in my head of how the world should work. I was fueled both by my desire to destroy all of the injustices of the world, and to exact revenge on everyone I envy and hate. I decided that my destiny in life is to rise to power so I can impose my ideology on the world and set everything right. I was only seventeen, I have plenty of time. I thought to myself. I spent all of my time studying in my room, reading books about history, politics, and sociology, trying to learn as much as I can.

[…]

I seriously started to consider working towards writing an epic story. I was always creating stories in my mind to fuel my fantasies. Usually those stories depicted someone like myself rising to power after a life of being treated unfairly by the world.

[…]

To be angry about the injustices one faces is a sign of strength. It is a sign that one has the will to fight back against those injustices, rather than bowing down and accepting it as fate. Both my friends James and Philip seem to be the weak, accepting type; whereas I am the fighter. I will never stand to be insulted, and I will eventually have my revenge against all those who insult me, no matter how long it takes.”

Both Rodger and feminists feel the only way to get what they want out of life is not self-improvement, but attacking others they disagree with. Their shared ideology is one of destruction. We have to wonder if Rodger would have eventually participated in any feminist event like SlutWalks to right the world of fantasy injustices that prevent them from being seen as beautiful, marvelous, gentlemanly, and so on.

10. He was not far away from being the epitome of a white knight, a man that feminists collect for their friend zones

If you see a feminist in the wild, a white knight won’t be far. He’s the man who enables her false view of the world and provides her with good feels and encouragement for her social justice campaigns. While Rodger wasn’t quite a white knight in this sense, he nailed all three white knight components:

“1. He is the ever-present servant.
2. He pines silently for a single woman.
3. That woman wants little to do with him, and it shows.”

In other words, if you inserted him in feminist company, he would be the glove to their chubby bear claw fingers. His personality is wholly compatible with how feminists believe men should behave: servile and wimpy while never taking real action on their sexual desires.

Conclusion

The only things in common that Rodger had with us is that (1) he wanted sex with attractive women, and (2) he had a functional penis. That’s it. The overlap of thought and belief between Rodger and feminists, however, should convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodger was in fact a feminist, even if he didn’t himself know that his peg fit snugly into the feminist hole. I’ve actually met self-described feminists who were less feminist than Rodger was.

While I stand by my argument that game would have helped Rodger, I am beginning to wonder if being a feminist was the seed that drove him to desperation and delusion, eventually leading to a tragic loss of life. This line of thought is worth pursuing by people who want to understand why a man felt that taking other lives and his own was seen as the best solution. You definitely won’t read about this conclusion in the media, which is too busy trying to toss Rodger to our side like a hot piece of coal, even though Rodger shares absolutely no similarity in thought and behavior to game practitioners.

I have logically come to the conclusion that Rodger was in fact the first male feminist mass murderer that we have seen in America. I’m afraid that if the feminist ideology contained within Rodger’s head is allowed to continue spreading, we are likely to see more violent acts by men who believe in the exact same things that feminists do.

some tumblrers #sexist alphafucksbetabucks.tumblr.com

(multiperv)
From what I've seen of your great blog so far you never seem to advocate for or push the abandonment of the cuckold. I'm grateful for this, of course, but I'm guessing there are some women out there thinking "Unless you have kids or a lot of history or the beta is rich why not just 'upgrade' from the beta to the alpha and move on to great sex and a great life without him?" Could you perhaps please comment on the ongoing value of the beta?

(sfalphabull)
I’ve written about this in bits and pieces, so it’s worth consolidating it in one spot.
Women are sexually attracted to Alpha males because we have strongly masculine attributes: physical size, strength, and emotional stoicism. Women are quite happy to get fucked by an Alpha male, but biologically, they need someone to help provide when the baby is born. Even in the absence of conception, this is still a woman’s biological imperative: find the best genes to pair with her own for her offspring, and then find the best support available to raise those offspring.
The Alpha male has the best genes for the female’s offspring, but is not the best support available to care for the offspring. Why? Because the Alpha’s sperm is in high demand, he’s not interested in committing to one woman. He’s happy to fuck her regularly, but that’s the extent of his commitment.
This is where the beta male comes in. The beta’s place is loving emotional support, and to help the female raise children. Betas excel in support roles, but struggle in leadership roles.
Inviting an Alpha male into a marriage does not supplant the beta cuckold husband, but rather, it complements him. The woman has her sexual and emotional needs met, and that “work load” is shared by two men: Alpha and beta.
The woman will periodically feel emotional bonding to the Alpha male who fucks here. This is a byproduct of the oxytocin released in her brain after her orgasm. Alpha males are generally not interested in emotional bonding with women, so the woman may feel some rejection. As an Alpha Bull who understands this dynamic, I make an effort to redirect the woman’s emotional bonding to her husband, so that she appreciates his value.

(alphafucksbetabucks)
In a state of nature, humans satisfy unique roles that are most appropriate and relevant to them. When humans abide by natural hierarchy and recognize their place in social orders, they complement each other and everyone’s actions become purposeful.

azn_railroader, Sebhai & deporttrump00 #sexist reddit.com

(azn_railroader)
I guess South Asian "feminists" aren't all that different from their EA and SEA counterparts.
The problem with Asian feminists across the board is that it's white worship and attention-seeking behavior wrapped under the banner of "feminism." They see themselves as wannabe-whites, and have effectively "othered" the opposite sex of their own race and truly believe the toxic, white-invented stereotypes imposed upon us. Therefore, when they see men of their race succeed in dating (especially if being sought after by WF), the cognitive dissonance is too much, and they feel the need to bring us down a peg or two.

(Sebhai)
The only differences is that south asian feminists tend to get rejected by their men which push them to go to whites the same way asian men got rejected by their women which push them to go to white women or other ethnicity.Whereas the asian feminists,they're the one who rejected their own men the same way south asian men often rejected their own women.

(deporttrump00)
Yeah, I've noticed in general that when SA women do date whites or other races its usually cause they are feminist, overweight, ugly, etc and cannot compete for good SA men, so they derive some anti Indian BS in their mind to justify their situation and date some white loser.
In contrast there are all sorts of EA women who slut themselves out for white guys for no real reason at all other than self hatred.

vcardthrow1, 38wao & MsSinisteress #fundie reddit.com

(vcardthrow1)
...I kinda dislike parents. Including mine.

I am a hardcore anti-natalist and think having children is the most selfish thing one can do. And granted, people follow lots of selfish impulses - wanting to have children is like wanting to have a romantic partner, it's instinctive.

But it's still selfish when you consider most people are kinda shitty as parents and they don't want to raise or love a human being (neither do I - it's hard and this is a shitty world); they want a baby. Or not even - they want to have sex without birth control. It's animalistic.

Simple as that.

I don't understand how women want children with men when so many men in particular are guilty of this. Men want kids because they no fucking idea how miserable and boring it is raising children and their own parents socialized them to nothing different.

I don't understand how anyone who has experienced serious sadness or hardship in their lives wants children and assume that person is very stupid in general...because you will probably pass whatever gave you sorrow to your child. Particularly as an adult. I am repulsed at the thought of not only being pregnant, but putting my and my disgusting, ugly, bloat-faced mother's face into a little baby. The acne. The body hair. You could not pay me any amount of money to do so.

Sorry if I'm offending parents here, but...yeah, in the abstract, this is what I've come to.

(38wao)
I feel like this about being born.

Why did my parents think it was a good idea to have kids? Both of my parents have been dealing with depression and the family history is full of it.

My father has a nasty temper with narcissitic tendencies and my mom is ugly and chronically ill. I resent my mother for having kids with my father knowing that he would be abusive and being so weak that she would just watch.

Both me and my sister have been depressed and anxious to the point of having to go to a child therapist. I had a stay in the psychiatry when I was only 13.

I loathe my parents for giving me all those shitty genetics and inflicting their issues on me.

(MsSinisteress)
I feel like giving birth to a child and actually taking care of it is the most selfless thing you can do. And by selfless I mean being a fucking pushover. Because humans are more equipped to rearing children collectively, as if in a group, where we treat kids as part of a group. But the modern structure enables rearing single parentship based on your financial resources, so it's asking to raising a demon for 18 years without having anything in return + enduring 9 months of pain for it. You owe nothing to a child but the modern structure makes raising it a necessity, and in turn there's no payback.

Pomidor Quixote #sexist #psycho dailystormer.name

[From "Scientists Discover Final Solution to Birth Rate, Nagging: RAPE SWITCH Activated in Mouse Brains"]

Earlier this month, the BBC declared the fact that everyone stopped breeding a crisis. Now, scientists have found a “brain switch” in mice that controls the urge to have sex, and can be used to supercharge their sexual drive.

I am confident that if we connect the dots here, we’ll find a solution.

Daily Mail

Two types of brain cell have been found in mice which control aggression levels and sexual desire.

The cells are involved in allowing two regions of the brain – the posterior amygdala and the hypothalamus – to communicate.

A study from New York University found that interfering with these pathways significantly alters mouse behaviour.

[…]

When MPN signals were amplified instead of squashed, male mice became sexually supercharged and pursued unresponsive females in a desperate bid to mate.

The scientists activated THE RAPE SWITCH.

Someone — probably Elon Musk — should figure out how to do that on humans through some drug and put the stuff in the water supply as a public health measure. The government already puts stuff in the water supply as a public health measure. Water fluoridation may be a polemic subject, but it’s done in the name of public health.

Declining birthrates are a public health crisis, but we can solve it through the mass activation of THE RAPE SWITCH.

Imagine waking up, making some coffee using tap water, and just as you’re about to finish your first cup, feeling the insurmountable urge to RAPE. All men will feel the unbearable Need For Rape. They won’t care about contraception, and they certainly won’t care about the possibility of hearing “no.”

The solution to every problem has long been rape.

Now we have a chance to implement it.

BF8211 #sexist reddit.com

"Sex with a non-virgin woman is much better than doing it with a virgin"

I hate when normies say such mindless bullshit. "Better?" Really? Htf would we know it was better or worse when we have nothing to compare it to? Anything is better than using your hand regardless.

We want to have sex with another virgin because of the inexperience that will occur with someone who has had partners before. You will always be compared to an ex, an ONS or former FWB. Guess what happens when the sex isn't good enough? Hello breakup, cuckolding, or alimony (possibly all 3 if you live in a shit-tier state like New Jersey, I'm ashamed to call it my birthplace). Either way, I'm way past the point of no return. 20 years old and I have never even hugged a woman. Two decades.

For any normies who think wanting a virgin is a sick fetish, or is some creepy control thing, fuck off. I get judged everyday for being ugly, if I ever managed to make it to the bedroom with a woman, I wouldn't want to be judged in what is arguably the most vulnerable position a human can experience.

Andrew Anglin #conspiracy dailystormer.name

[From "BEAST: Synthetic Red Blood Cells Can Administer Drugs, Carry Oxygen, Detect Toxins"]

If you’ve ever wondered why some people are concerned about what vaccines are made of, imagine the things, similar to this, that are not made public.

Daily Mail

Scientists have created synthetic red blood cells that can perform all the functions of the real thing and more.

Tests in mice and chick embryos showed that the artificial cells were able to carry oxygen and squeeze through capillaries just like the biological versions.

But they also revealed the man-made cells’ ability to carry drugs, detect toxins and perform magnetic targeting.
[...]

Yes, it is only going to be used to treat cancer, because we’re very concerned about your health. We’re so concerned about your health and well-being that we’re forcing you to abide by the new social distancing rules.

Because we care about you.

[...]

This will never be used as a kind of Trojan horse to sneak damaging stuff into people’s bodies, because warfare is not a thing and the entire planet is driven by altruism.

We scientists really do care about people’s health, which is why we’re always thinking of ways of sneaking foreign objects that can deliver drugs into their circulatory systems.

Sans #sexist #dunning-kruger incels.co

“Sex is a privilege, not a right!”

Every cuckold, soyboy and roastie in existence loves to parrot the phrase that “sex is a privilege, not a right!!11”. However, If it’s a privilege, then aren’t sex havers privileged? And therefore we are oppressed by them, just like how men supposedly oppress women because of male privilege, same with white privilege etc?

If it’s a privilege, then why is it okay for some people to have and some don’t?

Anonymous #sexist desuarchive.org

Lesbian porn is a sign of a beta-male

While watching any kind of porn is already pretty pathetic there is nothing worse than a straight guy watching lesbian porn.When a person is young and watches lesbian porn they do so because they are too unfamiliar with the concept of sex to imagine themselves doing it.However if a grown man watches lesbian porn it indicates that
1:He's so insecure that he can't even imagine himself partaking in physical contact with a female.
2:Hes fine with allowing his mate have sex with another potential mate pointing to a cuckold fetish
So if you watch lesbian porn you need to either change your ways or accept yourself as a beta.

HalfAsianTruthTeller #racist stormfront.org

The TRUTH ABOUT WHITE MEN AND ASIAN WOMEN FROM THEIR EURASIAN SON
Asian women and their insistence on breeding with white men is not something based on love, but rather on hate (largely of Asian men), yet their sons are Asian men and we are taught from birth that love is not colorblind. If love were color blind, then there would indeed be more Asian men breeding with Asian women, black women, or white women, but instead Asian women rely on their privilege of having a vagina, being the gatekeepers to sex, to negotiate relationships with white men in a perverse form of hypergamy. If love were honest, and good, and unbiased, then Asian women would marry black men, Indian men, and Hispanic men at the same rate that they do White men. But they do not. If love were honest, good, and unbiased, then Asian women would be as open to dating Asian men as they are white men. But they are not.

For this reason, I curse my own mother, I am glad she is dead, and I hate every ounce of the whore, slut, white-worshiping piece of trash that my mother, an Asian woman from Hong Kong, was. I am not alone in this feeling, as I’m sure there are hundreds of thousands of Eurasian men who have, at one point in their life, questioned their own mothers.

Whether they do this for status or for appearance is not relevant, though I do think that it is probably for the sake of appearance, since the taller build, wider face, and healthier skin color of white men might be the main reason why Asian women chase white males. Regardless of their reasons, they clearly will not stop doing it, and completely ignore the massive negative repercussions this has on their children, like me.

I was born of this relationship and to this day, I remain a failure, full of self hatred, lost, confused, and destined to die by my own hand, or to die having run to the furthest corners of the world, now for five years, to get away from the very thing that birthed me.

I will, as a result, maybe as one of the only things I may accomplish in my life, write about the insanity of these relationships, how they are the ugliest thing on earth, and how they lead to pure disaster for their male children, the worst case being Elliot Rodger, whose sentiment, at times, I emulated with. I have long been known as eccentric, odd, weird, lost, and have a poor reputation among people who know me as being antisocial, distant, and prone to lunatic beliefs; the day before Elliot Rodger’s massacre I even reached out to him on a popular forum and told him that I identified with his feelings, his self-doubt, his narcissism, his issues with his mother, and I said that they were uniquely Eurasian male issues.

So, these relationships are sick, for the following reasons:

1) The white males, in many cases, view the Asian female as an easy alternative to white women, and as a valid vessel to propagate the continuation of their intelligent, master-race “genes,” whereas white women are seen as being sexually perverse, and prone to mating and having relations with the “lesser races.” My father is a strong example, having long harbored extremely religious, white-supremacist, and misogynist viewpoints. Some, in many ways, would consider him a Men’s Rights Activist, or to a lesser extent, a MGTOW, who, like many other white men, felt entitled to a world where God reigned, valued the white man, and white civilization, rewarded the white man for being white, and, when white women failed to recognize his inherent “power,” (instead choosing to lie down with black males, or to party, or embrace liberalism or feminism), Asian women, of course, were the next best choice. I also know this because having come across numerous other blogs (hapasons.wordpress.com) that talk about the same issue, my case seemed remarkably common. My father, for example, believes the Nazis were heroes, and my mother even called the police on him, when we were growing up, for talking about how the Holocaust never happened. He strongly supports Mel Gibson, goes on racist rants about blacks, and vehemently hates Jews, Hollywood, and modern day American society. In this way, my “chaste,” Oriental mother was a strong alternative for him to marry, as Asian women are well known for worshiping white males.

2) The white males oftentimes are socially inept, socially awkward, or unable to compete in the modern day marketplace, both sexual and economic. My father would be diagnosed with Aspberger’s Syndrome if such a syndrome was known in his younger days. He is a social recluse, has almost no friends, listens to wave radio, believes strongly in conspiracy theories that are very common to White Nationalists and anti-semites, and believes strongly in God and that God hates Jews and that the judgement day will eventually come; common to people like this, white supremacy, the belief in Aryan people at the top, with Asian people being a distant cousin, and Asian women, of course, being a healthy substitute for hypergamous, slutty, immoral White women, while Asian women remain hypergamous in their own right. I know this, because sadly, I am both antisocial, have long since disappeared from all of my friends, have gone through a thorough depression at the way American society was, and during the time period that I considered myself “white,” I too embraced white nationalism (sadly), and was so depressed about white women mating with men of color that I sought refuge in China, to await the eventual apocalypse. As insane as it sounds, this is what brought me to this country, and I would have killed myself had I not been saved by my wife.

3) Asian women make divergent, opposing, and illogical statements about Asian men that will eventually find their way to their sons. The common claims from Asian women about why they don’t date Asian men come in two forms: The first is that Asian men are patriarchal, controlling, and conservative. THIS IS A PATENT LIE.

This is a lie because the white men that they engage in relationships with are even more patriarchal, racist, and conservative, looking to Asian women as an alternative to feminist white women. The entire premise of white feminism is that white men are TOO CONTROLLING, PATRIARCHAL, AND CONSERVATIVE. I know this looking at my own father, who is by far the most patriarchal, far-right individual that I know, so much so that it might have eventually contributed to my mother’s death. Again, there are several other races that Asian women can choose from, but they only choose white men, making this a complete fabrication and lie based on faulty logic and excuses. The very fact that they are capable of framing an entire group of men as the same while saying that another group (white men) are inherently better reeks of

The second claim is that Asian men are ugly, unattractive, small, with small penises, which contrasts strongly with the claim that Asian men are overbearing and too patriarchal. The horrible danger of this claim is that it trickles down to Asian women’s very own sons, who begin to SERIOUSLY doubt that their mother’s “preference” has anything to do with character, and everything to do with physicality – whereby I have come to despise and hate my own mother with a vehement passion that is borderline violent. Much of my history, if you care to read earlier in this blog, might stem from this ingrown self hatred that comes from being quite literally cuckolded by my own mother, whose own belief that white men are physically superior mentally drains and destroys me, as her male offspring, and causes a bitter, catastrophic dichotomy within myself.

Regardless of the “reasons,” or if sexual preference can be negotiated, the very fact that it is so common and the fact that our mother’s choices were based inherently on preference for determinants of sexual / genetic health make all of our life choices irrelevant, because it is clear that ultimately our deciding factors and success in life and love are determined by our genetic makeup, so much so that our own mothers were driven in such a way to shoot down AN ENTIRE ETHNIC GROUP while giving unfair preference to another – means that any and all choices we make in life are hinged on our appearance and that nothing we can ever do can make us as attractive as a white male – as proven by OUR OWN MOTHERS.

4) Our own mothers reinforce the horrible stereotypes about Asian men. Regardless of their reasons, there are persistent stereotypes that exist in Western culture about Asian men. Whether or not they believed these stereotypes, we assume that they had no qualms about reinforcing the extreme negative image of Asian men by chasing, in droves, white men, and that our own mothers were very, very capable of betraying the possible future of their own sons by proving to the world, and their own offspring, that Asian men are and forever will be less desirable than white men. For every time that an Asian man is shot down for being Asian, the perception that Asian men are undesirable is reinforced, and our own mothers become GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION for actively being part of the self-congratulation group of Asian women who HATE ASIAN MEN AND THINK THEY ARE TOO GOOD FOR ASIAN MEN. For this, my own mother is a guilty whore, who I shall hate until my last dying breath, and I will never, ever, EVER be able to look at what she did in another way; I shall go out every day, very well aware that Asian men are so undesirable that my own mother sought to avoid them entirely, knowing that I can never, ever be viewed as desirable as them, and that any woman who notices me notices me only because I am whiter than I would otherwise be.

In Conclusion

Asian women will deny, lie, and beat around the bush until doomsday, but they will never admit that what they do is for purely physical reasons, and they will never admit that the ramifications it has upon their children is profound and disastrous. As I have read on some other blogs, this kind of relationship is purely evil, simply because it follows the patterns of basic biology and evolutionary psychology, while deceiving its offspring into thinking that it is normal; the whole “Eurasian” children or “mixed children” are valuable and / or beautiful is nothing more than a generalization and a lie, and it soon becomes evident that mixed children are birthed from couples forming extremely unbalanced patterns that favor women over men. The male offspring of these relationships are then put at special risk and wind up imploding, as is the case of my brother, who is 32 years old, bed ridden, schizophrenic, and so badly damaged from his combination of racist/religious white father / self hating Asian mother, that he is essentially dead. I am essentially considered crazy by the larger community, have been outcast to China, will die alone in a small apartment, am suicidal, depressed, and unable to work.

In short, these relationships are based on the hatred of the Asian male (in some cases, with the extra bonus of hating the white female), and the resulting offspring, should he grow up in America, be keenly aware of this societal hatred, and grow, as I did, to despise his own mother. Luckily, mine is dead, (from a bad blood transfusion after a C-section birth), otherwise I would make it my goal to humiliate, demean and hate her, as I hate Asian women who refuse to date any such race, if only because she is a rotten, ROTTEN person, and it is not enough to assume that “maybe” she did not hate Asian men – as the pattern exists enough that I would sincerely doubt her excuses if she attempted to explain it away.

PTOTalryn #fundie reddit.com

Dear Dr. Peterson,

I'm writing to you not because I know exactly what you should do, but because I have studied the works of Lyndon LaRouche for over a decade, informally, and judge that he is a twentieth century thinker you ought to contend with. I am not ideologically possessed by this man and am not a member of his organization. Nevertheless, if economics is one thing you wish to learn more about, in a heavy intellectual and historical context, then allow me to lay out the case for LaRouche.

The platform for everything LaRouche says is the nature of man as literally being made imago viva Dei, or in the cognitive image of God. He has even said that the human mind is the only important thing in the universe. This quality of man's mind, namely the ability to compose creative hypotheses, test them, and if successful thereby discover (or rediscover) universal principles of morality and physics, is what divides man as by an abyss from all other known life forms. Indeed, if we discovered any life form with this ability other than man, we would be morally obligated to refer to them as “men” as well.

By this yardstick, LaRouche measures whether or not any given thinker contributes to this mission, the mission to liberate and advance man's cognitive capacities, or retards it. This includes specific societies and cultures, whether they represent the development of man (as the best tradition of the United States, including its initial, existential opposition to British imperialist “free trade” indicates) or whether it retards man (as imperialism, including Bolshevik imperialism, does generally).

LaRouche originated as a Quaker, fought in the Second World War, and later become a Marxist, eventually arriving at Hamiltonian economics. He has formerly called himself a Marxist, but just as he transcended Freud in his essay “Beyond Psychoanalysis” he also transcends Marxism. He eschews identity politics, execrates postmodernism, and is interested in government control of capital only in the sense used by John F. Kennedy's science-driver missions and infrastructure. His goal is not equality of outcome, but an increase in human power to exist in the universe, which naturally spills over into an increased consumption of resources by labor, including consumption of luxury goods. He wants every person to have the opportunity to develop their powers of intellect.

Because he opposes the British empire's continued influence on world politics, including the geopolitics of control regarding Asia (whether Russia, China, India, or the Near East), and he opposes the reckless "casino capitalism" of London and Wall Street (sitting on top of the $700 trillion derivatives bubble), and he has made some odd comments on a variety of groups and subjects (whether the Beatles having no (classical) musical talent or the rural Chinese being (culturally) bestialized, etc.), which raises the hackles of the formerly-mainstream media, he has suffered an almost total media blackout accompanied by a wall of slander, punched increasingly through by the Internet.

His economics, then, are Hamiltonian, the idea of sovereign government credit being used to finance infrastructure projects (such as the Chinese New Silk Road initiative which his wife Helga Zepp-LaRouche has boosted for decades), in order to increase man's survival power and enrich the economy. No railroads, no modern America after all.
His morality revolves around the ability of classical art, such as Prometheus Bound and Macbeth, to improve the loving self-consciousness of the audiences, rather than drive animalistic ruts of mere sense-pleasure through the byways of the mind.

He was asked once “Are you ever wrong?” and he replied (paraphrasing), “No. I make errors, but on the core of what I'm talking about I'm not wrong.” When asked “What should I do?” he has said, “I'm not going to tell you what to do, that's up to you.” And, on the subject of the present cultural and economic crisis, he has said, “Fight for truth” which is his ultimate good, as it relates to defending the human mind.

In short, this man gave me the ability to think in terms of principles, rather than floundering in a sea of facts. I realize you are the top of your game and I am a relatively ignorant fan of yours, and I am not a master of economics able to fill LaRouche's shoes (not just yet, anyway), nevertheless if you ever wonder from your 100-foot wave, “Where can I go from here?” Lyndon LaRouche is a way to up your game, and stay usefully controversial. He is the Mission to Mars, he is the World Land Bridge, he is Fusion Energy . . . he is the Jor-El of our planet. Do we repeat the same mistake as Krypton?

That's my recommendation for you to learn economics. Dig past the landfill worth of slander, around the land-mine of "used to be a Marxist" and get at the stratum of futuristic classical humanism underneath.

Thanks for your time. With all respect, P.T. O'Talryn.

Knowledge Transfer #fundie disqus.com

(in response to story "Parents of Eight Year Old Boy Who Identifies as Girl Sue School for "Forcing" Son "To Live as a Boy"

Knowledge Transfer:
Sure, we should let rapists; child molesters; murderers; arsonists; thieves; and felons of limitless description live and let live so that they can do what they want to do whenever they want to do it so long as they don't hurt you. Surely, you would agree to let Charles Manson live and let live so he could come to your home for a visit.

GarbageAdams:
All the behaviours you describe are abuses, they are NOT examples of "live and let live". People like you don't comprehend the concept of consenting adults. No one is being abused, you just hate what they do.

Knowledge Transfer:
The despots who have glorified despotism throughout history were consensual depots were they not? If two children consent to jumping off of buildings, are such consensual behaviors abusive to the consensual children and those who are crushed by their falling bodies when they hit the ground? Actually, consensual perversion or voluntary perversion is more evil than involuntary or coerced perversion because FREE WILL is used to pervert consensually. You simply want to be justified in you unjustifiable perversions so you support and justify the perversions of others. Misery has always loved company.

GarbageAdams:
Children aren't old enough to consent, and that goes for sexual situations just as it does for jumping off buildings, which is obviously
a self-destructive practice. COMPLETELY unlike a same-sex adult
consensual relationship which harms no one.
"Perversion" in this sense is entirely a matter of your opinion. Just as I find it perverse in the extreme what you do to the words of your Bible to inflict your hate and judgement on others. Your analogy has failed.

Knowledge Transfer:
This post was on parents who help their children become freaks. You brain has failed. Nevertheless, saluting sodomy [the always lifeless and often lethal homosexual monogamy] is like cheering on those who play in; eat from and sleep in unflushed toilets. The INFAMOUS CRIME AGAINST NATURE is defined by one word. That one word is SODOMY. Sodomy is the CRIME AGAINST NATURE. Therefore, Sodomy isn't natural. The incineration of Sodom is evidence and proof of its foul; filthy; fruitless; fatal; and fecal evilness.
Then we have the deadly siblings of sodomy: "rimming"; "fisting"; "bare backing"; "bug chasing"; "pegging"; "felching"; "taking the express"; "circuit parties"; "brown showers"; "golden showers"; "scatting"; "fulsome street parades" etc. etc. etc. Homo's gladly suffer from exponentially higher shares of all sexually transmitted diseases far in excess of their puny shares of the general population. This includes the granddaddy of them all HIV/AIDS a homocentrically inspired pandemic.
Has a pregnancy ever occurred in a rectum - especially a male rectum?

BodyFat10orRope & Hate_my_life #sexist incels.co

Re: [LifeFuel] GIRL KILLS HERSELF BECAUSE HER BOYFRIEND CHEATED ON HER

(BodyFat10orRope)

Why do women even get this upset by cheating? It's not even that bad if a man cheats tbh. It's not like he's cuckolding you. He's just horny and so he's fucking another woman. Other than some type of moral reason if you're religious, it doesn't seem like something that should illicit such a severe reaction (not only talking about the ones that commit suicide) in women.

(Hate_my_life)

I’m not celebrating the suicide or anything but I bet CuckTears will say that it‘s OP personality stopping him getting a girlfriend while OP shares a tweet like...... well, this. So supposedly Incels are incels because of what they say online even though most self-labelled incels bite their tongue in the real world.

I'm definitely celebrating.

Such a foid would've treated me like absolute dirt so why should I even offer a display of sympathy/condolences.

I wish every foid could just take their life today. I'd be so happy with none of these demons roaming around.

Also IT can go fist themselves, they're illogical goal-post moving cunts.

weev #sexist dailystormer.name

“I’m in a traditional marriage”
“I’m all for traditional gender roles”
“I want gender norms to be like the old days”

These are refrains I’ve heard endlessly repeated as the discussion over WHITE SHARIA has advanced. They are coming from women and a few weak men counter-signaling the WHITE SHARIA meme.

Because of the critical importance of this discussion for the survival of the white race and its European civilizations, I wanted to take a minute to explain to all the men and women claiming to be so-called traditionalists all the concepts and social boundaries that defined traditional relationships. This is the most important education that I can possibly give the community at this moment, and I ask that you ask yourself if you are really embracing traditionalism like you claim to be.
Coverture

Coverture was the reality for all of European history up until the mid and late 19th century, when feminist agitators, the media, and academic establishment triumphed with their agitations through its abolition. The basic principle of coverture is that the rights of the woman are completely subsumed into that of her husband’s. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband’s wishes, or keep a salary for herself.

William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume I:

" The very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture."

UCLA gender studies professor Ellen Carol DuBois (whose career is chronicled in the Jewish Women’s Archive, of course) highlighted in her histories of women’s rights “the initial target of women’s rights protest was the legal doctrine of ‘coverture’“, and that 19th century feminist icon Lucy Stone despised the common law of marriage “because it ‘gives the “custody” of the wife’s person to her husband, so that he has a right to her even against herself.‘”

If a woman decided to leave her marriage she was a penniless non-entity no matter what her previous position was in life (truly, there is no better position for an errant whore to be rendered into). Any restoration of traditional gender roles starts by restoring coverture, thus removing financial incentives for worthless scheming whores to destroy the sanctity of marriage by abandoning it over whims and lusts. Marriage, up until the abolition of coverture, meant that the woman was permanent property of one man, allowed continued existence and any degree of freedom only in accordance with his desires.

Bride Price

" The dower grew out of the Germanic practice of bride price (Old English weotuma), which was given over to a bride’s family well in advance for arranging the marriage."

Before a woman was her husband’s property, she was her father’s. This is why the father gives away the bride at the marriage ceremony. Traditional marriage was a transfer of property, with the priest serving the role as the trusted third party to do the background research and make sure the transaction was honest. It was essentially like getting the sale of your apartment validated by a notary. The daughter was sold off by her father, and it was the father’s sole judgement of who was eligible to lawfully purchase his property.

The status of women as property was nearly universal in European cultures, with the exception of Jewry and some groups of gypsies, where access to tithes and trust followed a matrilineal line. This was why the Jews were so keen to attack these ideas, because the patrilineal passing of property was innately offensive to their culture. Europe only has this absurd notion of women as independent entities because of organized subversion by agents of Judaism.
Domestic Discipline and “Marital Rape”

Coverture and bride price were abolished to ridiculously assert women were independent entities with “rights” so that they could lobby for suffrage. The implementation of suffrage culminated in legal penalties for domestic discipline and the concept of marital rape so that women could abandon their most basic household duties, thus destroying their homes and their husbands’s lives. The thing about these changes is that they are really fresh and new. While the 19th century might seem like a long time ago for many of our young readers (it isn’t, on the civilizational timescale it is just last month and on the evolutionary timescale it is mere seconds) these new changes began in the lifetimes of our parents and finished in many of ours, and civilization was immediately and measurably the worse for wear.

Wikipedia:

" The reluctance to criminalize and prosecute marital rape has been attributed to traditional views of marriage, interpretations of religious doctrines, ideas about male and female sexuality, and to cultural expectations of subordination of a wife to her husband—views which continue to be common in many parts of the world. These views of marriage and sexuality started to be challenged in most Western countries from the 1960s and 70s especially by second-wave feminism, leading to an acknowledgment of the woman’s right to self-determination (i.e., control) of all matters relating to her body, and the withdrawal of the exemption or defense of marital rape. … The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape was a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes."

Rape is a property crime and nothing more. First a crime against the property of the father, and then a crime against the property of the husband. This change only finished in the US and UK in the nineties, when I was 8 years old. Women existing in a state of slavery to the sexual whims of their husbands is not some barbarism of prehistory. This was universal common sense for whites up until a couple decades ago.

Likewise, hitting a woman out of her head was seen as benevolent and a universal necessity in every marriage until the sixties, and even portrayed positively in movies and film. Regular slapping and the occasional vicious beating of a woman was a necessity in every household. Women need to be regularly disciplined to keep their heads about them. They can be intellectually mature and clever to the point of deviousness, but they will always have the emotional state of a very young child and we all know what happens when you spare those the rod.

On this subject I hear two narratives from low-T men in the alt-right. The first is that all these transformations in the rights and status of women happened in reaction to family abandonment and general hardships upon women. Even those I respect like My Posting Career’s PLEASUREMAN fall for this sniveling lie from the mouths of manipulative whores. To these I have said: let us examine the data.

...

Broken families happened as a result of these changes in the status of women, not as the cause of them. The reality is that extramarital sex and birth was at an all time historical low because of Victorian standards of morality. The only spikes on that chart before 1950 were a result of world wars, because a man that died in some kike’s war could not marry his whore. Men held up their end of everything. They married women, they provided for them, they gave them newfound comforts and innovations like laundry machines that reduced their domestic workload to nil. They gave them full legal independence, and then they even stopped giving them the basic boundaries of discipline. What did women do with all these new rights and comforts? Well, you see how that graph goes. They whored like never before through the sixties and seventies, and Western civilization has been rotting ever since.

They did this because white men had a fool’s compassion in their hearts and lost the good sense to shove their faces into a countertop and give them a swift kick to the gut as hard as they can when these skanks had it coming to them.
Men Counter-Signaling WHITE SHARIA

So most of this “I’m totally traditionalist but WHITE SHARIA is terrible” nonsense is coming from women, but sometimes it is coming from small-souled bugmen as well. Some of these men are being bullied by their wives. Some of them just have no will to power. Beardson just used this line, and as far as I’m concerned he’s not only no longer the leader of the thot patrol, but no longer eligible to even be on it. We’ll be bullying whores without him from now on.

Here’s the reality of European tradition: women were a category of property that had a single instance of sale. They were complete slaves to the will of fathers then husbands, both having free reign to beat them and the latter having the lawful right to fuck them, where and when they pleased. This was the reality for thousands of years of European history and the change in this status only finished in our and our parent’s lifetimes. There’s nothing Islamic about this. It is just the default position of any civilization that is not being destroyed by decadence. Man up, put women under your heel, throw away their birth control and make them bear you children and take care of your house. If they resist, discipline them.

If you are uncomfortable with the WHITE SHARIA meme because it contains the word sharia, I can understand that, but “muh feels” is not an argument against the efficacy of the meme. This meme is effective because it has an immediate effect of being shocking and lurid to the senses of women and weak men and forces people to talk about the status of women in our civilization. All we are pushing for is a return to the status of women we had in the early 19th century before Jews and their feminism ruined our civilization. This should not be controversial. If you are opposing WHITE SHARIA because you disagree with women being reduced to the status of property to be beaten and fucked at the whims of her husband, you are a faggot and a cuckold and have no place in any right-wing site, and instead belong at the bottom of festering bogs like Reddit and Voat.
A final word to offended “traditional” female readers:

Despite all your assertions of being a good traditionalist, you fight against the implementation of traditional gender roles wherever they begin to be discussed. You’re not a traditional woman and you don’t want a traditional relationship. You just like the sound of the word traditional and the outfits you see women wearing in Victorian era photographs. You speak traditionalism with your Pinterest and Instagram posts, but your actions scream of your lascivious natures. You agitate only for the “rights” of modernity: to deny your fertility, to destroy families, to rot at and injure the lives of good men who have acted with honor and decency in all their dealings to you.

You’re a whore.

That would normally be a forgivable thing. I’ve found the company of many prostitutes quite amicable, and whatever gods may be know it is impossible to meet a woman that isn’t one in this era. However, that you would sully the good name of European tradition, that you would would run around using it as a cloak for your harlotry makes you the an entirely contemptible whore. Your blasphemy against the history of Europe is to a level unforgivable through words alone, and you need to have your face bashed in by the fists of good men before a great horned shrine. On the far precipice of life, as a palsied chill ascends fast to put cold grasp upon those streams that pulse beside your throat you may beg the apologies of your ancestors.

‘What am I that should so be saved from death?
‘What am I that another death come not
‘To choke my utterance sacrilegious here?’

Be honest about what you are. Don’t sit here and pretend you’re a nice traditional girl when you fight against any implementation of traditional values. Say aloud what you are, on the streets, to your families, on social media: “I’m a despicable whore.” Do it before it is too late, because I swear to whatever gods may be that when the purge comes if you have been using traditionalism as a cloak for your revolting degeneracy your name is going on a list and we will be coming to make you pay for it. You will feel the punch to your throat first, but the hours afterwards at the hands of a WHITE SHARIA gang will make that seem as just a brief and gentle touch against your skin. Your ribs will be broken. Your face will be broken. Some of you will not live to tell about it. This I promise: a much needed correction is coming for you soon, you disgusting skanks.

andrew anglin #racist dailystormer.name

A cuckspiracy has been uncovered by the noble internet detectives of 4chan. Nickelodeon, a children’s television station, has hired a Negroid cuckolding fetishist to make a children’s sitcom.

The show, entitled “Bella and the Bulldogs,” is about an empowered feminist 13-year-old White girl joining a boys football team. Of the other three of the four main characters, one is a faggotized White boy, another is a goofy Jew and the last is a masculine Negroid.

The show was created by Jonathan Butler, who wrote and directed the film “Cuckold” about a Black man being brought in to have sex with a White man’s wife, and it appears that the Negroid in the show will end up becoming the romantic interest of the main White character.

Gabriel Garza is the show’s co-creator, and is presumably a Jew, based on his name. I can imagine he is the mastermind behind this. The Black came to him and said “yes, I’d like to make a version of my film ‘The Cuckold’ for kids,” and the Jew was like “why, I’d be delighted to help you with that!”

The term “bull” is used to describe a Black male who is brought into a relationship to have sex with the wife in front of the man.

The show is called “Bella and the Bulldogs.” Hard to believe that is a coincidence. In all of the promotional pictures, Bella’s hair covers the word “dog,” so you only see “bull.”

Also unlikely to be a coincidence is the fact that the empowered White female wears the number one, while the crazy-eyed beta White male wears the number 99 (last place).

In promotional clips one can find on YouTube, the White male is depicted as an unbelievable faggot.

This is not the first time Nickelodeon has been involved in something bizarre. They have, for a long time, been underfire for allowing an apparently pedophile Jew, Dan Schneider, to produce shows and spend hug-time with the pre-teen actresses.

o, all of this weirdness should come as a surprise to absolutely no one.

This is par for the course for Jews. Abusing the bodies and minds of the goyim kiddies is business as usual, and a key part of the Jew prime directive.

Troll These Rat Actors

These rat actors need to explain why they are a part of this sickening production.

The solution is for the Stormer Troll Army to return for one last big job (just kidding way more jobs ahead lol).

I have all of their Twitters, brothers.

Duty is calling.

The show’s Negroid creator does not have a public Twitter, but he does have a Facebook.

This Could be Our Greatest Achievement Yet

This could be the greatest accomplishment the troll army has ever known. This is a very big deal, that Nickelodeon is openly promoting cuckold fetishism to children. And the media won’t be able to ignore it when a hellstorm of troll fury comes down upon these child actors who have involved themselves in this wicked Hebrew sorcery.

Hit them hard. Do not make any type of threats, but feel free to ask them point blank why they are promoting bizarre and unnatural forms of sexual fetishism to children. Be sure to take screenshots of your Tweets and any response you get from these brats.

Of course, use multiple accounts, which you can register using 10 minute email.

It will probably take Twitter some time to start IP blocking for this operation, since it isn’t against a high-profile Jewish politician or connected Moslem lawyer. But if they do start IP banning, use tor.

Go forth, ye Stormer Trolls, and crush thine enemy: the Jew.

E W. Jackson #conspiracy rightwingwatch.org

Religious Right preacher E.W. Jackson dedicated a good portion of his radio program yesterday to laying out his theory that men wearing earrings is the result of a liberal effort to emasculate black men.

Jackson asserted that in the 1980s, an “androgyny movement” emerged that sought to convince people that “the coolest thing was to be neither male nor female.” One of the ramifications of this effort, he claimed, is that there is now a “fad,” especially among black men, that “has come into vogue of men wearing these great big ol’ diamond earrings in both ears.” Jackson argued that this is a trend that is “emasculating men” and “denying men their masculinity.”

“I’m not saying that men who wear that kind of stuff are homosexual,” Jackson declared. “I just think that they don’t realize that they’ve gotten caught up in a movement and they don’t understand what the movement is really trying to achieve.”

Jackson asserted that the “androgyny movement” and modern efforts to combat “toxic masculinity” were started by racist white liberals in order to emasculate and feminize black men.

“I really believe that white liberals in particular are much more comfortable with effeminate black men,” he said. “I really believe that and I think that does go back to the myth of the hyper-animalistic sexual black male. Because I really believe that the real racism in America today is to be found in the precincts of white liberals because they really have decided they know what it means to be black better than black people know and if you meet their criteria, then you are okay. And if you do not, they’re going to do everything they can to destroy you. I’m a personal living witness of that. So I think they really don’t like black people unless they fit the mold that they have created for them, which, to me, is no different than slavery and Jim Crow.”

“I really believe that that stuff is primarily directed to black men that liberals want to emasculate because they don’t want them thinking for themselves, they don’t want them standing up for themselves, they don’t want them being themselves,” Jackson said. “They want them to fit the mold that the liberal ideology has prescribed for them. Now, folks, by any definition you want to create, that’s racist.”

Jim #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

Christianity, or perhaps Churchianity, tends to endorse suicidal collective behaviors. Progressives and Christians eagerly strive to outdo each other in how thoroughly they get cuckolded. Note how Christians and progressives both demonstrate superior holiness by adopting subsaharan blacks – who tend to grow into adult subsaharan blacks, with consequences as disturbing as adopting a baby chimpanzee.

I have not yet noticed Christians imitating the progressives by adopting male children and then sexually mutilating them to save them from toxic masculinity, but it is early days yet in the war on toxic masculinity.

The Dark Enlightenment emphasizes survival as a virtue, as indeed the root of all virtues. For example homosexuality is bad because homosexuals spread disease and don’t care about the future or the long term. We should enforce the marital contract so that we can have grandchildren, and so that the race and the culture survives. And so on and so forth. The old testament morality is arguably survival morality.

If survival is the root of all virtues, then we should conquer other nations to survive, colonize space to survive. At which conclusion the Dark Enlightenment parts company with with most people’s understanding of traditional Christianity.

The Old Testament was pretty cool with genocide. God would just say “genocide those pagans, I don’t love them even if I created them”. Most think that Jesus had a different opinion. I would say his opinion was more subtle and sophisticated, rather than directly contradictory.

...

Evil exists, so either God does not will the good, or he is not able, or he is messing with us on purpose. (Testing our resolve, making us suffer so we grow more resilient.) Human Biodiversity would imply that innately evil or useless people are not part of God’s plan, only means of his to mess with you. Are we allowed to remove those tests of God?

Given that there is an Old Testament and a New Testament, it follows that there is a time to turn the other cheek, and a time to slay the women and children. And if one takes the New Testament seriously, the New Testament should give us a hint as to when it is OK to go Old Testament on problem people.

...

And now, the much promised, much foreshadowed, account of how to genocide inferior races and take their stuff in a good Christian fashion, as our ancestors did; Past best practice for acquiring land and resources currently occupied by no-good people who prevent it from being put to its highest and best use while supporting, rather than undermining, your society’s high trust equilibrium:

A bunch of white American settlers want to settle on American Indian land. Indians have previously indicated that they are unhappy with this, and there are previous agreements that white people will not settle on this land. You offer them payment, including a lot of barrels of firewater. Indians accept the deal, land for nice stuff, including lots of firewater. They get drunk, stay drunk, while settlers move in and build some forts.

After a while, the whiskey runs out. The Indians wake up with a blazing hangover, no food, and no hunting grounds. “We have been cheated”, they wail.

They demand their land back. The settlers in the fort tell them to go to hell.

Some braves agree to go bravely looking for some undefended or minimally defended white women and children. They catch a woman, and two small children. Whom they rape, then skin, then burn alive. Then they bravely go back to their tribe and tell their tribe. “Well now it is war. So which side are you on. The side of us very brave braves, or the side of the people who took your land and gave you this hangover?”

The tribe declares for the warpath.

And then you kill them all and take their stuff.

Weston’s error was that he proposed to kill them and take their stuff without first legitimately purchasing the land and tempting them into committing unspeakable crimes. Had he done so, and obtained the land in that fashion, then this would have created the dangerous precedent that some stronger party could take the land from him, undermining the high trust equilibrium that made the great achievements of his society, of which he was so proud, possible, for that high trust equilibrium and the ensuing high achievements rested on tribal taboos and copy-book maxims.

Stan and Elizabeth Madrak #fundie demonbuster.com

TOYS THAT TARNISH, GAMES THAT TERRORIZE

(Ravaged By The New Age - Satan's Plan To Destroy Our Kids)

Toy after toy is designed to introduce young children's minds to New Age and occult ideas and symbols. There are stickers depicting occult creatures, and New Age and Satanic symbols, robot mechanical toys that represent the dark forces of evil, and a wide selection of toys that are emblazoned with New Age Satanic symbols. Popular fantasy games created for children embody Satanic symbols, and instill occult and esoteric teachings into the minds of the young.

Role playing games assign children roles as deities, demigods, and demons and give instructions on casting spells and using magic circles, Satanic pentagrams, and occultic triangles. Tarot cards, runes and the ouija board have Satanic and New Age themes. Young people have become demon-possessed, confused, demented, and psychotic after exposure to occultic-oriented games.

The ancient Babylonian fire god, Moloch, was a hideous god smeared with the blood of human sacrifices. Kids playing games should use magic and sorcery in overcoming the obstacles in their lives. Red and black are Satanic colors. Gods and goddesses, monsters and myths are written about. Fantasies include murder, rape, arson, pillage, terrorism, brutal torture, etc. Satanic deception is infiltrating the Christian community. The unicorn's roots lie in pagan idolatry. The kids are traveling down the yellow brick road to disaster. Society is breeding an entire generation of monsters.

DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS

(Straight Talk #38 - On Dungeons And Dragons - Revised)

The point to remember is that role-playing is a major and effective way to teach people new ways of thinking and acting. Characters may get to choose various magical tools: spells, charms, wands, talismans, potions - plus magical versions of most weapons. If you know the right technology (spell, ritual, incantation, etc.), the universe must respond. But it will also take you to hell faster than a greased demon on roller skates by committing spiritual suicide. Any serious sorcerer will tell you that magic can be as complicated or as simple as the magician wishes.

Folk magic is pretty simple and rustic. Ceremonial magic can be very high church with robes, incense and elaborate rites that can take weeks to complete. Witchcraft is somewhat in the middle, depending on the tradition you are working in. Finally, true hermetic magic involves little more than the human mind.

It is all in the intent - in the mind. When you consider how hard it is these days to find people (of any age) who have moral fiber, the situation becomes quite frightening. Remember, as a Christian, we are exhorted to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).

U.S. courts are increasingly reluctant to get involved on the side of people fighting the occult influences in our culture, in any way, shape or form. The vast proliferation of books, movies, video games and TV shows about witchcraft and sorcery is compelling. There are witch covens in every major city and in many minor ones! No child is safe at any time if you understand and believe in the Bible.

D " D problems can lead to demonic obsession, suicide attempts, and involvement in witchcraft or Satanism which are serious and indeed can be life-threatening. Make no mistake about it, magic and sorcery are spiritual. What most Christian gamers do not understand is that magic is a kind of spiritual lust.

Magic, at its root, is about power and rebellion. This is a game that envelops the player in an entirely different fantasy world in which the power of magic and violence is pervasive. It is a game with a distinct and seductive spiritual world view that is diametrically opposed to the Bible. Some variations on this theme would be more animalistic or pantheistic - say that the universe is somehow alive, a single-celled organism of which we are a part. Either way, there is no sovereign God involved.

The Necronomicon (legendary occult text) has its place in modern black magic and Transyuggothian metaphysics. Metaphysics is the philosophical theory of reality, the rational science of the supernatural or supersensuous, the science of formal and final causes, and the science of the obscure, occult or mysterious. For example, there is now a whole line of materials based on the hellish Lovecraft Cthulhu mythos (author Howard Phillips Lovecraft), a form of magic practiced in the darkest Satanism - a system of magic prominently featured in The Satanic Rituals. The Necronomicon and the Cthulhu mythos are quite real. Lycanthropy (shape shifting) is the clinical term for being or believing yourself to be a werewolf. The magical act of changing into any wild animal. These are immensely complicated worlds of magic, spells and violence.

This game makes sense if you look at the issues through the eyes of a humanist or atheist. It does not introduce morality, you have demonic tools and characters, there are spells and a clash of world views, defending the game is like defending your favorite cult, examine the issues, it is like rearranging the lawn chairs in Hell, it's not only a game, it is real magic, it is suicide and madness, there are no positive elements and it is not a template for Christianity. One D " D player is quoted: The more I play D " D, the more I want to get away from this world. The whole thing is getting very bad.

[All bolding is from the original text]

Brett Stevens #fundie amerika.org

When rape first became a crime, we lived in a different world. Among the middle and upper echelons of society, women expected to be virgins at marriage and to be respectable in public thereafter.

These expectations arose from common knowledge which has been forgotten. Without the bonding that sexual inexperience provided, couples lacked the trust that came with shared exclusive experience. Their marriages also became unions of convenience, not based on the sacred but in business-like negotiations for mutual satisfaction on a day-to-day basis.

Not surprisingly when we abandoned this outlook our fortunes fell as far as marriage is concerned. First infidelity swept through marriages, then divorce became common, and now people simply avoid marriage in the first place to avoid being penalized to subsidize someone else after the inevitable divorce. Marriage is like extended dating at this point.

In saner times, rape ruined a woman. If it occurred before marriage, it made her unlikely to become married; if it happened afterwards, people saw her as being ejected from the throes of marital contentment.

...

In our new age however rape no longer carries this weight. No woman is ruined by having sex with one more man, since they commonly have sex with six of them on average that they will admit, but we know that people lie on surveys and the actual number may be ten times higher, some without even knowing his name or spending more than a dozen minutes in his company. At this point, it is farce and injustice to keep rape classified as a crime of violence.

Rather, we should view rape as a form of theft. We know that the woman intended to have sex with someone because she does it on a regular basis; what happened instead was that she had sex with the wrong man. It occurred not by force, since we no longer require that to prosecute a man for rape, but by mistake. She said no and he heard yes, or she said yes and meant no, or (as is most common) both had to get so drunk to engage in the animalistic act that neither knew what the other said and in the haze of regret the next day, she decided it was rape.

But no matter: In all of these cases, the only crime was theft of sexual services. She could have sold that sexual encounter for anywhere from a few dollars to a few thousand. Perhaps it was wrong that he took her as he did, but we have worse physical affronts in car crashes and when people crash their shopping carts into us at Wal-mart. As with an auto accident, we could write him a ticket and slap a heft fine on him, then move on.

It is not as if anything permanent were taken from that woman. She is already accustomed to having sex with strangers. She does not expect to be virginal for marriage, but fears being virginal past age thirteen, as socially that means failure. The only real crime here is that the wrong man ended up having sex with her, or that he did not pay. Our legal system offers many ways to rectify this. If he is ticketed, she can sue in small claims court much as she would if he took her paid parking space for a month.

But what we must not do is use the old punishment and the new crime in the same action. Rape is no longer a violent crime, but a case of mistaken consent, like parking in spot 81 when you rented spot 82. We should not punish it like grand larceny, assault and murder. As the feminists tell us, most rapes are acquaintance rape. And for that, a quick ticket and a sharp fine should do the trick, and we can stop ruining the lives of men for regrets in a sexual marketplace of the lowest common denominator.

Ben Shapiro #fundie truthrevolt.org

Conservatives in America are polite. We tend to follow Ronald Reagan’s old, kind-hearted formulation with regard to our political opponents: “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” As Dinesh D’Souza put it in his biography of Reagan, “His view was that [leftists] are well-meaning but mistaken.”

That’s a nice idea. It’s also wrong. The left is not well-meaning. Its politics represent the visible portion of an iceberg; its values undergird those politics. There is a reason the politics of the left result in misery, destruction, and tyranny: the values of the left reject any sense of traditional morality.

Western civilization was built atop certain values, too: the values of the Ten Commandments, which testify to the Godly capacity of man while recognizing the animalistic behavior to which men are drawn. Yet the left opposes each and every element of the Ten Commandments, preferring its own vision of humanity, which degrades men to the level of animals in order to achieve a perfect equality. Remove man’s capacity for choice – or the necessity for choosing – and men become biological oddities to be manipulated or discarded as necessary.

That is the vision and the mission of the left.

In my new e-book, I examine the Ten Commandments and leftist opposition to them – and demonstrate why leftism must be confronted on its basic morality rather than dismissed as merely ineffective.

AnathematicAnarchist #sexist reddit.com

Cruelty is rewarded in contemporary first world Western society. Period. End of fucking story.

It has to do with a combination of capitalistic cultural values and superficial nihilistic hedonism. In any case, a mean vicious bully (so long as he's good-looking, obviously; ugly people are subhuman) will get a Western normie woman absolutely dripping wet. Again, good-looking compassionate or sensitive men will have sex too, but they won't inspire the same sort of raw, animalistic lust.

knajjd11 #sexist reddit.com

How can normies be happy having a "modern" daughter? It's like being cuckolded.

This is a genuine question. I've been thinking about this for some time. It's the ultimate form of cuckoldry, honestly. I mean, you try to raise her properly, provide for her and share her burdens, emotional or financial, for so many years, and when she gets to her prime ages, she starts "exploring her body". In other words, being a worthless slag being pumped and dumped by Chads, gagging on their erect members as they push her head further into their penis, gargling their cum with joy, screaming for them to fuck her brains out while they press her head to the ground with their foot, her jumping on their 12 inch dongs as she calls them "daddy", catering to their every sexual whim to continue being with them, getting drunk in parties and gangbanging with total strangers... Being a worthless dishrag to be used and discarded, until the clock starts ticking and she gets with a beta cuckold to provide for her. This is the life of many "modern age" female.

My question is, how can so many of you normies be happy having a "western", a "modern" daughter after so many years of raising and caring for her selflessly? How can you not get sick seeing her turn into a slut for public use? How can you sit still and say "this is fine" while she's nothing more than a object for Chads to use and throw away like a cumrag? How can you accept her serial "monogamy", watching her jump from cock to cock? It makes me sick to my stomach. Answers are welcomed.

aleister bates #racist 12.107.40.67

They had a bust here not to long ago that netted 40 black street whores..and outta the 40 37 tested positive for aids!They're wiping their own selves out with their animalistic behavior and its predicted that in 30 years that 2/3 of the black race will have fallen to this disease.very promising news...i just hope the beaner numbers escalate as well.14/88

King_Martha #fundie leekyforums.com

The revolutionary analysis of decadent bourgeoisie culture has revealed certain pornographic tendencies to be highly progressive.

We are speaking, of course, about so called interracial cuckold porn.

This porn consists of a scenario where in which a bourgeoisie male AmeriKKKan laborer aristocrat is forced to watch his female property (wife) be raped, liberated by black ghetto proletarian.

How is this progressive, you may ask? To be sure, interracial cuckold porn promotes hyper sexualized racial stereotypes of African men and even seems to encourage rape as a positive phenomenon enjoyed by women.

However, a genuine Marxist analysis looks deeper. Interracial cuckold porn is in fact, entirely revolutionary. Cuckold porn is revolutionary, because it attacks white male patriarchal capitalist and its psycho sexual roots. Cuckold porn psychologically prepares the white bourgeoisie male for his own destruction and expropriation at the hands of Maoist third world-ist liberation forces.

Just as the white laborer aristocratic bourgeoisie of the worst world should go and surrender his property to the revolutionary third world proletariat, so the cuckolded white male should kneel and watch his female property (wife) be ravaged by big black cock which is her own secret desire for liberation.

The white master who raped and enslaved the colonial world for centuries is now in the world of Maoist third world-ism – raped and enslaved.

OctopusGun2 #sexist reddit.com

I've read on the internet and heard conversations IRL of normies about how their GFs won't make the first move, how they wish they one day would wake up to a blowjob without asking, etc...

And that's the result of not being good looking. I've got bad news for you normies but females do make the first move and aren't just "shy" or whatever you think it is.

They only make the first move (or even go as far as beg for sex) with Chad, ONLY. Because Chad is the only one who activates that animalistic urge in females because they have an attractive, masculine face.

HumanSockPuppet #sexist reddit.com

Good day, class. This will be a recap (and expansion) of my original guide to bitch management. In it, you will learn how to manage your bitch(es) by turning your relationship into a game she plays - winning prizes of intimacy for good behaviour, and getting punished with demotion or exile if she fails.
Additionally, this guide will also cover:

What it means to manage a bitch, and the challenges you will face
Why bitch management is ultimately YOUR responsibility
Relationship strategies for maximizing happiness and minimizing drama
How to turn those strategies into lasting positive lifestyle changes

This guide will begin with some basic theory, describing why men are the arbitrators of relationships. It will then establish some common definitions and lay the groundwork for the strategy section afterwards.
As you read this guide, bear in mind that it is a model, not an absolute treatise. You are free (and encouraged) to modify any part of it to suit you. But for the most part, the principles outlined here should be fairly universal.
We say AWALT for a reason.

Disclaimers:

1) In order to sustain a prosperous relationship with a girl, you MUST be comfortable with bossing her around - being a bonafide Patriarch™.
You don't have to be a master of your emotions yet. But at the very least, you must be willing to be firm with her, give her orders, and tell her "no", even against a flood of her tears.

Why? Because ultimately, women get their behavioural cues from men. Remember, women are children: mentally, behaviourally, evolutionarily. They are not like us. They don’t think like us, or have the same deep sense of personal responsibility.

Even the most sociopathic man will intuitively know when he has crossed a boundary and offended another man. Whether or not he feels guilty about it is a different issue, but he at least knows he’s done something wrong. Evolving this instinct was the key to a man’s ability to either strategically make enemies or avoid unwanted conflicts.

Women, on the other hand, evolved no such instinct. On the contrary, women evolved the instinct to push a man’s buttons as a way of testing his willingness to face conflict head-on (what we call shit-testing). A man who is willing to fight against her will also fight FOR her. Likewise, a man who caves before her will most certainly cave before his enemies.

This is why bossing her around is key. She is evolved to push the boundary by picking fights with you. So unless you are strict with your girl, she will become as selfish and insufferable as you let her get away with.

2) A long-term relationship CANNOT be your end goal. You can only be OPEN to the possibility of having one.
Men are the gatekeepers of relationships. Since a relationship is what you have to offer, you mustn’t just give it away. It must be a reward she earns in small doses for inspiring your trust and devotion.

I understand that many of you want a LTR with a good girl – sometimes a series of flings isn’t enough to fulfill you. Believe me, I sympathize.
But winning a LTR is HER problem, not yours. Handing a girl your devotion won’t magically make her worthy of it. When you WANT a LTR too badly, you place your focus on the idea of having a relationship instead of evaluating the girl. You become fixated on your fantasy relationship and selectively ignore the things happening right in front of you: her deep character flaws, her indiscretions, and the red flags.

You must regard women as candidates applying for the job of being your girlfriend – a supporter, a lover, a comfort away from the everyday battles. Don't just hire a bitch because you want the position filled. Make sure you vet your candidates fiercely and hire the right girl for the job.
This guide will help you do just that.

3) This guide will be far less effective if you’re already married.

As a man, your ONLY power in a relationship is the power to revoke your attention, validation, and your time by walking away – sometimes for good. It’s the only strategy you have, but it’s a potent one, and for a very specific reason:
You may want a woman, but women NEED you. The problem with marriage is that it strips you of the ability to completely walk away. Sure, you can still get a divorce, but not without shooting yourself in the foot, possibly losing your children and a significant portion of your hard-earned assets in the process.

Our current social climate is not amenable to marriage. If you’re already married, you have my condolences. If you’re not married but plan on it, then you’re a moron and you have no one to blame but yourself when your mistake comes back to bite you in the ass. And bite you it will.

Theory: The Fundamental Principle of Sex and Relationships

The Fundamental Principle states that women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men are the gatekeepers of relationships. You should be familiar with it by now. If not, educate your ass here.

Beyond a man's Relationship Gate lies a paradise that every girl wants to live in. It is a magical place where pickle jars are opened, spiders are squished, rides are given, appliances are fixed, cuddles are administered, encouragement is provided, and order is firmly established. And all of that requires a man’s time and effort.

As a man, your time and effort is your most valuable asset. You use it to get shit done – most often shit that’s related to Your Mission. When you give that time to someone else, it is a tremendous gift which should be appreciated and respected. This is the key principle behind bitch management. You must demand that a girl appreciate and respect your time.

Some men don’t demand respect for their time. They are too liberal with who they let through their Relationship Gate. They've got no border patrol, no review process. Just a country full of free benefits for anyone who crosses over. These are the beta-orbiters, and they are constantly beset by every vagrant vagina and panhandling pussy that bats its attached eyelashes.

Other men are too strict about admission. They only issue temporary sex visas, and they often deport women without notice. These are the uninterested lone-alphas, and they have chosen a lifestyle of banging and then flying solo. YOU, on the other hand, are open to a LTR with a bitch – IF she earns it.Managing your life and your bitches comes down to awarding her ONLY the time that she has earned. You can decide just how much of your time a bitch has earned by assigning her with a “rank”.


Definitions: An Overview of "Ranks"

We use a lot of terms for describing a relationship with a girl: girlfriend, fiancee, one-night stand (ONS), plate, friend-with-benefits (FWB), etc.
But what do these terms really mean?
From a male perspective, each term implies a different level of investment in the girl – an investment of time, effort, emotions, and other precious male resources. As such, they can be arranged as ranks in order of how much investment each term implies.

Here is a list of ranks we will use (along with working definitions) ordered from least to greatest:
Level 0: One-Night Stand -or- Pump and Dump. You throw a fuck into this girl and never see her again (unless she reaches out to you). It is a single encounter that is casual, sexual, and impersonal. You may or may not have met her before the encounter, and you may or may not even know her name. She is a one-time answer to a physical necessity - nothing more.
Requires no maintenance and a very low investment of time.

Level 1: Plate -or- Fuck Buddy. You have sex with this girl more than once. You will know her name and just enough about her life so you can schedule sexual encounters. You may also know a little bit about her personally, so you can help her rationalize being your fucktoy, assuming she's uncomfortable about the idea of being one. Otherwise, she's down with it and you're both satisfied with being casual. She is a temporary answer to a physical necessity.
Requires some maintenance and a low investment of time.

Level 2: Friends with Benefits. You have sex with this girl more than once - typically as often as mutual convenience allows, but perhaps even when it's not completely convenient for her (because she likes you enough to go out of her way). You also spend non-sexual time with this girl, like eating out or pursuing activities of mutual interest. You know more about her personal life, and she knows more about yours, and as a result the two of you exchange mutual, non-sexual favours from time to time. You will most certainly have good memories of non-sexual time spent with this girl, which will lead to positive emotional investment in her, making her more than just an answer to a physical necessity.
Requires moderate maintenance and a moderate investment of time.

Level 3: Significant Other -or- Girlfriend. The highest level of intimacy a girl can earn. You have sex with this girl often, usually more often than you do any of your other girls. You also spend a considerable amount of non-sexual time with this girl, resulting in many shared memories and a deeper emotional investment. At this level, there is significant mutual concern for the other's well-being. The girl in particular will feel a great dependence on your direct and involved guidance in her life (rather than simple stoicism and confidence). Emotions are strongly felt at this level: affection is especially sweet, and betrayal can be especially bitter.

Requires significant maintenance and a significant investment of time.

Strategy: How She Plays the Game

The game itself is quite simple:
A girl begins the game at Level 0 or Level 1, depending on the context in which you two met.
If you met in a club, or began as total strangers grinding against each other at a house party, she's Level 0.
If you two met in a slightly more sociable manner - perhaps introduced by mutual friends, or she impressed you with her pleasant demeanour after you opened her at the local cafe, she's Level 1. She can also bump up from Level 0 to Level 1 if she reaches out and maintains pleasant and reasonable contact with you after a casual sexual encounter.

From that point on, a girl must perform NON-SEXUAL services for you in order to advance in rank.
These services can include, but are not limited to:
Cooking you a healthy meal. Either at your place or by invitation to hers.
Treating you out some place. A restaurant or an activity of interest to YOU. Bonus points if you've never done the activity but it looks like fun - that means she's really thinking about you.

Buying you a well-thought-out gift. Not just a random thing, but a gift which demonstrates an effort to understand your life and interests (example: therapeutic shoe insoles for a guy who likes running, or high-quality ear buds for a music-lover). The accuracy of her insight is more important than the cost of the gift.

Hand-making you an artistic gift. These might include a picture or painting, a poem, a knitted scarf, a calendar of her photography, and the like. The more personalized the gift, the better. A hand-made gift doesn't have to be highly useful (since making useful things is tough), as long as the gift shows patience, diligence, and an attention to detail.

The greater her investment of time and effort in the gesture, the more credit she earns with you. Eventually, if she shows a consistent pattern of investing effort in you, she can advance in rank by one level.

As previously stated, a girl must invest time and effort in you in order to get your time and effort in return.

Why Do the Services Have to Be Non-Sexual?

Simple. Because a girl doesn't have to exert any effort at all to have sex. If she is attractive enough, all she needs to do to get sex is show up. Someone will fuck her if she makes herself available.
This game only rewards effort. You should also remember this: sex is the most fundamental pre-requisite of any non-platonic interaction between a guy and a girl. You'll never find yourself in a situation where a girl is giving you gifts and cooking you meals, but NOT having sex with you (unless you’re both a coward and too daft to read the signs). If sex isn't happening, then something is terribly amiss and you must either correct it or next her. Which brings us to our next section...

Strategy: Punishment and Demotion

There are many ways in which a girl can make a mistake and upset you. Maybe she starches your shirts too much, or she burns the dinner she was making for you. These kinds of mistakes should not be punished with demotion because, despite her mistake, she is investing time and effort in you. You can think of a suitable punishment and repayment for your lost shirt without going to the extreme of knocking her down a rank.
Instead, demotable offenses should be offenses that are an affront to your dignity, your authority, or to the time and effort you have invested in her.
Offenses can be intentional or unintentional.

Unintentional offenses will usually come in the form of some indiscretion on her part, as she slowly loses attraction for you, her conscious effort wanes, and she slips back into her natural hypergamous state.

Some examples of unintentional offenses are:
Unconsciously being too flirty with another guy (shit-test, can occur at any level).
Failing to keep an important promise (usually by neglect or poor-planning), the consequences of which cost you a substantial amount of money or ANY amount of reputation (failing of respect, this offense will happen at Level 2 or above, since you don't entrust these matters to girls below Level 2).
Neglecting some important duty that you have assigned to her (failing of respect, typically occurs at Level 3).

Frequency of sex decreases, and she absently evades when you try to initiate sex (loss of attraction, can occur at any level).
Committing an unintentional offense should typically result in the demotion of the girl by one (1) rank.
Intentional offenses are far more vulgar than their counterparts. Intentional offenses are usually targeted shit-tests meant to re-assess your fitness. In some extreme cases they might even occur in the presence of friends and family, making them vindictive attacks against your reputation or dignity.

Some examples of intentional offenses are:
Consciously flirting with another guy, trying to arouse jealousy in you (shit-test, can occur at any level).
Openly insulting you (shit-test, can occur at any level).
Frequency of sex decreases, and she consciously and vehemently evades when you try to initiate sex or talk about it (loss of attraction, can occur at any level).
Committing an intentional offense should result in the demotion of the girl by two (2) ranks. Committing a vindictive attack against your reputation should result in a loss of three (3) ranks.

Now, this next part is important, so pay attention:
Once a girl has been demoted, her current level becomes the maximum level she can ever be again. She can only climb the ladder as long as she is flawless in the execution of her womanly duties. Once she commits a serious offense, she is demoted, and she can never rise again.

Some examples of transgressions and appropriate punishments:
A plate (level 1) who fails to provide sex on demand drops one rank to level 0, and she is replaced by a plate who will.
A friend-with-benefits (level 2) who remorselessly loses your expensive digital camera drops one rank and becomes a plate forevermore.
A girlfriend (rank 3) who drunkenly humiliates you in front of your friends at a party drops three ranks to level 0, and you quietly disappear and move on.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. Permanent plate status? Walking away for good? Aren’t these punishments pretty severe?

In reality, the offenses outlined above will generally only occur for one of two reasons:
You’ve slipped up in your duties as a Red Pill man and her attraction for you is beginning to wane.
She doesn’t have the sense to recognize her unworthy behavior because of a failure of parenting that occurred long before you met her.
If it’s reason 1, then you’re at fault, and you’re better off starting from scratch with a new bitch then trying to salvage a relationship that’s on a downward slope. If it’s reason 2, then the girl was never worth your time to begin with, and you simply didn’t know it until now. You can’t turn a ho into a housewife, so don’t even bother trying to reform her.

In general, you must be uncompromising whenever you punish your bitch. Remember what we’ve already established: girls look to you for cues on what’s okay. If you don’t crack down on bad behavior when it happens, a girl’s only assumption is that you are perfectly okay with whatever she’s done. Hypergamy is selfish by nature, and it shows no mercy. Tough love is the only effective response.

There’s also another benefit to being ruthless: meting out uncompromising punishment helps to keep you in abundance mentality. An uncompromising approach helps you to avoid the risk of developing oneitis, and it prevents you from being manipulated by women who are all too good at tugging at your sympathy to get just one/two/five more chances.

Keep your life drama-free by dropping troublesome bitches. With so many eligible bachelorettes out there looking desperately for a strong man like you, no single one of them is worth your grief.

Strategy: Naturalizing the Process

As you learn the rhythm of using rewards and punishments to keep your bitch enthralled, you’ll develop an intuition for how to play your part of the game. The process will become second-nature to you. You’ll naturally become bored with women who fail to show you the proper appreciation, and gravitate towards the ones who make your life more pleasant.

That’s the ultimate goal here: to make you a natural. You’ll never say to your bitch “You’re a level 1 plate now!” or “You’re going down a rank for that shit!” This system is for YOU – so you can have an abstract model with which to understand the game, until managing bitches becomes as natural to you as breathing or blowing a load on her face.

Final Thoughts

The key trait of the modern western woman is her absolute lack of concern for the desires of men. Our cuckold state has all but replaced men as husbands and providers, and so it would seem like the traditional relationship is basically obsolete – that women will never again need to concern themselves with OUR wants. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Though a woman can subsist off the benefits paid for by our taxes, the government cannot give her the love, the attention, the stability, the masculine reassurance, and direct intervention that are so crucial to her emotional well-being. A woman feels vulnerable in a role of leadership, and she feels lost without a masculine leader to boldly claim responsibility for confronting all of the challenges that terrify her. No government can provide that for her. For that, she must come to us.

And for that, we must demand a price.

My hope is that this guide has helped you realize just how much leverage you have in the sexual dynamic – much more than you once thought. Let this guide help you to capitalize on that leverage – for the sake of your happiness, and for the happiness of any woman who works hard enough to earn your time and effort.

kidnet #fundie luelinks.net

[Also I am going to fucking stab the next person who calls natural selection random. If I have 100 mice, 50 white and 50 black, and I decide to kill off a white mouse every month and never touch the black ones, is it random chaos when in 10 years 95% of the mice are black?]

Start stabbing then. Take Zebras. If they all know that lions are killing them, why can't they just evolve wings and fly off when being chased?

Color isn't so much evolution. Black people are darker skinned than those who aren't in the sun all day.

TheIncelRepublic #racist #sexist incels.co

At this point I considering moving to Pakistan, Chechnya or Nigeria

What I have read is that these places are secret based utopias for subhumans. Pakistan for example, everything I read about it is very based, honor killings, traditional values, intelligent people are praised instead of thugs, cheap standard of living. In Chechnya, they kill faggots and lesbians and in Nigeria, they uphold religious values. These places are utopias compared to the west. Inb4, "but muh tHIrD World SHItHolE". That's what cuckolds, simps and (((them))) always say. They don't want you to flee to countries that actually work, they want you to embrace the degeneracy of the (((first world))). Getting drone striked is 1000x better than feminism and degeneracy. Shithole = Not embraced feminism

Shitty internet: Good, no social media for foids Shitty water: Cleaner than the (((estrogen))) they put in yours Shitty restaurants: Again no trans fats Shitty breathable air: Just live in the country side Benefits: Cheap standard of living, great communities, great cultures and no feminism.

There's Feminism and all that other degenerate crap you hate in Pakistan. Nigeria is literary a shit hole where the sun doesn't go down. And Chechnya... even if you convert to islam, it won't work unless you're fully loaded, or a full blown chad. People in Central Asia and Eastern Europe are pretty xenophobic.

Name better countries, go on. Anyways, I can always larp as a Chechan as I am an Arab muslim. Even if those countries have a little degeneracy, there are no where near as bad as the west. Even if I don't escape Inceldom, at least I will live in non cucked country. I don't care about shitholes, I just want no feminism or sexaul capitalism.

David J. Stewart #conspiracy jesus-is-savior.com

Literally, mad scientists are now creating new species in their laboratories, creatures that are part human and part whatever the scientist fancies to use. The Devil's hands have been busy! In recent years mad scientists have successfully genetically mixed the DNA of scorpions with cabbage, silk moths with potatoes, fish with tomatoes, glowing jelly fish with all sorts of mammals, cows with humans, goats with spiders, and God and Satan only know what else! Man is destined for self-destruction.

In the National Geographic article, one researcher has already tried to give mice human brains. The intended goal according to that scientist, who says he's “not a mad scientist,” is to study the human brain function. As actor Sam Neill (who plays Dr. Alan Grant) says in the Jurassic Park trilogy movie series, in part two, “Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions.” Tampering with genetics is one of the worst ideas in the history of bad ideas.

God knew what He was doing when He created the universe. Nothing is by chance or by accident. In a 2013 presentation titled, “How The Earth Was Made” by Walt Disney's H2 (History Channel), the narrator (Dirty Jobs star, Mike Rowe) refers to the earth's creation as an “Accidental Aftermath” and a “Cosmic Glitch.” In sharp contrast, the inspired Holy Bible says in Genesis 1:31, “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” God saw that His creation was “VERY GOOD.” There are no coincidence or accidents with God. Yet, as insane as it may seem, mad scientists think they can IMPROVE on God's creation. This is because they are Godless scientists and do not accept the Holy Bible. Judgment day is coming for all mankind (Hebrews 9:27).

Visions of all manner of freakish creatures come to mind from various films; such as, Spiderman; and H.G. Wells novel, The Island of Dr. Moreau; Jurassic Park; The Thing; and Frankenstein. Chimeras themselves are defined as a Greek mythological creatures. The Egyptian Sphinx (half man and half lion) is an example of a type of Chimera. The Greek mythological character, Medusa, part woman and part snake, was a Chimera. Until modern science, Chimeras were only a thing of the wild human imagination and tales of folklore. Today, Chimeras are a frightening reality. A startling 150 such Chimeras were produced in European labs in recent years, shocking the world.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

[I'm honestly impressed with how much of a soft-focus lens Price manages to put on what is basically Marxist-Rodgerism]

One of the most common epithets hurled at men by feminists, and probably the most genuinely hurtful, is that men are upset at women because they are bitter about being unloved. The reason this one hurts more than the typical “small penis” or “mother’s basement” insult is because it is so often accurate to some extent. The best insults always hit a weak spot. It’s true that many men are very bitter about loss of love, betrayal or lack of attention from women. This is why some pick up artists have such commercial success with their ventures, and why men flock to gurus who say they hold the secrets to a woman’s heart.

Actually, if these cruel women only knew, it goes a lot farther than mere heartbreak. The abandonment of men in contemporary society is so comprehensive that a man who has lost a wife or lover not only suffers from the loss of that deep personal connection, but from a fairly comprehensive rejection by society in general. First you lose your wife, then your kids, and then even your own family turns against you in many cases (this is a lot more common than most people realize — American men’s own mothers very often blame them and side with the ex in what is usually a futile effort to maintain contact with the grandchildren). The thrashing you get from the police and courts is just gratuitous abuse; in many cases guys are simply numb to additional pain by that time.

So, yes, these are bitter, unloved men. They are hated and they know it, although many have no clear idea why. They think to themselves “I’m not a criminal… I never hurt anyone… How could this happen to me?” Some can’t handle it. There are many suicides that simply don’t make the news. In a small minority of cases, they snap, and then there’s the “domestic disturbance” situation that has become so routine these days in which a police gunman puts the man out of his misery, as though he were a rabid dog. However, in most cases the men simply accept their doleful fate and live their miserable lives.

I was one of those miserable, unloved men for some time. But not entirely. Circumstance gave me a considerable amount of time with my kids when my ex decided to make her move. She left just as she obtained a good job thanks to my promise to work part-time and take care of the children while she trained for it, and she didn’t want to pay for daycare, so she proposed and received a parenting plan that had me caring for them much of the time she was working. Although being abandoned without any warning was devastating, my children never abandoned me, and despite the horror of separation I had them almost half time. All it took to snap me out of the most morbid thoughts was the sound of my kids’ voice, or the thought of them growing up and wondering why daddy did such a selfish thing as to leave them.

But if it weren’t for that time with my kids, I would have been totally, utterly alone. When I didn’t have them I had no desire for human contact. I really felt that the only people in the entire world who cared about me at all were my little children, aged one and three at the time. I suppose I digress a little here, but I can’t help feel that they were little angels, even if I did have to change their diapers and wipe food off their faces after every meal.

For men who don’t even have that, it’s almost unimaginable. It’s such a shockingly horrible experience that I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, yet here we have feminists taunting men for feeling unloved. And still we have people whining about “misogyny.” Young feminists whose most important concern is the ability to have sex entirely free of consequences, and who shamelessly raise their voices for the right to kill their children in the womb. Lesbian gender feminists who wreck families for profit and sex. Male feminists who boast about fathering children and shuffling their responsibilities onto some duped cuckold, and who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls.

All that said, men have every right to be angry, and righteously so. But deep down, I think what most of them want is far simpler and more benign than revenge or some political payback. They want some love, some security and the opportunity to be a part of a family. They want to grow old with a woman who is true to them, and to see their children grow tall and strong. It doesn’t always come out that way, and there are those who have rejected the idea entirely, but it’s an ideal that I think most men would agree is worth some effort, if not for themselves then for a better society in general.

So, I’d like to say to the feminists out there that yes, there are men who are bitter and sad about being unloved. Yes, it is often why they malign women, and it isn’t always a pretty thing. But if you really take pleasure in people’s loneliness and despair, you’ve got a cold, dead heart, and no reason to be proud of yourself. Instead of waxing triumphant about unfortunate men’s loneliness and misery, why not work for a world in which everyone can feel loved? Are you woman enough to do that?

Andrew Anglin #sexist dailystormer.name

[From "Consent Theory on Steroids: Harvey Weinstein Sentenced to TWENTY-THREE YEARS IN PRISON"]

This is it, kids.

You can now be sentenced to decades in prison for having sex with your girlfriend, if years afterwards she decides to say that one of the hundreds of times you had sex, she didn’t “consent.”

This is such abject lunacy that I’ve failed to fully process it. I’m trying, but trying to fit this into my brain is a square peg in a round hole type situation.

I am absolutely unable to grasp how this is real life.

Daily Mail

Harvey Weinstein did not apologize to his victims but said he felt remorse for the men and women in the #MeToo fight before he was sentenced to 23 years in prison for sex crimes in a landmark case that ended with his accusers sobbing and hugging each other in court.

[...]

Just in case you forgot, both of those women admit to having “consensual” sex with him after this “non-consensual” sex took place.

This entire concept of “consent” is now on par with the mystery of the sphinx.

[...]

Harvey Weinstein has become a martyr.

He literally did nothing wrong.

Women deserve to be drowned in cages.

[...]

[...]

Looking back during the trial at emails he exchanged with his accusers, he said he thought they had a good friendship.

‘I’m not going to say these aren’t great people. I had wonderful times with these people,’ he said.

Yeah and I’m sure they had great times with you Harvey – when you literally fulfilled every aspect of the bargain you made with them.

Or rather: that they made with you.

Never forget: these women came to Harvey Weinstein, because he was a powerful man. They offered sex to him in exchange for professional favors. He gave them the professional favors.

Then these filthy whores decided to claim that he “raped” them – in-between sessions of non-rape sex.

[...]

Retards and faggots and retarded faggots are saying “yeah but Harvey Weinstein is a grotesque Jew so he deserves this.” These people are apparently too dumb to understand the obvious fact that this is the entire point of this whole circus: you had to have a grotesque figure that disgusted everyone in order to set this precedent.

They literally passed out pictures of the guy naked to the jury, even though it had absolutely nothing at all to do with the case.

[...]

I don’t know what to tell you.

This is the situation that we are now all in.

Jew lawyers are all now going nuts saying that they’re going to start mass prosecuting new cases they couldn’t prosecute before.

[...]

What that means is that right now, as you sit here reading this, any woman you have ever had sex with can call the cops and have you sent to prison. She can have you sent to prison for twenty-three years. Based on absolutely nothing other than her word.

Existence itself is becoming nonviable.

#FreeHarvey

Robert Lindsay #racist robertlindsay.wordpress.com

Only Whites have adopted environmentalism, animal rights, anti-racism, multiculturalism, women’s rights, gay rights, etc. That is, everything we hold dear. Probably only Whites are civilized enough to break up a country without massacring each other in a manner that should shame the basest of lower animals in the process. Hopefully, a post on this in the future.

This is why the White Nationalist movement always seemed to be so strange to me in its hatred for liberalism, but this article sheds some light on the reasons for that.

One of the things that I think is so great about White people is how liberal we are, how we founded and led all of the major liberal movements all over the world, and how we are presently probably the most tolerant and altruistic ethnic group on Earth. Sure this is a recent development, but so what?

White-created liberalism has been exported to much of the rest of the world, where in general it has found little favor, though things are improving somewhat.

White men treat women better than any other ethnic group on Earth, and what do we get for it but flying crockery and kicks to the balls.

Whites treat gays better than any society on Earth, but the gay rights movement is part of the White-hating Left.

Nowhere on Earth is the environmental movement more cultivated and altruistic than among Whites. What other ethnic group on Earth would deign to save bugs, beetles, weeds, minnows, field mice and flowers? There is not one.

The PC Movement, horrible as it is, has some positive aspects. For one, it is incredibly altruistic. PC must be one of the most altruistic movements on Earth. It is so altruistic that is nearly insane, and this is why it arouses such contempt among sane people.

Like Christianity, it asks us to be better than most of us are capable of being. Like Christianity, it arouses the rage of those of us who cannot be as good as these ideologies demand of us. Our moral failings shame us, and in rage we lash out at the ideology that demanded of us such rectitude.

The article is also correct that welfare probably only works in a racially homogeneous society, otherwise it turns into ethnic warfare and/or a spoils system.

That many liberals, socialists, Communists, etc. of the past were also White racists is little known. This is more to be mourned than to be lauded.

various tumblrers #sexist asians4whitebulls.tumblr.com

(ingtld)
She, like all the other asian girls you know, has only ever dated and had sex with white men. You know that most of your male asian friends must be virgins like you although you never discuss it. They do however often complain about asian girls being sluts. That’s kind of dumb in your opinion because you know for a fact your sister has been faithful to her boyfriend since the beginning, just like every other asian girl you know.
Sometimes the talk gets very racist. You make a half hearted attempt to fit in but you usually keep quiet. They’re so full of anger and frustration but all you feel is turned on and embarassed. You’re reminded of all the white male asian female porn you’ve watched. For you porn is asian girls taking white cock. You like white girls too, obviously, but your fantasies about your sister always require you to switch back to asian girls when you need to cum.
You can’t say what you really think to your friends. You’d like to use all the same arguments you’ve used online but you know that would be a crazy thing to do. They’d think you were gay or some kind of cuckold. No, it all has to stay a secret.
You spend a lot of time promoting interracial sex between asian girls and white men on the internet. You have several blogs on different platforms. Of course some white guys are behind the posts, and some asian girls and even white girls too, but you know the majority of material is produced by asian boys like yourself. The idea that asian girls should only be cummed inside by white men is so powerful and important to you. Yes, it’s about fulfilling your own sexual fetish of course, but it’s more than that. It just feels like it’s the right thing to do for so many reasons.
You’re caught between the lustful belief that asian girls should never be with asian boys and logical knowledge that there should always be a large pool of pure asian girls for white men to own. You suppose there are plenty of asians in their own highly populated countries so it doesn’t matter if asian girls in western countries go white only. That’s a sensible solution. It’s ok for asian boys like yourself and your friends to stay virgins. You wonder if any of them use that thought to cum.

(cantfightnature)
It’s more than a fetish. It’s reality. It’s destiny. It’s nature.

(asians4whitebulls)
Time to face reality that all your Asian women belong to us white cocks and encourage all the girls you know to go white only. Yes little boy, that includes your own mother, sisters and friends.
To all the females, if you haven’t went white yet, then what are you waiting for? Your life is without purpose until you’ve been with a white cock and then you will truly understand.
Message me if you need help turning your women over to white cock or submitting your pussy to white cocks.

(asianwhore4white)
If my brother can send me to a white family…

ToxicPersonality #dunning-kruger #elitist incels.co

RE: [Blackpill] Avoidant personality disorder is not a disorder, it's a response to a hostile misandric society.

Many of us have at one point been fine socializing with people, especially before puberty, it's only after we got bullied and shit on for being incels that we avoid people. Calling it avoidant personality "disorder" is a psy op to trick incels into going out in public so they can get shit on by normies.

Idk. Alot of us just have minds that are beyond the scope of norman society. I regularly see people that i would classify as objectively uglier than me but that are integrated into soyciety (although in a sexless fashion). Theres more to it than a pure looks scale when it comes to being in or out in this twisted game. You need to lack an awareness of trends and underlying currents that opporate within everyones minds, things that as blackpilled incels we naturally percieve. Being able to say and do the right things at key times does not magically come from having sex. It comes from having a low level form of conciousness where the person operates at a mere animalistic level and does not possess the capability to think beyond fitting in and feeling right.

Jacob Harrison #fundie forums.fstdt.net

This is the most important post on this site. God has given me new wisdom on things such as Joan of Arc, Roman Catholicism, and who the rightful heir to the throne of England is. This is so important that it should also be quoted on Fstdt so that the people who know me there will see the important news and I pray that it shall be used to get you all to convert to the correct denomination of Christianity.

So I have been studying the case of Joan of Arc and have realized that her trial was one sided, in violation of Church law and unfair and that Joan of Arc genuinely believed that her visions from God were real. Nevertheless I was still pondering why the Catholic Church thinks that God used her to help save France in the Hundred Year War. After all, the Plantegenet monarchs had a greater legitimate claim to the throne of France than the French Valois monarchs. Why would God want to intervene in a war that was not started for religious reason?

Besides the evil King Phillip IV of France was the one who falsely accused the Holy Monastarial Order, the Knights Templar, of heresy as an excuse to confiscate their money and had them arrested and burned at the stake. The Catholic Church today recognizes that the charges were false and that the Pope lived in Avignon France and was therefore unable to stop what happened.

And during the Western Schism from 1378 to 1417, it was England that was on the side of the legitimate Roman Popes and France that was on the side of the Avignon antipopes.

So why again, would God chose Joan of Arc to liberate France from the English?

Well I have done more research into English history and and specifically the time period from 1135 to 1154 known as the anarchy. King Henry I’s only legitimate son William Adelin died in a shipwreck accident in 1120, so he nominated his daughter Matilda as his heir. However after his death in 1135, the corrupt nobles decided to crown Henry’s nephew Stephen King causing a civil war ending in a treaty in 1153 where Matilda’s son Henry Plantagenet was named his successor and succeeded Stephen as Henry II.

That means that Edward III’s misogynist decree in 1376 that limited succession to male heirs, was a change in the fundamental laws of England. This means that the Yorkist claim to the throne was more legitimate than the Lancasterian claim.

So during the time of Joan of Arc, King Henry VI on the branch of the illegitimate Lancasterian userpers was King of England at that time. He was also a child at that time, so England was under the control of various corrupt regents, and the clergy was corrupt at that time. That must be the reason why God had Joan of Arc save France from being in their corrupt hands even if it meant it being put in the hands of the House of Valois.

So because of that, I converted back to Roman Catholicism and today after Mass, I did a major confession today to my priest for my apostasy and masterbations I did when I left Roman Catholicism. It was the Yorkists that were the rightful heirs to the English and French thrones, not the Lancasterians.

You might think that because Edward IV’s daughter Elizabeth of York married King Henry VII, it means the line of York continues through the descendants of Henry VII. Well actually, Tony Robinson’s documentary Britain’s Real Monarch, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7DCasz6oeL4, exposes that Richard of York, the first Yorkist claimant to the throne was cuckolded and Edward IV was not his son. Because of that, George Plantagenet Duke of Clarence and his decendants should have inherited the throne. That might be why George rebelled against Edward IV. Following Primogeniture under Common Law, this Australian aristocrat is the rightful heir to the thrones of England and France. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Abney-Hastings,_15th_Earl_of_Loudoun

So I pray for you all to convert to Roman Catholicism so you can enjoy the paradise of heaven instead of being in hell which the chief punishment is eternal separation from God which is not cruel or unusual like the horrific false doctrine of literal fire and brimstone that the Protestants teach.

iTheorize #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Theory] Could "Neuromods" be a solution ?

Let's start from the beginning, "What's a Neuromod ?" Neuromod : a device that changes brain circuitry in order to give one new abilities or change their behavior or even repair the brain . If you don't want to watch the video, what is worth noting is that Neuromods are more rooted in reality than you think and it's part of a field called "Optogenetics" which an experimental research field primarily conducted on mice (with hints that it might move on to humans) .

The Point: If Neuromods can be real one day, what if there were to be one that could end your sexual attraction to foids and craving for validation and physical and emotional intimacy altogether ? I'm not talking about just being asexual I'm talking about no longer needing foids physically nor emotionally , wouldn't that be neat ? You would no longer suffer from Skin Hunger and Sexual Frustration, you would be free of your biological shackles, what do you brocels think?

Cucked. I would install perfect aim ability neuromod and buy some guns (in dota 2)

Lol, I get that you're joking but aside from hating and being violent towards foids, I just want a solution to my problem (and our problem in general) tbh .

”Yes. Transhumanism can solve all of our problems from inceldom and depression, to terrorism, poverty and the lack spriituality.”

just lol at this.God is the one that gives you his presence,not some random machine.it's easy to think that way,so i don't blame you.

I fully respect your beliefs brocel, but I personally believe in science, Neuromods are a bit of a drastic measure, but we all know that women and society are impossible to reason with, I'd personally rather have a Neuromod that eliminates any need I have for women rather than go do drugs to numb the pain, besides I have scientific aspirations and dreams I'd like to accomplish.

Supersport #fundie talkrational.org

you dopes never learn, do you....when are you going to learn to not doubt me?

http://www.nutrition2success.com/information/cats.php


If you do a little research on the subject you will learn that they used to do REAL science back in the good ole days before Darwinism was such a mainstream kook religion that was not to be questioned. Anyway, Dr. Pottenger did an experiment on cats that lasted many years and many generations whereby he took different groups of cats, feeding one group healthy foods such as raw meat, while the other he fed cow's milk and cooked meat, both of which had had any good nutrients and enzymes cooked out of them. As you will see in the above link, the cats placed on the crummy diet, within just a few generations developed all kinds of heritable diseases, anxiety, behavioral problems, eye problems, and all kinds of other problems including: Increasingly abnormal activities occurred between the same sexes

If science was worth a cotton-picking penny they'd be doing all kinds of these types of experiments on animals like rodents or cats or whatever to validate or invalidate the findings of Dr. Pottenger...(which, incidentally have already been verified by another scientist (forgot his name) who had many of the same results with mice. But the problem is, today's science is full of pigs who don't know how to do real science....they don't know how to do any experiment that might contradict their dingbat, non-intellectual theory that says everything we see around us just happened to form because it popped up by dumb chance in the right place, at the right time and in the right conditions so that the organism got laid more than others, with absolutely no evidence to back up such a wild and goofy hypothesis.

(Referring to an earlier post by same guy: http://fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=50098)

some incels #sexist reddit.com

When you take over the institutions, the real agenda comes out.

image

(Dingus_Incel)
Ever since the rise of Trump the far left in the West have pretty much revealed themselves for what they truly are. I'm not a huge Trump fan and have a lot of problems with him. But I'm glad his presence started panicking the elites so much they played their entire hand and just admitted what they have always wanted to do.

Feminism really was about female supremacy, racial equality was just anti-white, atheism was just anti-Christian, they really do want some type of weird quasi-socialst economy and open borders. They do genuinely have disdain for the West and its people and want to replace them. I used to think it was all a nonsense conspiracy but I was disappointed to find out there was a lot more truth to the "globalist agenda" than I thought.

(fuckbitchesman)
Liberals, feminists, SJWs and leftist media hate Trump so that's all the reason I need to support him.

(incelicious)
Well, foids are worth trillions to the economy the way they spend. And not only do they spend their own money, but they spend the money of all the men around them and the government’s money. Of course corporations are pushing for feminism. Men tend to save their money and invest, not blow it on handbags and vagina cream

(notreallymuch)
Feminism is more about female and Chad supremacy. They wouldn't like to see Chad losing his supremacy.

(homey-dont-play-dat)
Desdain for the west is so illogical, they are part of the west. Only thing I can think of are the zionist jews who want revenge on white europe for the holocaust. So they used all their influence to social engineer the west for the past 80 years. But that doesn'to make sense as well. George Soros admitted he sought out and delivered Jews to be registered and or deported. Many Zionists aren't even Jews. The Zionist Jews are mainly white Europeans and Czech. The rich Zionists were never at harm because they could buy their way to Israel when Hitler needed money to fund his war. Only thing I can think of are the zionist jews who just want to create chaos for the sake of chaos. Of from which "can arise zion". They are sick.

(incelicious)
She’s right. Let’s define feminism for what it really is: a movement by sub8 women to make 8+/10 Chads available to them, while making sub8 men better and more cuckolded orbiters, and wishing for the genocide of sub5 men.

(throwawayirl3)
To date, I haven't met a self-defined feminist that didn't get salty when I refused to call myself a feminist even though I made it clear I believe in equality.

Now I see why.

(The_Indigo_Man)
Well yeah obviously everyone deep down knows feminism is nothing more than an ideology based on female supremacy, entitlement and empowerment. Feminism is no different to ISIS. There primary end goal is to eventually begin cutting men's heads off.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Evolutionary psychology predicts that a man will love a woman he regularly has sex with, who lives with him and that he lives with and will be inclined to look after her welfare, which is not necessarily the same thing as doing what she wants. He will do what he thinks is good for her, and make her do what he thinks is good for her, even if she wants something different. Because one flesh. Taking care of her is taking care of her capacity to bear him children and raise his children.

It does not predict that she will love him all that much, since Gnon wants resources transferred from men to women, and from parents to children, but it does predict that she will obey him, respect him, and physically desire him, in order that he can take care of her and the children they have together.

That is how it supposed to work.

If, however, she is someone else’s wife, or is staying with her family rather the joining with him to form a new family, thus someone else is going to be looking after his kids by her, maybe the state is going to be taking care of her and he is just passing through, then evolutionary psychology predicts romantic love, that he will flatter her and do whatever she wants, no matter how foolish, unreasonable, and self destructive, as Lancelot treated Guinevere.

So, evolutionary psychology predicts that males will primarily experience romantic love in the case of adultery, and to a lesser extent in casual fornication. It predicts that they they will experience the love that a husband bears his wife after they have been living together and having sex for a while. And that women will tend to be at best good wives, rather than in love with their husbands. The wife who craves the seed of a man more alpha than her husband says

“I do not love my husband any more, therefore it is OK for me to service this rock musician and his biker roadies”

but women never love men all that much. They are not supposed to. They are supposed to respect, honor, obey, and desire their husbands.

Thus, the second mention of sexual love in the bible: Rebekah meets Isaac, explains herself. “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” The first mention of sexual love in the bible on the other hand has love and romance preceding sex and marriage instead of following sex and marriage – and things go badly wrong.

Romantic love was celebrated by the troubadours, and as depicted by the troubadours, was always adulterous love. King Arthur’s wife Guinevere desired Lancelot, and had sex with him, and Lancelot romantically loved Guinevere, King Arthur’s wife. In consequence Lancelot does lots of stupid humiliating self sacrificing things that prove his enormous burning love, Guinevere acts like an arrogant depraved obnoxious spoiled slut bitch, the fellowship of the Round Table breaks up, Camelot is defeated, and everyone gets killed.

This makes sense for maximizing reproductive fitness. Crazy destructive passion in order to cuckold other men, calm, gentle, firm, nurturing affection for one’s own family. Romance is what the troubadours depicted with alarming accuracy.

Romance is defect/defect equilibrium. Lancelot believes he is sacrificing himself for Guineverein in a Christlike fashion, and the troubadours believed he was sacrificing himself for Guinevere in a Christlike fashion, but in fact he is maximizing his Darwinian genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else. Guinevere also behaves badly to both Lancelot and to her husband King Arthur because she is maximizing her genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else.

Guinevere and King Arthur are in a defect/cooperate relationship. King Arthur is cooperating with Guinevere, by looking after her, and cooperating with Lancelot, in that Lancelot gets benefits as a knight of the fellowship of the Round table, while Lancelot and Guinevere are defecting on King Arthur.

King Arthur, of course, finds out, and Camelot gets defect/defect. Everyone is much worse off, and Camelot falls. That is Romance.

Sexual love is a bad thing except inside the confines of marriage. Men are supposed to have sex first and love later, and women are not really supposed to love men all that much at all. Nowhere in the bible are we told of women loving their husbands, and Guinevere treats both Lancelot and King Arthur very badly. We are, however, fairly frequently told in the bible of women seeking the love of their husbands.

If a woman thinks she is love, she is lying to get some alpha cock. Perhaps lying to herself because all the books she reads and all the movies and television shows she watches tell her that romantic love justifies and purifies every kind of horrible bad behavior. In reality, women are never in love all that much, rather they experience desire for love and sex, which they confuse with love when they proceed to do bad things in pursuit of this desire. Rather than loving a man, a woman desires to be loved by a man. If a man is in romantically in love with a woman whom he is not living with and having regular sex with in his own bed, he is crazy or evil.

What is the Red Pill?

It is the practical and applied knowledge of the Dark Enlightenment, the bad news about how the world really is, and especially and particularly the bad news about the nature of women. The Dark Enlightenment is science and the Red Pill is engineering. There is a certain cynical ruthlessness about the Red Pill. You are told how to use it against other people, and how to protect yourself from other people. Much seemingly virtuous and altruistic behavior, like the behavior of Lancelot towards Guinevere, is revealed to be foolish or, more commonly, wicked and dangerous. Even virtue is reduced to pragmatic self interest – virtue is trying to get into and maintain cooperate/cooperate relationships – as distinct from pretending to virtue in order to get into defect/cooperate relationships. Also, virtue is developing one’s own excellence, as for example lifting iron, or perfecting social skills.

What is the Blue Pill?

It is the official truth about the way the world supposedly works, and particularly and especially the official truth about the nature of women. If women were really the way that the blue pill says they are, then the behaving towards women the way that progressives say you are supposed to behave would work. Unfortunately, the way you are supposed to behave fails, and fails horribly badly with utterly disastrous consequences.

What is the Purple Pill?

It is an attempt to reconcile Red Pill truths with Blue pill morals: “Not All Women are Like That”. It is an attempt to avoid the most grossly self destructive behavior commanded by the Blue Pill, while still accepting that Blue Pill behavior is wise and virtuous behavior, rather than foolish, destructive, self destructive, and evil behavior. It is an attempt to reconcile with reality while remaining virtuous as Blue Pillers see virtue. But Blue Pill “virtues” are like Lancelot’s love for Guinevere: They are evil in themselves, and manifestations of evil. It was wrong for Lancelot to love Guinevere, as much wrong as it was wrong for Guinevere to have sex with Lancelot. Not only is it unwise to be the equal of your wife, it is also wicked. It is your job to supervise and discipline your wife, and some women, not all of them, not most of them, but quite a lot of them, sometimes need to be physical disciplined. You are wicked if you are not prepared to physically discipline your wife and your children in the unfortunate case that the necessity should occur.

What is the Black Pill?

The Black Pill is despair at the sad and cynical truths of the Red Pill, and the belief that we are doomed, that we as individuals shall not know a good sexual and family relationship, that we shall have few or no great grandchildren, that our race shall perish, that our homelands will be flooded by hostile angry sullen low IQ aliens who live on crime, welfare, and voting for the left, who get violent at microaggressions, that our civilization will die, overrun like Detroit and Salisbury by savages incapable of operating civilization.

What is the White Pill?

Deus Vult: That we will be victorious. That those of us that are lucky and strong will create proper families, that we will have love and grandchildren, that we will save our civilization and conquer the enemies of our civilization. That the able will rule over their inferiors, and men will rule over women, as is right for us to do.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

The trouble with Rotherham is not that white girls were raped and beaten, but that Muslims get exemption to be manly as women understand manliness, and whites and Hindus do not.

The Rotherham girls were raped, threatened, and beaten all right, but they were also complicit in the violence.

For the most part, the pimp, rather than aggressively forcing his women into prostitution by the threat or actuality of violence, is aggressively, but unsuccessfully, attempting to restrain them from prostitution by the threat or actuality of violence, and to the extent that he goes along with their prostitution, is just being the dancing monkey, pretending to be in charge so as to retain some tattered shreds of manliness despite being massively cuckolded.

Human female sexuality is closer to feline female sexuality than to chimpanzee female sexuality. Apes are primarily vegetarians, but we are descended from killer apes. Even when sex involves quite dangerous violence against women plus infanticide and plenty of it, as it rather often does, human females are massively complicit in that violence and infanticide. The women that pimps go through the motions of oppressing are topping from the bottom, and pimps are more accurately understood as the cucked and oppressed victims of lustful bawdy women.

Prostitution is frequently in substantial part an alarmingly enthusiastic and endlessly continuing search for a male who is alpha as women understand alpha – which manliness and alpha character is in substantial part is demonstrated by criminal violence against women and children and being able to get away with violence against women and children.

Even when sex involves a lot of violence against women and children, as it often does, it is the pimps that are the real victims, being brutally cucked by their lustful women.

If a girl is being sexually trafficked, there is absolutely no way the pimp can stop her from wandering off with one of her customers, and whores do this with great regularity. The client is trying to “rescue” the girl from prostitution and her brutal pimp and human trafficker, but she then tries to turn him into a pimp and cuckold. Hence the saying:

“You can take the girl out of the bar, but you cannot take the bar out of the girl.”

Reality is that all the power is in the hands of the whores, not the pimps, which deeply frustrates the women, who are endlessly searching for manly power and authority in all the wrong places, and not finding it. Everyone gets hurt, no one gets their desires fulfilled.

The Democrats prefer to import Jihadis, criminals, and whores. Jihadis and criminals because they can be relied upon to vote Democratic, whores because they will become cat ladies who can be relied upon to vote Democratic. As a rationalization for importing whores, they implemented the “blue campaign”, which defined illegal immigrant whores to be victims of human trafficing, which the government proceeded to “rescue”.

The purported “victim-centered approach” – as opposed to criminal-focused prosecutions – was mostly a fraud-enabling way in the spirit of asylum/refugee fraud to give a bunch of illegal alien women yet another zero-scrutiny way to claim a victim status that was a free and quick golden ticket to a green card. Cf: U Visas). “Some evil man trafficked my humanness here and took all my documents which are totally from a country that is both unable and unwilling to cooperate with your investigators.”)

Men who come here to kill us and take our stuff will reliably vote Democratic, and women who are whores will remain single, and thus reliably vote Democratic.

Hence the striking and conspicuous preference for importing criminals, Jihadis, and whores.

Two incidents with a woman:

I protected her.

We were walking along a little used path in a semi rural area when a dog charged us barking furiously. She would have run, in which case the dog would have done a large circle around me and attacked her (a barking dog always wants to attack from behind) so I tightened my grip on her, and turned to face the dog while sweeping her behind me like a sack of potatoes and prepared to strike at the dog with my free hand and with one foot. The dog, seeing my focused immobility, the steady predator gaze of the tiger in ambush, abruptly spun around, tucked its tail between its legs, and fled.

Heh, I thought. Massive display of protective manliness. She is going to remember this fondly.

Wrong!

Wrong again!

She totally and completely forgets it.
I endangered her:
“Why”, I ask, “are we at the kiddy pool?”
“I cannot swim”, she replies.

I pick her up.

“Hey, put me down”, she screams. She then realizes that I carrying her off to the adult pool. Her screaming redoubles.

She then realizes that I am carrying her off to the deep end of the adult pool, and realizes I am going to throw her into it. She screams and struggles.

I am doing this in front of her family, in front of several male members of her family. The trip from the kiddy pool to the deep end of the adult pool requires me to walk past the security guy, who is responsible for order and safety.

I am old and at that time was rather fat. She is young and slim. I am walking very briskly, so, obvious sexual predator forcibly abducting screaming young girl, or at least a guy being disorderly and endangering safety. To avoid triggering his white knight impulses, I totally ignore him, and keep my gaze steady on my destination, so I don’t know how he reacted. As usual, when I act with confidence and determination, as I have learned to do in the presence of fertile age women, no one gets in my way.

I toss her in, shortly thereafter get laid like a rug.

I really do not like violence against women all that much. The incident with the dog was way more in accord with my sexual fantasies. Truth is, I had been warned there was a dangerous and aggressive dog in that area. I had no way of knowing for sure that I would be able to intimidate it or defeat it, but was confident I could. I have plenty of experience with dangerous and aggressive dogs. Dogs, like humans, can tell if you are seriously considering killing them and think you might be able to accomplish it. It was totally a setup to give effect to my sexual fantasies. But I am a dancing monkey, and I do what it takes to get laid. Eggs are dear, sperm is cheap, so male fantasies do not matter, and female fantasies do matter. That is just the way the world is. Women do not particularly want protection, and are disinclined to cooperate with males who protect them. The early James Bond movies reflect male fantasies. Female fantasies involve motorcycle gang leaders, vampires, demons, and serial killers, and men have no alternative but to play along. I must dance, and women call the tune.

The Rotherham problem was not Muslims out of control, but women out of control. The cure is not to restrain Muslims, but to restrain women.

For women to reproduce successfully, they have to be under male authority, and in the modern world, they look for that authority and do not find it.

Female behavior makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology when you reflect that the barista with an advanced degree in women’s studies and one hundred thousand dollars in college debt will probably become a cat lady, but if Islamic State was militarily victorious, and auctioned her off naked and in chains at public auction, would probably have seven children and twenty grandchildren.

It also makes total sense if you take the story of the fall seriously. It is the curse of Eve. “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

It also makes sense of female voting behavior. Single women have no country. They want us to be conquered, they want their male kin to be castrated, so they can finally get into the possession of someone strong enough to own them.

Whenever someone talks about rape in the sense of the female not consenting, implying it is perfectly fine and completely normal if she has sex without her father consenting, or engages in serial monogamy, he is normalizing a morally degenerate male fantasy that fails to correspond to observed female revealed preference.

Women perceive protective manliness as something as natural as the sun rising in the east, and aggressive male dominance as an extraordinary gift from heavens to be adored and worshiped.

Which makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology, since aggressive male dominance is likely to result in being auctioned off naked and in chains, followed by seven children and twenty grandchildren, while protective manliness is likely to result in becoming a cat lady.

Female sexual autonomy results in defect/defect equilibrium, the equilibrium of whores and pimps. Nobody gets what they want. Queen Gwenevere cheats on King Arthur with Lancelot, King Arthur finds out, Camelot falls because of internal disunity, and everyone gets killed.

Protective manliness that protects the sexual autonomy of women, protective manliness that protects Queen Gwenevere’s sexual autonomy, is not only unappreciated by women, but is white knighting, is wicked, evil, and morally degenerate. The curse of Eve is that women should not have sexual autonomy, and endlessly look for a man strong enough to take it away from them.

Be that man.

In order to reproduce successfully, women need to be conquered and subdued. Her owner can then safely invest in her. With female sexual autonomy he cannot, so he does not. Her bearing children for her owner, means her holding hostages against him, thus cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

Various Incels #sexist #pedo incels.co

(Total Imbecile)

[SuicideFuel] [Teenlovepill] This is what the average teenager is doing and what we will never experience

Me (17f) and my boyfriend (17m) have been looking for a place to have sex for a couple of days now. It’s not our first time but we’ve got strict parents and we aren’t allowed to take one another in our rooms. We were short on options because we almost got caught doing it in a car by the cops once so we settled with the woods. I don’t have a car and his mom is using his car to get to work because hers is in the shop so we just walked. We laid a blanket down and started to have sex. It got annoying at times because bugs kept flying on us and we had to shove sticks aside. At one point, I got on top and he was getting too loud so I took my panties and stuffed them in his mouth.

We laid there for a while when we finished because the both of us were extremely exhausted. I ended up taking pictures of him (Not his nude bottom half Ik that’s illegal) because he looked adorable and smiled each time he looked up at me lol.

Overall experience: 7/10 Would I recommend it: Ehh, if you bring a thick enough blanket and aren’t super afraid of bugs, then i guess it’s not too bad.

reddit.com/r/sex/comments/i3p9y0/having_sex_in_the_woods_was_expecting_it_to_be_a/

image

(OverBeforeItBegan)

image

Totally agree with not delaying the inevitable but when is too young? I ask because my 14 yr old daughter has her boyfriend over once a week and I have the rule that her door stays open. I'd much rather she do anything at home than end up in the bushes, whether it's sex or drinking or trialing drugs...so thankful we're not there yet

I don't know many 14 year olds who have sex but I'd say you should probably let them have their door closed when she's 15 because that's when most people I know started having sex.

I had sex at 14, dad by 15 @

Imagine wasting 17+ years of your life and hundreds of thousands of dollars raising this cumdump. I will never get over how there are fathers out there literally raising sets of holes to keep other men's dicks warm and wet.

(slavcel11)

IT: sex isn't everything
15 year olds who actually have sex: fuck the hell out of them at first opportunity

(FAloner)

The missed out / teenlove pill is the second most brutal pill in existence, next to the SMV pill

(TheNEET)

oy, she's a stinky sexual predator and a terrorist who needs to be shoot immediately! after all IT taught me that people under 21 don't even think about sex and even imagining sex with them is a crime so unforgivable you need to immediately report it to the FBI

(Ignas)

Fuarkkk it's overrrr. That chad won't ever know the agony of us being subhumans being told to personality maxx and self improve Maxx to get girls. He doesn't need to do any of that. Teenlove pill is the most brutal thing to me cause it simply can't be recovered. Even if you ascend you'd just be a decent guy to settle with, not the silly boy she tries new naughty things with. If for some miracles you ascend and say to her "how about sex in the woods? Or perhaps we can have fun in cinema?" to spice up your sexless marriage due to her not being physically attracted to you, in her minds she'd picture her doing all those in the past with Chad and it already bored her

(cognitohazard)

literally I was exercising and at the high school next to it, I saw a couple just like this and it hurt so god damn bad
The guy was even on his phone at some points while they were making out, looking a bit disinterested but the girl just kept getting in his face
I thought being on your phone during intimacy was just a meme
if a girl could look at me like she did at him I might get a heart attack

(King_of_morons)

I can't do this anymore.

EVEN IF I ASCEND I STILL MISSED OUT ON THE THRILL OF TEEN SEX, I WILL ALWAYS BE INFERIOR TO ZOOMERS WHO LOST THEIR CHERRIES AT A YOUNG AGE AND I NEVER RECOVER FROM THIS, DAMN IT AAAAAAAALLLLL!!!!!!!!

You must really like pain if you voluntary go to a sub called "r/sex"

I used to do it myself sadly, but I managed to kick the habit. Sexhavers infuriate me so much.

Neither can I, but I'm trudging along
Brutal, I just remembered I'm 20 in two months

Damn, I'm in my 20's and I barely feel like I've aged mentally. Hopefully things will get better for us from here on out.

cantfightnature #sexist cantfightnature.tumblr.com

[Source NSFW]

I’ve talked about this a little before, but let me make it clear: I don’t consider this a fetish blog. Sure, it has fantastic elements, but I resent being grouped together with kinks that have no basis in reality.
I know no one believes this about me, but I really don’t have a problem with other fetishes. You get off on female domination? Hey, do you, man. You want to watch your wife get fucked by black guys? Not my thing, but if it gets you off… It is, of course, supremely beta for a white guy to get off on being degraded, but that’s the point, isn’t it? It’s a fantasy. It’s perverse. It’s an inversion of roles.
The differences between fetishes and misogyny/raceplay is that this is no fantasy. It doesn’t matter if you get off on it or not. If you do, things will be a lot more fun for you, but the universe won’t care one way or another. In the real universe, white men are standing over other races with our cocks out, jizzing down onto the untermensch and laughing.
How many cuckold couples do you think there are in the world? Sure, a lot on the internet, but by absolute percentage? Only a couple of weird kinksters are going out and buying chastity cages and strapons. How many women tie their boyfriends up? Again, a couple, but a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of us.
But how many Asian girls are fucking white guys? Holy shit, just walk into any yellow-leaning city late at night. Wander around a college town and count the number of adoring, slanty-eyed faces staring up at their White gods. Look at all the happy couples. Each nerdy Asian chick leaning against a strong White arm is a victory for our race, a squealing testament to our domination. You know it’s true.
How many men treat their women roughly in bed? Fucking everyone with guts. How many women get off on being choked? Never met one who hasn’t, and that’s a pretty damn big sample size. How many feminists need to gag on cock? Women’s Studies classes are where you go to clean up.
There are fantasies on this blog. Here’s the reality: I’m not going to fuck your wife in front of you. I’m not going to spit on you and call you a cunt. I’m not going to beat you until you cry, because we’ve never met and we never will. I’m not some magical sex god. My cock isn’t even that long. (It is very, very thick.) I’m not going to lock your dick up, because that’s fucking weird.
But I hope you’re into raceplay, for your sake, because every day you work to serve the white man. I hope you’re into financial domination, because everything you buy sends money right to our privileged pockets. I hope you enjoy the thought of your little Asian daughter getting fucked deep by White guys, because when you send her off to college, that will happen. They won’t send you photos, perv. They won’t be “bulls.” It will probably be some skinny nerd from her chemistry class. But he will get her on her back, and tell all his friends that he fucked the slanty geek, because it happens to every one of them. Yes, even the smart ones. Your wife probably won’t get fucked by a better man, all things considered. But she will think about it, and your marriage will be fucked by your limp dick. I hope you’re into sexism and misogyny, because you will face it every day of your working life, cunt. I hope you enjoy objectification, and embarrassment, and never being taken seriously, because that’s called the modern workplace. I hope you enjoy racism, nigger, because this is America. I hope, for your sake, that your fantasies line up with reality. Because mine do, and I’m having a great time.

Return of the Harem of Strawwomen!

DermoscopyStudier #sexist reddit.com

I agree with everything said here

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I posted this on incels a while back. Let me know if I missed anything, because after all, I wouldn't want to unfairly generalize women.

All women fall into one of the following categories:

Ditzy nursing student/nurse: She might not be a nursing student (though the odds are good that she is), but rest assured, she is at least reasonably hot, and she is dumb. She might also be a dental hygienist. She writes and types like a child, she can’t hold an even remotely intelligent conversation with a male, yet she succeeds in life because it is impossible for females to fail classes. The teachers will not allow it. And she will be affirmative actioned into a job after she graduates. Her boyfriend/husband is a 7+. Catch her in the supermarket wearing her work clothes. This is the future for a lot of “Staceys,” as you call them. Cheerleader-type.

Somewhat-attractive liberal artsy feminist: Has dyed hair but is fairly cute. She’s “polyamorous.” She’s just exploring her sexualityyyyy. What this means is that she collects Chad dicks like they’re going extinct. If she has a boyfriend, she’s openly cucking him…and he pretends to be fine with it because that’s the “enlightened” thing to do these days. Hello, it’s The Current Year, women LOVE SECKS as much as menz!!!111 The heterosexual ones are all subs in BDSM. Some of them are confused lesbians who claim to be bisexual and will peg their effeminate boyfriend. He’s gotta be pretty, though. This ain’t a prison. She will eventually realize she’s gay and thank her effeminate boyfriend for helping her figure this out.

Ugly dyed-hair feminist: Probably wears thick-framed glasses. A walking modern cliche…don’t really need to go into the description too much. Privilege, patriarchy, problematic, rape, rape culture, abortion (cough “women’s issuez”), mansplaining, etc. Into BDSM, but paradoxically, if she is heterosexual, this manhater is a sub. In the bedroom, she wants you to treat her like a slut and choke her. If she’s a lesbian calling herself “bisexual,” she enjoys pegging submissive men who are effeminate because she is really into women.

Lesbian: She has either lost interest in pretending to be bisexual for the “look at me” factor, or she’s the masculine type who was boyish from a young age.

Quiet artsy prude: This type of chick doesn’t want to have sex at all. She’s a hipster and so is her boyfriend, who is a pussy iphone-toting, Starbucks-drinking numale feminist who won’t pressure her to do much in the bedroom. When she does have sex, she lies there like a dead fish. She’s obsessed with pretty thingz (“art”) and loves her Pinterest account. This includes pretty, dainty little foods/recipes. The blueberry muffins sawed in half on a cutting board with shards of wheat in the ambiance are fine, but what she really wants is pictures of some kind of Asian cuisine. You know, shit that really shouldn’t be anything more than an appetizer. Remember, everything has to be pretty, little, dainty, light, chic, and hip. She thinks she’s quirky and creative, but it’s all a put-on. She cares about making the image in her mind real more than whether or not she actually enjoys it. And any male who enters her world will have to fit that mold…especially since sex hurts her narrow vagina.

Fat black woman: If you’ve met one, you’ve met them all. They’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they’re sassy. They drive like their attitude. If you’re at a 4-way stop sign and you get there first, they ain’t waitin’ for no other cars…get outta her way! She bitches constantly about how black men be datin’ them white women and they caynt handle a STRONG. BLACK. WOMAN. “Dat’s why dey be shirkin’ they responsibilities to they baby mommas and da 5 keee-yids dey had out of wedlock.” “Your honor, he ain’t payin’ his challlld suppote.” If your cock is below 7 inches, they think it’s TINY. They thought Chris Brown’s dick (of which pictures leaked), which is probably longer flaccid than mine is erect, was “tiny.” And they will fight yo ass. Black men generally aren’t white knights the way both the numales and the religious, southern, “you hit a woman you get a whoopin” white men are, so they will give these feral hyenas what they deserve if it comes to it. It only takes about 84 punches and slaps before a black man has finally had enough and drops her with one punch.

Non-fat black woman: See “Fat black woman,” but add an extra layer of pretentiousness. The race whining will make you want to strangle her.

Fat white woman (non-feminist): This is separate from the morbidly obese woman. If you think her being fat will make her standards lower, think again. She’s vicious and thinks men are beneath her. That Tedx talk Youtube video of the fat woman bitching about men who meet her standards not wanting to date her…that’s what they’re all like. Eventually, a Chad comes along and dates her…oftentimes a black Chad (a Tyrone?), since blacks love their big booties, even if it’s really a fatass with a fat ass. The guy had better work out, because he needs to be able to make her feel like a dainty woman in the bedroom, after all…and that’s quite difficult because she’s a “curvy” woman. You know, the curves extending outward from her stomach? Anyway, if you’re not Chad, you’re always at risk of being yelled at and belittled by this creature. If you are Chad, you’re at risk if you don’t want to date her, because that means you’re shallow and can’t handle a woman with a HEALTHY BODY TYPE. She’s opinionated, condescending, and thinks she’s smart, but she’s actually a complete idiot, and there’s nothing worse than opinionated idiots. Lately, there has been a trend for slender 7 males to date these fat white women, and you can bet these are abusive relationships, with her bossing him around and him taking it either because he is getting off on it because he has a fetish for being submissive to a fat white woman and kissing her feet, or just because he’s that desperate and has no self respect. Either way, she has absolutely no respect for him, and will dump him/cuck him at first opportunity.

Morbidly obese white woman: Usually some form of white trash. This is an incel’s “league,” I’m afraid. May be missing some teeth. Hygiene probably lacking. She’ll do it because to her, it’s just “fun.” She doesn’t give a fuck so she’s willing to give fucks. Aside from that, a headcase…but what did you expect? You don’t get to be like 300 pounds as a woman without being mentally fucked up. Incel competition is redneck white males.

Non-obese redneck/white trash white woman: It’ll be a cold day in hell before you can ever trust her to be faithful. Southern accent, lousy teeth, and cigarette smoking. Probably addicted to pills and/or booze. If not, she’s certainly close to people who are. At least her standards aren’t as high. She might even cheat on Wayne with a white incel. I guess incels just need to look for white trash females if they want to have any shot whatsoever.

Cute, nerdy little Asian girl: Awwwww. Girls are gamers too, dooooood. Don’t be fooled by her apparent disposition…she will friendzone the fuck out of you if you’re not Chad or at least an Asian Chad. Her Miss Innocent act doesn’t change the facts; you’re her beta orbiter “male friend” and she’s not interested.

Middle Eastern Muslim girl: Her parents will literally kill her for being with a man who is not Muslim. If you’re a terrorist, you’re not incel.

GymChad CC-rider: She can’t even settle down enough to let teachers and employers get her into nursing and hygienist professions. She probably works in real estate, or that will be the height of her career after she’s done as a receptionist. It doesn’t take long before she’s knocked up…and her kid becomes “her world.” Not to worry, Gainz Chad is to the rescue. Sure, she got fucked off Tinder and got some free meals from OKCupid, but in the long run, it’s getting married and divorced a few times to some Gainz Chads who cheat on her (“why are all guyz such jerx?! And my cheating doesn’t count!”) that is going to help her be a perpetual single mom.

Dumb Christian Girl Who Takes Religion Seriously: These are actually a catch, all things considered, but they’re only available for Cowboy Chads. She will invariably end up with this “southern gentleman,” and his hobbies include huntin’ and fishin’. What else to do when they’re not goin’ to church? The Lawd says thou shalt kill animals. He bought himself a truck. The most important men in her life, in order: Jesus, her sons, Cowboy Chad. She’s dumber than planting flowers near a mailbox, but she has no problem with “traditional gender roles.” She will cook for you. She will regurgitate Cowboy Chad’s conservative politics, etc. However, she expects a man to be a “man,” so incels are out, as are numale hipsters. She wants a man of the house. Take the good with the bad.

Psychopath: They really aren’t like other girls. If you don’t mind anything from regular criminal activity to being murdered, if you can find these rare exceptions, you might catch a break. She’s so crazy and delusional she might fuck an incel. Better be a light sleeper; you might want to wake up before she puts the knife to your penis or drowns the kids in the bathtub. Often overlaps with the white trash/rednecks.

Andrew Anglin #homophobia #transphobia #dunning-kruger dailystormer.name

[From "Gay Rights: Trump’s Man on the Court Sodomizes America"]

Donald Trump’s man on the court just bent America over and rammed his penis into the anus of the nation.

This is truly an anal reckoning.

This ruling might seem trite, as virtually every church is already full-anal and not going to fire a homo, and everyone already knew it was impossible to fire a gay person from anywhere other than a church, but it’s bigger than that. This makes them even more invincible, makes it impossible to even think about taking away their adoption rights. This is a ruling that means that gays are born that way.

The Hill

Neil Gorsuch, widely considered one of the more conservative justices on the Supreme Court, stunned observers and drew enmity from right-wing commenters after he authored Monday’s landmark decision guaranteeing LGBT people protection from workplace discrimination.
Gorsuch wrote in the 6-3 decision that the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of “sex” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act also applies to gay and transgender employees.[...]

Imagine that the Supreme Court is talking about trannies positively, like they’re normal people.

The Civil Rights Act should be repealed, as it in itself violates the Constitution in that it outlaws free association. But even the Civil Rights Act doesn’t say anything about gays or trannies.

This ruling is based on the idea – as he said in his opinion – that “gay” and “tranny” are the same thing as biological sex. Meaning that this is entirely political. That is absolutely not established as some kind of scientific fact. It is political propaganda that is now being used to make laws – ostensibly by our own side.
[...]
I am still 100% behind voting for Trump because of what the Democrats are going to do to us. But this argument is going to resonate with a lot of people, when cuckolds like Erickson make it. Erickson has always hated Trump, and this is a much bigger win than it is for any tranny.
[...]
We’re living with a lot of things these days, aren’t we Donald? Living with being locked in our houses while the blacks riot and tear down our entire civilization. Living with a totally collapsed economy. On top of feminism, mass immigration and a cultural crisis we were already living with.

So why not just live with this, huh Donald?

They’re just sodomizing the corpse of America at this point, huh?

The best we can really hope for is that they use a little bit more lube.

Maybe that should be your 2020 slogan, Donald?

“Please Use Lube While Sodomizing the Corpse of America.”
[...]
Yes. Foster care. And adoption. The reason that this is a big deal for the gays is that it is going to give them expanded access to little boys to use for sexual purposes. Everyone who knows anything knows that. Gorsuch and Roberts knew it very well.

It’s just so insane that we can still be talking about “securing equality.” Everyone in this country knows that gays are an ultra-protected class, who can do whatever they want.
[...]
Of course that law wasn’t written that way. That is insane. Gorsuch claiming to be a textualist is simply a lie. There is no such possible interpretation. He is saying “gay is a sex,” which not even the gays say. If the Civil Rights Act was intended to protect gays, it would have said that.

Furthermore, any textualist reviewing this case would have determined that the Civil Rights Act itself is unconstitutional. Because it is.

Everything in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was ALREADY declared unconstitutional in 1883 when the Supreme Court overturned the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

Did you know that? That there was a virtually identical civil rights act passed in 1875? Probably you didn’t know that. They don’t want you to know that, because obviously, the 14th Amendment hasn’t changed since 1883. It has not been repealed.

How is Neil Gorsuch going to rule on the First and Second Amendments under a Democrat president?

With this ruling, he seems to signaling – winking at the Democrats, saying, “you don’t have to worry about me, guys! I’m on your side!”

At least Kavanaugh is still riding hard.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

This is not turning into a pua blog. I studied pua long before there was such a word, or such a community, but what I have learned is not easy to express verbally, and anyway other people are one hell of a lot better at it than I am.

The main thing I have learned is that women are incompetent and wicked at making sexual and romantic choices, and should never have been emancipated.

Also the concept of “consent” is not easily mapped onto the real life sexual and romantic behavior of women, and therefore should not be given legal or moral weight. Short of a full marriage ceremony where vows are made before God and man under parental guidance, it is really difficult to say whether a woman consented or not, and makes little practical difference.

Sometimes I watch chick flicks either for social reasons, or to learn the nature of women. The evidence provided by such movies is useful, because I don’t want to discuss my private life, and if I do discuss my private life my commenters are going to say “but those women are no good skanks. Most girls who go to nice universities don’t behave like that”. The movies on the other hand obviously target the norm, the typical female. They have been focus tested as to what gets their audience panties wet.

So:

The anime romance, “Yona of the Dawn”: (which inspired this post) Love interest number one murders Yona’s father. This gives her the total hots. Love interest number one is about to murder her also. Her response is disturbingly erotic, and seriously lacking inclination towards self preservation. Her father’s dead body is lying around during this scene, but she pays it almost no attention. Love interest number two rescues her. You might suppose that this terminates the romance with love interest number one, but you would be wrong. She has a knack for unrescuing herself.

Now you know why female voters vote to import Mohammedans.

“Mike and Dave need Wedding Dates”. Alpha males with massive preselection fall so in love that they turn into beta bucks friendzoned chumps, and the female protagonist fucks someone else.

“The Wedding Date” Mr Beta bucks is so in love he marries the woman who cuckolded him and who shows every indication that she intends to continue to cuckold him.

I am not cherry picking the worst movies. These are just the last three, except for another that was pretty similar. Disloyalty, infidelity, desire for murderers, self destructiveness, desire for violent evil men, and sexual desire overriding duty to kin, friends, and lovers.

One hundred roses monogamy comes from coercively restraining women from bad behavior, which comes from understanding that women are prone to bad behavior. Without external coercion, we tend to get stuck in defect/defect equilibrium.

The Victorian strategy of persuading women to behave well by ascribing good behavior to women bit the Victorians on the ass badly.

Bhibatsu #conspiracy bbs.dailystormer.com

[In response to an article about the film Logan being "Jewish propaganda"]

Hugh Jackman is a kike.

The antagonist in the film, a White man, a blond White man, always a blond White man, has a mechanical hand, as do many of the soldiers, for a reason.

The first reason is that it is a symbol of the Hidden Hand. There's a photo floating around of ISIS giving a speech for the press and the flag bearer is wearing a cast on his right hand despite having no injury. It is a Jew Masonic tell sign.
The second reason is that mechanics represent the Borg. Borg is from Icelandic meaning "city", hence, city dweller. In America, one can know miles before you reach a city without checking any maps or signs, simply because all the radio stations suddenly turn nigger. Zombies live in cities, the walking dead, those who eat yet cannot produce anything, those beasts of the field who are not hu-man or spirit-man and have not the creativity nor spirit of the White man.

At the end of the movie, the little jew mongrel girl turns the Cross of Wolverine's grave sideways, to an X.

Why?
X represents Kikes.
Professor X or professor kike, X for Xavier, a pun on Savior, is again mocking Christ.

And having a nigger farmer family is simply a retarded joke.
One word:
Rhodesia.

Niggers can't grow anything.

As an aside, what the nigger farmer said about "corn syrup", high fructose corn syrup, often simply labeled as "natural sweetener" in drinks, is proven to be more than a hundred times more addicting than liquid cocaine on mice in clinical trials, and simply causes diabetes, which is even worse than Aspartame.

A further slip, was the Jew reference to "we will breed out the X Men through the food and drink system and then" "and then breed your own" Logan finishes. They are already doing this, and this is the reason why White men now have less than 5% the sperm count of their grandfathers. As for the "breed their own" White slave jannisaries and sex slaves, they are already doing this in not only some of the 132 D.U.M.B.s in the US, but also some of the submerged cities.

The Matrix is real, and you are in it.
The White race is being farmed and has been farmed for thousands of years, by the Serpent and the serpent's children.

The purpose of the movie, like all movies these days, was to demoralize the White man.

The military facilities cloning children thing is real as the US govt has been cloning people steadily since the 1950's. The cunt who stars in the hunger games is the most prominent example, having cloned her from some famous arabic actress.
The cloning procedure is revealed in full disclosure in the movie The Boys From Brazil.


The real 'x' Men, the Spirit Men, who have the God Particle in them, who can and whose ancestors have, performed miracles time and again throughout history, are the White Men.

If you're going to watch Jew movies, just be sure to antidote yourself, and simply consciously invert back all the Jews' inversions.

Haredi anti-enlistment extremists #fundie jpost.com

Radical elements in the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) community have, in the past few years, waged a vitriolic campaign of incitement and harassment against haredi IDF officers involved in recruiting haredi conscripts, as well as against enlisted haredi soldiers.

The campaign has taken the form of posters, pamphlets and booklets with cartoons and other images that incite readers against haredi officials involved in promoting IDF service. These publications routinely depict such people as pigs and malign elements attempting to corrupt haredi youth.

In July, extremists published a booklet containing the names, photos and contact details of the most senior haredi figures who promote haredi enlistment, as part of efforts to harass and delegitimize them.

One of the names published was IDF officer Yehuda Glickman. He, along with his wife, were the subject of ceaseless harassment by anonymous people who obtained their phone numbers from the booklet.

The Glickmans received phone calls from people who said they hoped the Glickmans would die quickly, or warned them that they would face harsh justice in the afterlife for their deeds.

[...]

The investigator, David Gabai [...] was able to gain access to the leaders of the campaign. He recorded four of them discussing efforts to stage protests at Glickman's home.

"We need buses and a bunch of other things," said one of the extremists in the recording. "I'm thinking about buying a load of mice and filling up the houses of all these [haredi IDF recruiters] with them," says another.

"Scorpions," jokes one, playing off the similarity in Hebrew between the words mouse and scorpion.

azakhan #sexist incels.co

[JFL] "Don't worry bro, you still have time, I started dating in my 30s and now I'm happily married!"

"It doesn't matter that my wife had 50 times more partners than I did and she thinks about her chad ex(es) every time we're having sex. Past is past bro! It doesn't matter she will cheat on me and than take away half of my stuff bro!"

Seriously fuck all those cucks giving women free pass to do whatever she wants in her youth. Imagine if society treated heroin usage the same as casual sex. I mean both give you instant pleasure right? Your body your choice remember?
JFL at people who get married with non-virgin woman. It's the biggest cuckold thing I can think of.

Roosh #fundie rooshv.com

After a long period in society of women having unlimited personal freedom to pursue life as they wish, they have shown to consistently fail in making the right decisions that prevent their own harm and the harm of others. Systems must now be put in place where a woman’s behavior is monitored and her decisions subject to approval of a male relative or guardian who understands what’s in her best interests better than she does herself.

Women have had personal freedoms for less than a century. For the bulk of human history, their behavior was significantly controlled or subject to approval through mechanisms of tribe, family, church, law, or stiff cultural precepts. It was correctly assumed that a woman was unable to make moral, ethical, and wise decisions concerning her life and those around her. She was not allowed to study any trivial topic she wanted, sleep with any man who caught her fancy, or uproot herself and travel the world because she wanted to “find herself.”

You can see this level of control today in many Muslim countries, where expectations are placed on women from a young age to submit to men, reproduce (if biologically able), follow God’s word, and serve the good of society by employing her feminine nature instead of competing directly against men on the labor market due to penis envy or feelings of personal inferiority.

...

When you give a female unlimited choice on which man to have sex with, what type of man does she choose? An exciting man who treats her poorly and does not care for her well-being.

When you give a female choice on what to study in university, what does she choose? An easy liberal arts major that costs over $50,000 and dooms her to a life of debt and sporadic employment.

When a female lacks any urgent demands upon her survival, what behavior does she pursue? Obsessively displaying her half-naked body on the internet, flirting with men solely for attention, becoming addicted to corporate-produced entertainment, and over-indulging in food until her body shape is barely human.

When you give a female choice on when to have kids, what does she do? After her fertility is well past its peak, and in a rushed panic that resembles the ten seconds before the ringing of the first school bell, she aims for limited reproductive success at an age that increases the likelihood she’ll pass on genetic defects to her child.

When you give a female choice of which political leader to vote into office, who do they vote for? The one who is more handsome and promises unsustainable freebies that accelerate the decline of her country.

When you give a female unwavering societal trust with the full backing of the state, what does she do? Falsely accuse a man of rape and violence out of revenge or just to have an excuse for the boyfriend who caught her cheating.

When you give a female choice on who to marry, what is the result? A 50% divorce rate, with the far majority of them (80%) initiated by women themselves.

While a woman is in no doubt possession of crafty intelligence that allows her to survive just as well as a man, mostly through the use of her sexuality and wiles, she is a slave to the present moment and therefore unable to make decisions that benefit her future and those of the society she’s a part of. Once you give a woman personal freedom, like we have in the Western world, she enslaves herself to one of numerous vices and undertakes a rampage of destruction to her body and those who want to be a meaningful part of her life.

A man does not need to look further than the women he knows, including those in his family, to see that the more freedom a woman was given, the worse off she is, while the woman who was under the heavy hand of the church or male relative comes out far better on the other side, in spite of her rumblings that she wants to be as free as her liberated friends, who eagerly and regularly post soft porn photos of themselves on social networking and dating sites while selecting random anonymous men for fornication every other weekend.

Men, on average, make better decisions than women. If you take this to be true, which should be no harder to accept than the claim that lemons are bitter, why is a woman allowed to make decisions at all without first getting approval from a man who is more rational and levelheaded than she is? It not only hurts the woman making decisions concerning her life, but it also hurts any man who will associate with her in the future. You only need to ask the many suffering husbands today on how they are dealing with a wife who entered the marriage with a student loan debt in the high five figures from studying sociology and how her wildly promiscuous sexual history impairs her ability to remain a dedicated mother, with one foot already out the door after he makes a reasonable demand that is essential for a stable home and strong family.

I propose two different options for protecting women from their obviously deficient decision making. The first is to have a designated male guardian give approval on all decisions that affect her well-being. Such a guardian should be her father by default, but in the case a father is absent, another male relative can be appointed or she can be assigned one by charity organizations who groom men for this purpose, in a sort of Boy’s Club for women.

She must seek approval by her guardian concerning diet, education, boyfriends, travel, friends, entertainment, exercise regime, marriage, and appearance, including choice of clothing. A woman must get a green light from her guardian before having sex with any man, before wearing a certain outfit, before coloring her hair green, and before going to a Spanish island for the summer with her female friends.

If she disobeys her guardian, an escalating series of punishments would be served to her, culminating in full-time supervision by him. Once the woman is married, her husband will gradually take over guardian duties, and strictly monitor his wife’s behavior and use all reasonable means to keep it in control so that family needs are met first and foremost, as you already see today in most Islamic societies. Any possible monetary proceeds she would get from divorce would be limited so that she has more incentive to keep her husband happy and pleased than to throw him under the bus for the most trivial of reasons that stem from her persistent and innate need to make bad decisions.

A second option for monitoring women is a combination of rigid cultural rules and sex-specific laws. Women would not be able to attend university unless the societal need is urgent where an able-minded man could not be found to fill the specific position. Women would not be able to visit establishments that serve alcohol without a man present to supervise her consumption. Parental control software on electronic devices would be modified for women to control and monitor the information they consume. Credit card and banking accounts must have a male co-signer who can monitor her spending. Curfews for female drivers must be enacted so that women are home by a reasonable hour. Abortion for women of all ages must be signed off by her guardian, in addition to prescriptions for birth control.

While my proposals are undoubtedly extreme on the surface and hard to imagine implementing, the alternative of a rapidly progressing cultural decline that we are currently experiencing will end up entailing an even more extreme outcome. Women are scratching their most hedonistic and animalistic urges to mindlessly pursue entertainment, money, socialist education, and promiscuous behavior that only satisfies their present need to debase themselves and feel fleeting pleasure, at a heavy cost for society.

Allowing women unlimited personal freedom has so affected birth rates in the West that the elite insists on now allowing importation of millions of third world immigrants from democratically-challenged nations that threaten the survival of the West. In other words, giving women unbridled choice to pursue their momentary whims instead of investing in traditional family ideals and reproduction is a contributing factor to what may end up being the complete collapse of those nations that have allowed women to do as they please.

I make these sincere recommendations not out of anger, but under the firm belief that the lives of my female relatives would certainly be better tomorrow if they were required to get my approval before making any decisions. They would not like it, surely, but due to the fact that I’m male and they’re not, my analytical decision-making faculty is superior to theirs to absolutely no fault of their own, meaning that their most sincere attempts to make good decisions will have a failure rate larger than if I was able to make those decisions for them, especially with intentions that are fully backed with compassion and love for them to have more satisfying lives than they do now.

As long as we continue to treat women as equals to men, a biological absurdity that will one day be the butt of many jokes for comedians of the future, women will continue to make horrible decisions that hurt themselves, their families, and their reproductive potential. Unless we take action soon to reconsider the freedoms that women now have, the very survival of Western civilization is at stake.

denki #homophobia stormfront.org

Many White Nationalists are Pagans or Atheists and believe gays should have rights. You don't have to be a Christian or anti-gay to be against multiculturalism.

The number of gay people is too small to affect the birth rate. Whites are declining because heterosexuals are not having enough children. Don't blame this on the gay minority.

The gay lifestyle is that of sexual indulgence and impulsive, animalistic behavior. A being that acts primarily in accordance with its insatiable lust and desire is akin to an animal; not a human being, which is imbued with the ability to discern and control oneself. Their entire lifestyle and LGBTQWXYZ+ movement is centered around a perverse fetish and nothing more. "Love is love" cannot and must not be applied to these creatures. The defamation of objective Love has been popularized by morally decaying liberal insects; lust has gained the upper hand. Lust and fetishism are the guiding ideologies of the LGBT community, which aims to unite the degenerated masses around its rainbow flag. LGBT apologists pretend not to notice the obvious: they defend a culture that has developed around parties, bars, clubs, and other venues that emanate promiscuity. The movement requires hypersexuality to exist, as that is its defining feature. They parade the streets sporting sex toys, dressed in revealing clothes, fishnet stockings, pink tutus, heavy makeup, wigs, high heels, flashy colors, etc. etc. Men cease to be men. They no longer talk, walk, act, or dress like men. Lesbians tend to remain more-or-less feminine. Unless they're butch, they tend to keep their hair long, they typically continue to dress like women, and they do not alter their voices to sound deep. Gays, on the other hand, adopt an entirely different persona and actually try to resemble male-female hybrid prostitutes. They adopt the worst traits that generally only manifest in women.

We have all seen them and to deny the sexualized nature of this subculture is idiotic and insincere. They appear on stations like NPR for "Pride month" and introduce themselves as former male prostitutes advertising their "trailblazing" new TV show appropriately titled "Hoes." They refer to themselves as hoes; black slang for whores. They are male whores, they actively advertise themselves as such, and yet naive whites try to present gays in a "positive light," explaining how family-oriented they are and how they "just want to marry and love." Whores are the last people for whom marriage remains a sacrament. Whores have sex for money or pleasure and indulge in it incessantly; to consider whores fit for fidelity and loyalty is laughable and ridiculous. There is a reason gays tend to be associated with HIV; in 2010, they were a whopping 200x more likely to have it than anyone else. Furthermore, they account for over 60% of syphilis cases in America while they only make up 1.6% of the US population. And it makes sense, as they have sex with literally hundreds of men, nearly 80% of whom are strangers. I can't think of anything worse for gays than marriage, as it would only limit their extraordinary desire for anal rupture.

Male sexuality, whether oriented toward females or other males, craves variety. But whereas almost all heterosexual men, perhaps after “sowing wild oats,” settle down with one woman, homosexual men do not settle down. Ever. A classic, large-scale study by Bell and Weinberg conducted during the 1970s and published by the Kinsey Institute found that forty-three percent (43%) of white male homosexuals had had sex with 500 or more partners, and twenty-eight percent (28%) had had sex with 1,000 or more partners. Seventy-nine percent (79%) said that more than half of their sexual partners had been strangers. In 1985, Pollack found that gay men averaged “several dozen partners a year” and “some hundreds in a lifetime” with “tremendous promiscuity.”[ii] In their 1997 study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven, et al., found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners was 101-500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[iii]

Taken from:
The myth of male homosexual monogamy — ADvindicate

If you are unhappy with the religious overtones of the site, the materials that the author draws information from are books, articles, and academic sources you can find in the citations.

Gays are not associated with classical music, they are not associated with religion, nor a structured, traditional lifestyle. They are associated with disorder, drugs, and loud, flashy, repetitive electronic beeps and boops with abrupt, meaningless lyrics and convulsive movements that obstruct one's mental state, dull one's aching conscience, and force one's mind into a trance-like state in a futile attempt to escape the thought of future consequences. They are mentally ill escapists seeking to alleviate their troubled consciences through parties, sex, and mind-altering substances. Their hedonism ends prematurely with HIV, suicide, or overdose. It's not surprising that they're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol (meth 12x, heroin 10x, alcohol 2-3x more likely than straight men).

They have a high suicide rate because they are mentally ill and experience childhood trauma. I do not think that a sexual orientation that typically results from rape or molestation is worthy of being mainstreamed and normalized. If it is a "fad," then it is a very dangerous one that begins with a broken childhood, continues into adolescence accompanied by sex and drugs, and finally ends at young adulthood with a stupid, tragic death. Denmark legalized same-sex marriage in the 1930's. It has been the norm for almost 90 years, and these weak, drug-addled individuals still uphold a suicide rate three times higher than that of the general populace.

Their subculture is nothing but a tragedy.

David J. Stewart #conspiracy jesus-is-savior.com

Scientists are destroying the earth!!! Geneticists are destroying earth. Last year mad scientists release 6,000 GM mosquitoes into the wild. We haven't seen anything yet. This year they created monster ants. Where will this tampering with nature lead? How will the laws of nature rebel against man's insanity. God has set the laws of nature in motion. If man wants to destroy and alter God's creation, He will allow men to do so, but only at their own peril. Man will suffer the consequences. I was reading recently about Rainbow Bombs (one hour video), where dozens of thermonuclear nukes detonation in the earth's upper atmosphere, creating beautiful rainbow-like colors. How has this destructiveness affected our planet?

The same wicked society that strips its clothes off, indulges in sexual immorality, aborts its babies and supports same-sex marriage will also tamper with genetic life, destroy the earth and support a Police State. In short, people are nuts!

This will be every transgenic cat's dream, glow in the dark mice. Don't think for one moment that fluorescent humans aren't around the corner, mark my words...you'll see it, along with spider humans and every other godless monstrosity of mad scientists. Man's good intentions are often a Pandora's box. Even so, come Lord Jesus!

Steve Moxon #fundie stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk

Utterly crazy sex law exposed by Adam Johnson's sentence – indeed, his conviction, and that he was ever charged

Adam Johnson has done absolutely NOTHING wrong. He was vigorously pursued by a female who was several years beyond the age of puberty, who knew perfectly well what she was doing, and was well equipped (as evolution has equipped all girls) to deal with it. In most other countries she would have been over any 'age of consent'. She facilitated and very willingly engaged in not sex but merely a mild sexual fumbling. The girl chalked this up as a sexual feather in her cap that she used to get her a lot of brownie points within her peer group. Enter the police, CPS and judiciary, and suddenly the girl was put in the position of inadvertent anatagonist to a famous footballer. As is so often the case, the queen bee and wannabes of her peer group seem to have decided she needed to be brought down a peg or two, and turned on her to invert her female prestige to 'slut' status, and consequently, with the collusion of the police and the CPS, she backtracked to try to make out that a little sexual fumbling with a A* male she found supremely attractive, somehow was 'damaging' to her and even non-consensual. It was, in no respect whatsoever, either. She suffered zero damage of any kind from Adam Johnson. Any damage -- and clearly there was damage to her -- was from the peer group she'd been so keen to impress and, most particularly, by the police, the CPS and the judiciary.

It is a 100% travesty that there was any charge against this man, let alone a trial, never mind a conviction and criminal injuries compensation paid to not the party who was the victim here. The victim was Adam Johnson. Everyone else involved were the perpetrators in this case.

With the average age of female puberty having fallen since Victorian times from 17 to ten, yet the legal 'age of consent' has remained at 16, then the law is an abomination and will have to be changed. It is scientifically illiterate to claim that a 15-year-old is a child. Not only have her bodily changes complete, but mental changes ensue actually before physical ones, so the claim of sexual immaturity is completely false. And why is the 'age of consent' 16 when the age of criminal responsibility is just ten? The answer: age ten is rationally deemed to be the end of childhood per se, whereas the additional six years beyond age ten represents deep-seated anti-male prejudice and sexual prudery.

We live in not neo-Victorian so much as uber-Victorian lunatic times where all men are considered far game to punish severely simply for having male sexuality. It is an atrocious disgrace, and the extreme hate-mongering ideology behind it is not long for this world

hirayama_ronin & SophisticatedBean #sexist reddit.com

Re: Benevolent Sexism Attractive To Women, Study Shows

(hirayama_ronin)
Just a comment to posters, why post studies without a comment of your own?

The purpose of the following observations is to situate what counts as benevolent sexism, according to the study's authors. The purpose of the study is to meet research into what is called benevolent sexism (the definition of which the authors may or may not agree with), with "parental investment theory."

However, the definition of "benevolent sexism" is eye-watering.

The following is quoted in the article, word for word from the study.

“Hostile sexism (HS) encompasses overtly prejudiced attitudes, whereas benevolent sexism (BS) involves subjectively positive attitudes (e.g., “women should be cherished and protected by men”), chivalrous behaviors, and attempts to achieve intimacy with women.”

Benevolent sexism includes attempts to achieve intimacy with women. This is either an Andrea Dworking-style, "all sex is rape" definition of sexism, that categorically places normal gendered behavior into a politically hostile ghetto (of rape or sexism), or it's a very poorly worded definition on the part of the study's authors.

There isn't a single example of benevolent sexism offered in the introduction that would situate the author's definition. It moves immediately to supposed consequences of BS (a convenient short-hand).

Here are the studies in support of this idea:

Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764-779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491

I don't have access to this literature to see how their work grounds this definition.

Here are some examples found in the "Supplemental Materials" section at the end of the study:

Study 1a, BS condition

He feels that, no matter how accomplished he is, he is not truly complete as a person without the love of a woman. He thinks that a woman should be set on pedestal by her man. He is convinced that in general women are more pure than men and they tend to have a superior moral sensibility. Mark thinks that women should be cherished and protected by men. In case of a disaster or emergency situation, he thinks that women should be helped before men.

Study 1a, non-BS condition

He feels that he can be truly complete as a person without the love of a woman, especially if he is personally accomplished. He doesn't think that a woman should be set on pedestal by her man. He is convinced that neither sex is superior with respect to purity or moral sensibility. He thinks that women should not necessarily be cherished or protected by men. In case of a disaster or emergency situation, he thinks that a person's sex should not be a factor determining who is helped first.

Despite the “romantic” undertone, researchers noted, benevolent sexism still reinforces the notion that women are inferior.

In Study 2a, we find BS in how a man might help a woman. The study participants were offered two men, Robert and John, who were identical in every way, except in particular behaviors:

Robert/John and John/Robert are both colleagues of yours. You have got to know them both a bit because you have often worked in pairs with one or the other and you have attended a few meetings and short business trips with each of them. They both look about the same physically and they are both about as competent at their job as each other.

You have noticed that they behave slightly differently at times though. For example, on one occasion when you were attending a short business trip with Robert/John, you had to get from a train station to the hotel where your conference meeting was being held. The taxi had not turned up so you decided you had to walk in order to get there in time. It was December and it was very cold. [BS condition] After saying something about how cold it was, Robert/John took his coat off and gave it to you, even though he only had a thin suit jacket on underneath. On another occasion later that same month, you had been on another short business trip with John/Robert. It was still very cold and you were walking from the train station back to your office and it was about the same distance you had to walk in the cold last time. [non-BS condition] After saying something about how cold it was, John/Robert, who was wearing a thin suit jacket under his coat, did not offer to give you his coat.

Reading into this, I assume "attempts to achieve intimacy with women" means "attempts to charm women (into intimacy) by giving them preferential treatment."

Discussion

What feminism-driven research is attempting to do, which the authors of these studies is disrupting, is to position the preferential treatment of women as politically damaging treatment. This is actually a position I tend to agree with. I personally believe men's preferential treatment of women makes them weaker, lazy, less desperate to achieve success, thus less successful.

The problem is that feminism allows women to problematize the preferential treatment shown to them (turning a prima facie positive into a subtle negative), while benefiting from preferential treatment. It's grabbing resources, attention, and affirmation from men, while punishing men for offering those resources, attention, and affirmation, packaging it up as a form of political oppression (patriarchy), which men are solely responsible for.

Studies like this cut through the nonsense. It says: benevolent sexism may have negative consequences, but it's desired by women:

We propose an alternative explanation drawn from evolutionary and sociocultural theories on mate preferences: women find BS men attractive because BS attitudes and behaviors signal that a man is willing to invest.

If women express this unconscious bias toward BS men, even when they have conscious knowledge of the supposed negative effects of BS upon women politically, feminists can no longer claim BS is a product of male supremacy. It is a joint product of deep reproductive politics, for which women must take their share of the responsibility, as they take their share of the benefits of being placed on the pedestal.

As always,

feminism == equality + pedestal =/= equality.

(SophisticatedBean)

personally believe men's preferential treatment of women makes them weaker, lazy, less desperate to achieve success, thus less successful

Not doing so appears to cause PMS though.

feminism == equality + pedestal =/= equality

I guess we can shorten that to feminism ? equality.

Women will always be on the pedestal because men are hardwired to care for women and women are not hardwired for reciprocity. Instead, they are hardwired to exploit and to be unwilling to settle with a partner of lower rank. (The alternative would also be unstable anyway as a stronger male in her mating pool would be able to threaten her decision if she decided for a weaker male.)

So the patriarchy is exactly a means of counteracting this innate anti-(beta)-male bias; it is basically egalitarianism. It basically artificially makes men more attractive by rituals, affirmative action (e.g. boys-only domains/clubs), strict rank enforcement and economic dependence such that women more likely feel like actually having a valuable/high-status partner. This should also allow women to experience more orgasms in a monogamous society as they orgasm more the higher the economic status and confidence of their partner is. Not doing so should theoretically make monogamous bonds unstable and we are indeed seeing a growing divorce rates. Another prediction is that more men should be rendered unable to impress a woman by their relative socioeconomic rank; and fewer males should be motivated by classical courtship and incentives for achievements of founding a family, both of which should reduce overall reduce cultural drive, which we are likely seeing too (incels, Hikikomoris, opioid crisis; though all of those have an economic component).

Now, one might expect the negative utility listed above might have been canceled out by the utility of an improvement of women's lives, but it looks like feminism has not even made women happier as career-oriented women seem to often find themselves in positions in which they are not very satisfied because they cannot find a satisfying mate or because their career conflicts with motherhood. I also suspect feminism even increases BS, because men are being raised to be so agreeable, intimidated and soft that they fulfill any wishes. There is positive utility in shape of increased economic productivity, but it's questionable to which extent that has actually made us happier. Positive emotion is mostly associated with goal pursuit (cocaine, emphatemine), and as goals are becoming diffuse, gender-incompatible or unattainable, it obviously makes us less happy.

.
.
.

That said, the study posted by OP surprised me since even self-described feminists preferred the explicitly sexist hypothetical male.

Some women are sneaky like that. I think it is a result of the lack of true female-male or female-female competition. We are seeing the same in the lack of true competition due to declining economic growth in the West: things start to become corrupt, improper and sneaky because the free market does not eliminate behavior and assumptions that are misaligned with reality. The raise of bullshit jobs. Women are basically chronically in this position because they are mostly always desired by men for their reproductive organs largely irrespective of their behavior and assumptions. Which does not mean that this expresses in all women to pathological degree or that men do not have their own gender-specific pathologies, but feminism, even though it probably had the intention of improving this has actually made it worse by making men more feminine/agreeable and by eliminating corrective feedback targeted at women.

B.O.G.A.R.T. #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Serious] Daily reminder that anyone who claims that 'TEEN LOVE' doesn't exist, is COPING HARD at this point

"it's just instinct to reproduce bro, like animals"

Not so fast! With animals you get purely instinctual life, cycles of copulation, only with humans sexuality can become a obsession that completely possesses you and disturbs your daily rhythm to the point you will be doing nothing else in life but crying over the teenage loves you never had on anonymous forums. What distinguishes erotic love from mere lust is this are 3 crucial things:

– The suddenness, imminence or surprise that marks the appearance of love. Lust is what I feel whenever I watch hardcore porn or see a woman with big milkers, infatuation begins when I get captivated by my oneitises overbite. Developing a oneitis is likely a result of an arbitrary, specific choice of the unconscious, a value judgement that transcends immediate instinctual goals. So even if you physiologically release the tension through masturbation, it doesn't get her out of your system. It's a metaphysical experience you're going through.

Infatuation is plagued by idealization. Being a creature of the imago, you process reality through imagined concepts, your oneitis is also a IMAGE of a girl you create. The more she is kept at a proper distance the more desirable she becomes. Your love-object is still a clump of meat that sweats and shits at the end of the day, but your imaginary register is making that buck toothed Becky a heavenly match with a intriguing personality.

– In love the reach exceeds the grasps. You can be thwarted in achieving satisfaction both when we you don't get the girl of your dreams, and if you'd get her fully (by marrying her). Love-affection is always the strongest when you almost have the girl, but stops short from "happily ever after". Imagine having a passionate summer fling with your oneitits, but her father cockblocks you in the end and takes her far away, ironically losing a girl is the only way to keep the flames of erotic love burning -- in the alternate scenario poised by the question "what if...?"

To paraphrase Lacan: Imagine you see in front of you a beautiful flower, or a ripe fruit. You reach out your hand to grab it. But at the moment you do, the flower, or the fruit, bursts into flame.

I'm just gonna leave this here

Having romantic relationships in mid to late teens linked to better mental health and higher self esteem in adulthood

Good piece, shows how escrotcels will always be coping.

It's also that as teens people are the most idealistic. Adult relationships are always more driven by lust and convenience than actual love.

I'd say it's pure pragmatism when you're over 30.

Honestly idk how anyone can treat foids as an element of desire, purpose or anything like that after taking the blackpill and understanding their worthless nature. They're nothing but cumdumps.

Desire structured by and within a fantasy, getting blackpilled on 'felame nature' is like watching a behind-the-scenes featurette of your favorite movie. Even when you know nothing of it is real, you're still tempted by the illusion of appearances.

FaceandHFD #quack #kinkshaming #dunning-kruger incels.co

[Blackpill] Digital Cuckoldry

Porn, onlyfans and orbiting thots on social media are the digital cuckoldry plaguing our society. It's not healthy for men to be ejaculate to pixels. The coomer meme was right and men should be publicly shamed for watching porn. From a Freudian perspective, sexual gratification through digital means is completely pathological and creates widespread neurosis and social retardation. Men should only be content with cooming inside civilian women or prostitutes. Therefore, there needs to be some sort of organized counter-revolution to digital degeneracy that pushes for the ban on porn and online sex work.
image

TranscriptLeft:
Illustration from a 19th Century anti-masturbation tract depicting a masturbator as a drooling imbecile with the swollen tongue hanging out.

Right:
A grotesque slavering creature tries to put a square peg through a round hole. The puzzle is mounted on a wall bearing the PornHub videos.

Heading:
“The Cumbrain:
. Burned out his dopamine receptors
- High Prolactin Killed his motivation
- Hypofrontality
- Lost free will to extreme reinforcement of a primal drive. Slave to sexual distraction.”

Next to the creature:
“Measurable brain damage”

On the creature’s forehead:
“no longer creative
just thinks about sex 95% of the time”

Next to the puzzle:
“Impaired problem solving”

Closing line:
“Don’t let this be you. Stop before its too late!”

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

The reactionary position is that leftism was evil, absurd, and mad in 1820, has been getting more evil, more absurd, and more mad, ever since, and the Restorationist program is that we need to be ruled by Kings.

The central insight of Moldbug was to look at anglosphere movement left starting the clock with the overthrow of Charles the First, rather than starting with the Nazis.

Nazis were and are leftists, just leftists who have been left behind by ninety years of movement further left, so if you start the clock at Nazism, the trend is less obvious, and less obviously headed towards catastrophe, mass murder, and social collapse. Hitler was weak on the women question, turning the clock back to early Weimar or moderate Weimar, rather than pre Weimar, while America and Hollywood from 1939 to 1963, after first wave anglosphere feminism and before second wave anglosphere feminism, was far to the right of Hitler, and far more red pilled that Hitler, whose beta orbiter propensities were notorious. Thus, for example, in the immensely popular show “I love Lucy”, it is frequently implied that Lucy is going to be spanked for her many amusing misdeeds, that domestic discipline is a normal part of a normal and healthy marriage. The plotline of an “I Love Lucy” episode is that Lucy is a naughty girl, who does something naughty, which always turns out badly, implying that women need rule by husbands to keep them from getting into trouble.

If, however, you start the clock at Charles the First, the trend line is clear. Puritans are holier than thou, and Social Justice Warriors are holier than thou. Puritans make war on marriage, the family, and Christmas, and Social Justice Warriors make war on marriage, the family, and Christmas.

The restoration of Charles the Second in 1660 rolls them back and keeps them back for one hundred and sixty years in England. Hence our program of the Restoration.

The left has continuity of organization, personnel, and institutions all the way from the Puritans. Harvard was their theological headquarters, their Rome, once exiled from England by Charles the second. The American Revolution was a bad thing, and the founders were bad people, because it gave the Puritans control of a large part of America, and the War of Northern Aggression a worse thing, the Puritans conquering those states whose state religion was different from their own to impose a single unified state religion, headquartered in Harvard, on all of the United States. The War of Northern Aggression was not fought to make slaves free, nor to impose tariffs on the South, but to erase the Episcopalianism of Charles the Second and to capture the schools and universities for Harvard.

Progressivism is not Judaism, but is Christianity, a Christianity that first became holier than thou, then holier than Jesus, and is now holier than God. The founding fathers were Deists because they were holier than Jesus, and the progressives are holier than God. If you endorse the founding fathers, you endorse leftism. If all men are created equal then our civilization is going to be erased from history, and white people are going to be ethnically cleansed. If all men are created equal, it is totally unfair that not everyone in the world is free to move to America, vote in American elections, and get their share of my stuff. The failure of the founding fathers to torture each other to death for insufficient leftism was an unprincipled exception, and every unprincipled exception gets rolled back by those even more holy.

...

If you blame men for the misconduct of women, you endorse leftism. Women need to be under male authority in order to flourish and form families, and males need authority over their families to flourish and form families. Women should remain under the authority of their fathers till transferred to the authority of their husbands. If state and society fails to back legitimate male authority over females, you get defect/defect equilibrium, and everyone, male and female, finds it difficult to form families and have children. Cooperate cooperate equilibrium is inconsistent with moment to moment consent to sex. In order to reproduce, men and women have to agree to stick it out for richer for poorer, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, which means that people should be incapable of making sense of the self contradictory thought and phrase “marital rape” – it should be inexpressible and unthinkable.

...

This is the restoration that we talk about. We want Trump or some general to do a Deng, to do a Charles the Second. We need democracy to end so that the mess can be put right. George the Third was on the right side, continuing the sane, sensible, and successful program of Charles the Second. The founding fathers were on the wrong side. Charles the second was Deng Xiaoping. Locke and Jefferson were Trotsky and Lenin, knocking over the apple cart to grab some of the apples.

Things go wrong in England with increasing unwillingness to discipline upper class wives. George the fourth screws the wives of aristocrats, while his wife cuckolds him. In 1820 He attempts to divorce his wife, in the process revealing that he is massively cuckolded, and becomes a figure of ridicule. His divorce is denied, because women are supposedly naturally so pure and virtuous that they can only do bad things because bad men make them do those bad things. The power of Kings ends when George the fourth goes massively public with how badly he has been cuckolded, instead of locking his wife in the tower. When George the Third told Pitt to take a long walk off a short pier, that showed Kings in charge. When the adulterous George the fourth could not divorce his flagrantly adulterous wife, that showed kings absurd.

Immediately British fertility starts falling, and has continue to fall to the present day, because if women are saints, they should rule men. Hence the current condition of marriage.

...

The whore Florence nightingale was made into a hero. Camp followers were deemed to be actual soldiers and put in uniform, with the inevitable consequence that proportion of actual soldiers in the military has been falling ever since. The British army, which has about two hundred generals, can now today field only about two hundred actual fighting men.

Mental or Spiritual Weigh the Facts #fundie autismordemonicpossession.webs.com

Autism is a medical label fluke used by the world governments and society to pacify demonic possession.

Autistic kids/people have very obvious traits and anyone will know an autistic child when seeing one.

You can literally feel it in their presence a heaviness and darkness while in their presence that cannot be ignored

The fact is this; a truly Autistic child/person has the same symptoms of demonic possession as in:

Lewd behavior as in exposing one's self and imitating sexual acts with no prior knowledge of these things

Violence, be it self inflicted or towards others

They will excrement on themselves and let loose their bladder at any time or place and also play with the waste, they seem to like having the bodily waste on their person

They spit

They have animalistic traits like sniffing, and licking

They will eat anything including old food and garbage if it has a smell that attracts them to it

They will scream without end at times, and in a loud howl-like inhuman screaming sound that can shatter anyones nerves overtime

They keep up constant noise vocally or with objects to bring confusion to where ever they are

They bite themselves and others

They strike or attempt to choke others

Pain really doesn’t affect them

They speak a strange language and they actually can communicate between each other

They are extremely strong when in a rage

As children they can over power an adult when having the fits of rage

They don't like the Name of Jesus and they will always be put under control by His name

They are selfish, mean spirited, and dominate people

They show no signs of guilt when doing wrong