www.donotlink.com

Eugene Gant #fundie donotlink.com

The collapse of the Episcopal Church continues this week with news that the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., will permit Muslims to conduct an afternoon prayer service there.

According to The Washington Post, the head Muslim in charge, who is South Africa’s ambassador to the United States, explained why Christians must surrender their territory: “This needs to be a world in which all are free to believe and practice and in which we avoid bigotry, Islamaphobia, racism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Christianity and to embrace our humanity and to embrace faith.” .[In a first, Washington National Cathedral to host Friday Muslim prayer service, By Michelle Boorstein, November 10, 2014]

Unsurprisingly, a top priestess (The Rev. Canon Gina Gilland Campbell) conjured up this stupid idea the evening before the service for communist Nelson Mandela.

Dalrock #fundie donotlink.com

New commenter Rachel attempted in several comments to redirect the topic in the discussion of Why won’t he hurry up and die already? beginning with:

Hi, I know this blog is about the destructive and weak behavior of women in their relationships with men. However, I was wondering if you can think of any comparable examples of behavior exhibited by men in their relationships with women. I know that’s not the focus of this blog, though.

There are several problems with the framing of her question. The first is that the post she was responding to was in fact an explanation of how men are failing women, and part of an extended series I’ve done on the topic. Men are failing women terribly by refusing to speak the truth about bad behavior of women. Calling out bad behavior of women is difficult and feels uncomfortable, and men are taking the easy feel good path. This hurts the very women men are refusing to speak the truth about.

But there is another way that men’s failure here is hurting women. Not all women are protective of a push to debauch the culture. While all women (just like all men) face temptation to sin, some women are actively trying to push for better standards of behavior by women. In a properly functioning society, much if not most of the day to day policing of female behavior is done by women, and this is a biblical role.

3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

The woman in the previous post* was not only unrepentant in her adultery and terrible treatment of her cancer stricken husband, she was announcing her intent to fight against the sanctity of marriage:

When my outing happens, I suppose I might as well take a stand for those who are trapped in bad marriages. Many of us are doing the best we can, trying in our own imperfect way to cope with alienation, lovelessness, and physical deprivation.

Some women read the quote above in the original post and didn’t feel a desire to protect the woman who wanted to destroy marriage; they felt under attack by her. For these women, my post wasn’t an assault, but protection. What I would ask the women reading is to go back and consider your own reaction to my last post. Which way did my criticism of the unrepentant adulteress strike you? Did you feel that I was attacking you or being unkind when I called the unrepentant adulteress out, or did you perceive the adulteress as the threat and my calling her out as protection? Which side did you identify with? Likewise, I would ask the men reading how they perceived my criticism of the unrepentant adulteress. Did you perceive it as an attack against women, or protection of women?

*The woman may be real, or a literary device the blogger is using to try to debauch the culture. Either way, the purpose of “her” words are the same.

Joschua Boehm (aka Peter Andrew Nolan) #fundie donotlink.com

Hello World! Welcome to A-MAN-ZON

Hello World! Welcome to A-MAN-ZON, THE politically incorrect store for MEN.

If you are a man who is sick and tired of being told what you can not say and can not do for “fear” you will “offend” someone while everyone else has no problems at all calling you all sorts of names and offending you? This is the place to be!

Over the last few months I have heard many many say “I wish there were some way to fight back against all this political correctness”.

Well? There is. You stop spending your money with people who promote “political correctness”. You stop spending your money with mangina, white-knight, women worshiping men who will throw other men under the bus as soon as look at them.

Stop spending your money with men who openly support and condone women committing crimes against men.

Stop spending your money with men who will sell products and services to men and then take that money and give it to women to spend on lawyers in the divorce courts until the man is so harassed and so broke that he decides to kill himself like Robin Williams did this week.

And the FIRST such man-hating, mangina, white-knight, sexist, discriminatory, bigot that I recommend men stop spending money with is Jeff Bezos.

Jeff Bezos is one of the worlds biggest man-hating, mangina, white-knight, sexist, discriminatory, bigots.

Jeff Bezos openly employs tens of thousands of women who have committed crimes against fathers in divorce courts. He is completely un-apologetic about that.

If some man in Jeff Bezos employ made a harmless joke about a woman Jeff Bezos would make sure that man is fired. But if some woman goes in to the family law courts and commits perjury to use the criminal cartel of the family law courts to steal from the man, to steal his children, to steal his house, to steal his future income? Jeff Bezos will handsomely reward her with some flexible time off and emotional support by her colleagues so that she can more easily criminally persecute the man.

Further, if a MAN in the employ of Jeff Bezos is criminally attacked and victimised by a woman in the divorce courts and he does so little as “complain” that he is being criminally victimised by the family law courts? Jeff Bezos will see to it that man is fired.

Jeff Bezos is such a man-hating, mangina, white-knight, sexist, discriminatory, bigot that even though he employs tens of thousands of people he has NEVER come out and stated his opinion as to whether his employees should have the equal protection of the law. He has NEVER come out and made any statement about what his companies policy is when people in his employ commit crimes.

For this lack of statement, this man-hatred, I propose that the FIRST business that men who are FED UP with all this political correctness rebel against and undermine is the business that Jeff Bezos started. Amazon.

So I have created A-MAN-ZON. Short for A MAN ZONE.

A-MAN-ZON is a place where men can buy and sell their products and services where “political correctness” and it’s close brother “cultural marxism” are banned. No one gets to tell anyone else what they can do or what they can say around here. As long as you are not causing anyone else injury, harm and loss? What you buy and sell here is ok.

And no. A woman saying “I feel upset” is not “injury, harm or loss” in A MAN ZONE. Women are welcome to not look at what we are doing lest their delicate sensibilities be offended. This is why we have WO-MAN-ZON. A safe and separate place for those women who are such delicate petals that they can be “upset” by what they see on a computer screen. Of course, those “good women” who are “man enough” not to be “offended” by other peoples opinions are absolutely welcome here as buyers! #WomenAgainstFeminism are welcome to be buyers of products and services here.

All those who wish to tell other people what they can do, what they can say? All those who want to pay out their hard earned money on products and services that will then be used to attack other men and destroy their lives by criminal women in criminal family courts? By all means, buy your products and services from the man-hater Jeff Bezos.

Every man who spends money with the man-hater Jeff Bezos is a gender traitor who is supporting the war against men.

So—if you want to send a message to Jeff Bezos? If you want to send a message to the other men who run large companies who so thrive on promoting the hatred of men to sell things to women?

Buy from: A-MAN-ZON. THE politically incorrect store for MEN.

Kerux #fundie donotlink.com

You're confused. The OT Israelites, that is, sons of Israel, or family of Israel, were NOT Jews. Moses was not a jew; Abraham was not a jew: David was not a jew; Jesus was not a jew. Herod, that evil son of a bitch that murdered innocent Israelite (White) male children under two years old, now, he was a jew. So were the hypocritical Pharisees that threatened Pilate politically unless he crucify another innocent White Israelite male, from the line of Judah, Yahshua. And no, jews are not Judah.

Modern day jews have no claim to Palestine whatsoever.

Bankuei #racist donotlink.com

The more I see of these bullshit ass “kumbayah we’re all in love” kind of pictures, the more I realize that the underlying message they’re TRYING to convey is, “The true picture of love, is loving white people”.

Notice you don’t ever see two POC together as some sort of anti-racism ad.

You don’t hear the stories where the white person in the couple ditches the POC when they decide they want to “get a serious relationship”.

You don’t see the part where the relationship goes fine until the parents of the white couple pour out enough racism, and the white partner either decides to give up on the relationship (finding other “reasons” of course), OR, refuses to check their parents and just asks the POC to endure the unbearable.

You don’t see the part where the couple raises a kid and the white parent is ill-equipped to teach the child about what they need to do for survival against the bullies, the teachers, the strangers, the police.

You especially don’t see any part where this fucking magical kiss changes police violence, health care disparities, differences in pay rates, differences in hiring rates, differences in promotions, microaggressions, bank loans, murder rates, or incarceration.

But hey, a white person is kissing you, don’t you understand that the Heavens have parted, the Divine has come to Earth, the Good Word has poured forth and why would you worry about living safely, in health or wanting to be paid for work - shouldn’t you be grateful that THE WHITENESS HAS DEEMED YOU WORTHY?

The Kumbayah Myth is built on white supremacy.

As long as white supremacy is part of your idea of a relationship, you don’t have respect, or love, involved in any actual way.

August Lovenskiolds #sexist donotlink.com

With the rise of gynocentrism and leisure culture, the harsh penalties for violating the andromarriage laws began to erode – as our preferences for expanding the purview of women increased we became less willing to hold women to any standards or responsibilities. We now see women as lifelong children: too weak, frail, stupid and mercurial to be trusted with adult responsibility when it comes to adhering to the strict requirements of an andromarriage contract. Western countries now look on places that stone adulterers as barbaric even though we were killing them ourselves not that long ago. A woman stoned to death is a woman held to adult standards that feminists now reject.

Ilana Mercer #fundie donotlink.com

I was stocking up on groceries at Fred Meyer when I heard this fretful falsetto. “Honey, look at these ingredients. Oh my God. Check the percentage of trans fats. It’s outrageous!” The fussing, believe it or not, was coming from a man. He was hopping up and down on spindly legs, beckoning his wife excitedly. I quickly moved on, thanking my lucky stars that the spouse had gravitated automatically to the hardware section of the store, and was itching to move on to Home Depot.

Whenever I venture out, I encounter this not-so-new breed of man. Typically, he’ll have a few spoilt, cranky kids in tow, and a papoose strapped to a sunken chest. He’ll be laboring to make the outing to Trader Joe’s a “learning experience” for the brats—one that every other store patron is forced to endure. This generic guy oozes psychological correctness and zero manliness. He’s not necessarily effeminate, mind you. Rather, he’s safely androgynous, and most certainly not guy-like in the traditional sense. As personalities go, he and the wife are indistinguishable.

I’ve often wondered whether decades of emasculation—legal and cultural—have bred these men. It would seem my hunch may have more merit than I imagined. On Halloween, Dr. Thomas Travison and colleagues at the New England Research Institutes in Watertown, Mass., released this hormonal horror story: American men are indeed losing the stuff that makes them mucho.

“A new study has found a ‘substantial’ drop in U.S. men's testosterone levels since the 1980s.” The average levels of the male hormone have been dropping by an astounding 1 percent a year. A 65-year-old in 1987 would have had testosterone levels 15 percent higher than those of a 65-year-old in 2002. Aging, slouched, pony-tailed hippies, everywhere apparent, look more flaccid, because they are more flaccid.

The reasons for the reduction in testosterone levels remain unclear. A rise in obesity and a decline in smoking have been suggested, since “testosterone levels are lower among overweight people and smoking increases testosterone levels.” The Marlboro Man was certainly manly and fit-looking. Other researchers have implicated estrogen-mimicking chemicals, ubiquitous in the environment.

Conspicuously absent from the report are changes in life experiences over time. These trends are, however, routinely referenced when discussing incidence of this or the other disease or deficiency in women. Breast cancer is said to be associated with the modern woman’s propensity to delay or forfeit childbearing. Osteoporosis is exacerbated by women’s sedentary routines—they do less weight-bearing work than they used to (although in Kazakhstan, women still do plenty plowing).

Boyhood today, for example, means BB guns and “bang-bang you’re dead” are banned. Tykes are required to hack their way through a page-turner like One Dad Two Dads Brown Dad Blue Dads. The smashing success of politically incorrect books such as The Dangerous Book for Boys proves how desperate little boys are to be boys again—the book reintroduces a new generation of youngsters to the joys of catapult-making, knot-tying, stone skimming, astronomy, and much more. (Concocting rocket fuel from saltpeter and sugar is not in the book, but is a lot of fun—or so my husband tells me.)

Boys are hardwired for competition; the contemporary school enforces cooperation. Boys like to stand out; team-work obsessed, mediocre school teachers teach them to fade into the crowd. Boys thrive in more disciplined, structured learning environments; the American school system is synonymous with letting it all hang out.

Sons are more likely to be raised without male mentors, since moms, in the last few decades, are more inclined to divorce (and get custody), never marry, or bear children out of wedlock. The schools have been emptied of manly men and staffed by feminists, mostly lacking in the Y chromosome. Although boys (and girls) require discipline, the rare disciplinarian risks litigation.

Then there are the effects of years of Ritalin. Teachers prefer girls (many narcissistic, feral, female “pedagogues” have even taken to sexually preying on boys). To make boys more like girls, they’ll often insist that they be plied with "Kiddie Cocaine." Children as young as two are being medicated with a substance whose side effects include liver damage, cardiac arrhythmia, and death. Writing for the PBS’s “Frontline,” Dr. Lawrence Diller, who favors Ritalin, cautions that “despite sixty years of stimulant use with children—some as-yet-undiscovered negative effect of Ritalin still could be found.” (Hampered hormonal levels later in life, perhaps?)

When boys leave secondary school, they discover that society privileges girls in tertiary schools and in the workplace. Why, even girls favor girls. Most swoon over the washed-out, asexual anchor, Anderson Cooper. In TV newsrooms, cherubic-looking, soft-spoken, “girlie-men,” such as Bill Hemmer and Don Lemon are replacing deep-voiced, mucho men. Tom Brokaw, for instance. Women say they look for partners who are “sweet and sensitive.” If they’re having children with men who grow bum-fluff for stubble, then perhaps they’re breeding out testosterone.

Is it at all possible that the feminization of society over the past 20 to 30 years is changing males, body and mind? Could the subliminal stress involved in sublimating one’s essential nature be producing less manly men?

The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is a delicate homeostatic feedback system, intricately involved in regulating hormones and stress. Has it become the axis of evil in the war on men?

Just asking...

witchwind #fundie donotlink.com

[E]motional/sexual attachment to men (‘heterosexuality’) exists only within the context of OPPRESSION, GENOCIDE or globally organised violence against women by men as a class. Which means that this emotional bond to men can’t be anything else than an uncontrolled chemical response to that inescapable violence and oppression. A response to which men have conditioned us through a fine-tuned system of repression, deprivation, constraints and reward, grooming and brainwashing – aimed to modify our behaviour to ensure our long-term submission. Within this inescapable subordination to men, we can only fear them or trauma-bond to them: therefore love does not exist towards men.

Michael Anissmov #wingnut donotlink.com

The reason that more Transhumanists are not Reactionaries, in my view, is that they haven’t done their reading on molecular manufacturing, or they mistakenly think that Friendly AI or a Kurzweilian Singularity will come around in time to save the day. The writings describing the full picture of molecular manufacturing are rather long and technical, and most people — even Harvard graduates with beefy IQs — simply don’t have the time or inclination to read them. The standards of Transhumanism have fallen in the last decade as well. In the late 90s and the early 00s, when the primary transhumanist venues were the Extropians and SL4 mailing lists, the technical understanding of the average transhumanist was excellent. Today, it is quite poor. There’s an emergent brilliance produced when you put Spike Jones, Robin Hanson, Anders Sandberg, Chris Phoenix, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Robert Bradbury on the same mailing list, which simply has no modern-day analogue. This environment was the forge that crafted the most capable Transhumanist leaders of today. Second-generation students of transhumanism are simply not the same.

When people understand the true extent of the feasibility and power of molecular manufacturing, a grim attitude tends to set in due to all the palpable risks. I’m pleased that the 3D-printed gun exists, because this is the first visceral, public example of the phenomenon I’ve been writing about and fearing since 2001. Unrestrained technological power in the hands of the masses. It’s nearly impossible to grasp the full picture until you understand the likely production capabilities and relative technological feasibility of molecular manufacturing. Many of the original visionaries are beginning to get quite old, and are falling silent without passing on their knowledge in detail to many students, so I fear that the baton is not being handed off properly, and will be dropped along the way. Those who have the responsibility to pass off this knowledge know who they are.

My concern are individuals and small groups that asymmetrically empower themselves through emerging technologies and don’t have the public good in mind. Given the current predominant political sympathies, which are ultra-egalitarian, there would be few restrictions on the routes to this power. Adopting Traditional principles, however, which are strictly hierarchical, would restrict the power in the hands of a few, providing fewer points of failure. Would you rather take the risk of a thousand elite leaders exploiting powerful manufacturing technologies to do damage, or the guarantee that if the technologies are available to a billion, many of them will certainly do damage?

The benefit of conferring responsibility on a comparatively small set of elite individuals is that these individuals can be educated for their responsibilities far in advance, groomed and cultivated for their important roles. They can be instilled with good morals, broad understanding, supportive familial and organizational structures, and mutual expectations worthy of their station. Common people tend to think only for themselves, and have trouble seeing personal responsibility for affairs of the state. Handing someone a nanofactory automatically gives them the power to influence affairs on a worldwide scale. Is this a power we really want being handed to those educated by reality television?

Students of political correctness will cringe at the thought of conferring superlative powers on an elite, but the long-term survival of the human species is more important than historically contingent factors that are based on nothing more than the preoccupations of an unexpectedly influential cadre of Berkeley students in the 1960s. Prior to the 1960s, high-level political thought was still based heavily on Traditional principles of sacred responsibility among a few men of power. The notion that true power and control should be shattered into 300 million little pieces and distributed evenly among the populace is a very recent idea, one we would do well without. If UC Berkeley never existed, progressivism may have never even manifested in its current form and risen to become the dominant ideology of the nation’s elite.

Michael Anissimov #fundie donotlink.com

A fair accusation, I suppose, it’s just entirely made up. This is an inference that is in critics’ heads and nowhere else. I explained why this impression is false recently, but I might as well spell it out more.

-We neoreactionaries understand that we are just a community of everyday people on the Internet. Few of us are leader material. We are intellectuals, more than anything else.
-If, in the off chance that a neoreactionary state is implemented somewhere in the world, say on a patch of land in Kansas, it mostly won’t effect you. So there is no need to feel personally threatened by neoreactionaries. This might make you feel it less necessary to make up the rationalization that neoreactionaries “want to rule” as a way of discrediting something you see as a threat.
-Similarly, if a neoreactionary state pops up in Kansas, it’s more likely to be ruled by people from Kansas than people from elsewhere. This is because the nobility and the commoners must have a common culture. People from, say, California or Texas would not make great rulers there since they don’t know the families and don’t know the culture. When it comes to nobility, the more rooted in the local culture they are, the better. The first neoreactionary states are likely to be in rural areas with low populations where we don’t come from.
-A new nobility would likely be extremely wealthy. Few of us are that wealthy. Therefore, we personally won’t be nobility, even in the off chance that a neoreactionary state is created in our lifetimes.
-The kind of people capable of ruling over or managing plots of land are not the same kind of people who are good at writing political theory on the Internet.
-The kind of men who are followed as patriarchs tend to be older, aged 60-80. Not aged 20-30, like the majority of neoreactionaries today. Even if there were a neoreactionary revolution tomorrow, we would be too young to rule.
-The above are just a few reasons. We won’t personally join any new ruling class. Let me repeat that: none of us think we will be personally joining any ruling class.

To understand neoreaction, imagine people who see hierarchy as providing stability and prosperity, even if they personally aren’t in the ruling class.

Mostly, neoreactionaries just want to be left alone.

For the purposes of rhetorical attack, I can see why someone might falsely accuse neoreactionaries of having fantasies of rule (just like they might accuse us of being ‘fascists’), but in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

Chance #racist donotlink.com

Asian men are seen as having less masculine bodies, and not so strong personalities, emotionless, silent anger that they seldom express, verbally not good communicators, and physically weak. White men, black men, Latino men, and men of other ethnic backgrounds are seen as more masculine than Asians men.

The reason basically for Asian men being more feminine in physical appearance is because of they produce more estrogen than men of other racial groups. Asian women are more feminine in appearance because they produce more estrogen than other women. This estrogen also influences personality and emotions this makes Asian men display characteristics that often are associated with women.

Some of the characteristics are they keep emotions hidden well meaning it can be difficult to tell when an Asian man is angry. The more testosterone a man produce the more he will show his emotions of anger, joy, sadness, happiness, etc. The less testosterone a man produces the more he is able to keep his emotions hidden.

But when he has kept these emotions hidden for a long time and bottled up whether these emotions are positive or negative when they come out they will manifest very strongly.

The estrogen allows Asian men and women to look younger for many years example a 40 year old Asian man who looks 27 years old.

Jared Taylor #conspiracy donotlink.com

Mr. Wade emphasizes that behavior of this kind is influenced by genes, although only a few alleles that affect social behavior have been found. One is MAO-A, the “warrior gene,” variants of which are clearly associated with a hair-trigger temper and violence. Maoris, for example, are warlike and crime prone—and they have a high incidence of this variant.

This, in fact, is Mr. Wade’s boldest assertion: that different races behave differently because they are genetically different and genetic differences give rise to differences in social institutions. He is at pains to argue that the genetic differences are small—so small that they are almost undetectable at the individual level—but that once a group has been nudged even slightly in a particular genetic direction it may be receptive to institutions that completely change the nature of society.

Mr. Wade cites one study that estimates fully 14 percent of the human genome has been under evolutionary pressure since the races separated, and that substantial differences are therefore inevitable. DNA studies show that Tibetans split off from Han Chinese only 3,000 years ago, so it must be only since then that Sherpas evolved their ability to function so well at high altitudes. Indeed, there are more than 30 lung- and circulation-related gene variants that are more common in Tibetans than in Chinese. Mr. Wade also notes that American blacks may already be less likely than Africans to have sickle cell anemia—because they live on a continent without malaria where there are no benefits to sickle cell alleles. Evolution is constant.

Mr. Wade makes the crucial point that what is known as “national character” is undoubtedly genetic, and that is why group behavior is consistent. Jews prosper everywhere they go. So do overseas Chinese. If the Malays and Indonesians envy the success of their Chinese minorities, why don’t they just copy their good habits? Mr. Wade argues that they can’t; they don’t have the genetic predisposition to act Chinese.

Africans likewise cannot maintain government institutions. Their colonial masters wrote nifty constitutions for them, showed them how elections work, and explained the importance of an independent judiciary. That all ended up in the ditch once Africans took over.

Dota #fundie donotlink.com

As I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, feminism has merely shifted women’s need to be provided for away from the family and onto the state. The nanny state provides women with resources that enable them to rise in society without merit. Some of these resources are (but not limited to): affirmative action, preferential treatment in education (Universities), and various non profit initiatives like “Women Entrepreneurs of—(whatever).

Feminism fails in the third world precisely because third world nations are lacking in resources and effective governments.

In India for example, the state lacks the resources to arrest and prosecute rapists, let alone spare any officers to respond to domestic disturbance calls made by women who wish to eject their husbands from their property following a minor domestic spat. For rural women, divorce is an omen of doom as the state has no means of enforcing alimony and child support on non compliant husbands. The infamous Shah Bano case illustrates a scenario where an effete state backed down under societal pressure. Many third world nations lack the resources to to protect their women from physical harm, let alone consider and debate the gender bending lunacy of Western gender feminism.

Schopenhauer referred to female Independence as an “unnatural state” and perhaps now we may begin to appreciate why. In our species, women were never meant to be the independent sex. Note that by “independent” I am not referring to a woman’s ability to work and earn a living outside the home, but rather, the erroneous feminist belief that women MUST pursue work outside the home to truly self actualize. Female independence comes at a cost which must ultimately be borne by society. When women outsource motherhood to daycares while they chase their corporate fantasies, their offspring develop lower IQs and emotional stability as demonstrated by studies. The cost of lower IQ citizens is borne by society. Similarly, children raised in single mother households are statistically more likely to take to crime than those raised in traditional households. Who bears the cost for bad decisions made by “strong and independent” single moms? Society does.

The feminist enterprise has a massive financial upkeep that third world nations are clearly unable to bear. If feminist “equality” were truly natural to our species there would be no need for an upkeep. Some would blame entrenched patriarchy and culture but lets not forget that these are shaped by environment. When resources grow scarce, women lose their petulant rebelliousness and support patriarchy, not out of selfless love for men, but out of self interest as the mechanism of patriarchy deems them a protected class entitled to sustenance and protection.

During the roaring 1920s, the thriving Flapper subculture of women flouted societal conventions pertaining to modesty and propriety as they pursued a lifestyle of hedonism. There is a great volume of online feminist literature that glorifies these rebellious heroines as models to be emulated but little is said about their downfall. How did the Flapper subculture fall? It declined with the onset of the Great Depression when resources became scarce and female survival instincts jettisoned “independence” in favour of patriarchy’s protective embrace.

Glenfilthie #fundie donotlink.com

(FOAD= Fuck off and die)

What of it, Owly?

For years I was the dutiful and respectful son-in-law. I was also a dutiful father.

When my daughter was 25, she 'came out': she was a gay artiste. She wasn't going to school to study sciences, she was going to study "fine arts". She and her ugly girl friend would be my moral and intellectual superiors, they would tell me what jokes were funny and which weren't, they would tell me what I could say or think - and if I had any problems with that I could just FOAD.

When I went to give this happy news to my father in law he laughed at me and called me a red neck and an idiot for having qualms. He is a liberal beta male, his wife is a fat old grey haired liberal lady with a bad hair cut, and ever since I married their daughter they treated me with thinly veiled derision and contempt. I was told to accept and celebrate my daughters' sexuality, politics and values... or I was out of the family and out of the will.

I still remember the day I took the red pill. My daughter was stunned when I told HER to FOAD. I will resume relations if and when she grows up. My out laws? I told them that I was just peachy with not being a part of their tribe any more, and that I would not be coming over to visit again. I asked them to be kind enough to reciprocate.

My family was kind of shocked by the suddenness and finality of my decision too. For years they believed this crap and expected me to as well. But today? Well - I don't have to worry about my daughter but I still do. I hope Darwin and Murphy are kind to her but if they aren't - I am ready for it. Christmas is actually nice now, without my idiot in laws and my moron of a brother in law. I don't care what they think, I don't care what they say about me, and if a tree falls in their forest - I won't hear it.

There are actually a lot of other people like us that are getting sick and tired of being told how to think and live by the kind of people that should have been culled at birth. Doing what's right is seldom easy.

rls976 #fundie donotlink.com

I've got news for you: We are born into, and inhabit, a very political world. I have four little ones. Am I talking to them about politics? No. But they have got to be taught about this world, in an age-appropriate way. None of mine are in school yet. I know that the propagandization begins, in government schools, from the get-go. Back during 2009 we had a foster child - a girl who entered the second grade with us. She had a "social studies" textbook that was completely about blacks, slavery, white guilt, Mexicans. And this is in South Carolina, a supposedly conservative state. At whatever age the lies start to be fed to them, they must be inoculated against them.

The white race will not survive if it is absorbed into other races, as Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard warned.

I have had my children, first and foremost for their sakes - to give them life. But, having been born ethnically Anglo-Germanic, they are, in my opinion, blessed with the finest patrimony in the world, and they ought to be taught to protect it and pass it on.

You make a huge assumption. While the whites of today are as listless as a floppy wet dish rag, you expect that somehow, in the future, the whites will have an epiphany, make a 180-degree turn, and become militant. Your faith that they will be so unlike presently-living whites is a curiosity to me. Do you not think that perhaps we ought to be setting the stage for them to be that way and create their own homeland? And maybe to do this we create more of them, and teach them the necessary and true racial values? Do you not think that we ought to begin now with the militancy that will be required of them to accomplish the Herculean task that you believe they will accomplish?

John #racist donotlink.com

(HBD=human biodiversity=race realism)

My journey to the HBD world.

I immigrated to a small town in the Pacific Northwest in late seventies from southern China. The population of my town was mainly white people. Though in retrospect, they were very nice and tried very hard to accept me, I felt a sense of alienation. This alienation went along with the identity politics and equality meme of the democratic party. though I was always a fiscal conservative coming from China where one does not spend money that one does not have.

It was not until I came out to California in the late nineties that opened my eye to a different world. What struck me as odd and puzzling was the division of labor along racial and ethnic lines. The Chinese and the Indians are the engineers. Whites were generally the managers. Vietnamese dominated the hair salon business. The Cambodians were big in doughnut shops. The Sikhs were taking over the hotel and taxi businesses. The other puzzle was the permanent inability of the black people to get out of the slums and the amount of coddling that was given to them by the society in large.

Being an engineer, I can’t help but observed that Asians made up a large share of the engineering staff, but few management were Asian. I initially blamed the glass ceiling for the lack of Asians in management, but then I saw other immigrant groups, such as the Persians which did much better at cracking the “glass ceiling”. The publication of the Bell Curve and the subsequent controversy opened my eye to a different dimension and a different perspective. Then I stumbled on to other HBD type blogs like isteve which opened my eyes further. For the first time, all the puzzles that I had could be explained in a coherent way. Though the HBD theory that I formed still had a lot of question marks.

After reading work by Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn and others, I was able to fill most of the gaps I had on my HBD theory. At the same time, I was saddened to see that the leading civilization in our time, the West, is on a slow road to oblivion. In the U.S., the demographic trend is such that the die has already been cast. Europe is not far behind and hobbled by fragmentation and the flawed concept of a European Union. The impulse to help the weak and disadvantaged, which started off with good intentions, has now veered off into the absurd. The brutal suppression of any HBD discussions (Larry Summers, James Watson) made me realize that even in a supposedly free and democratic society, the media is incredibly managed. The truth is often sacrificed at the altar of dogma. Our public discourse given to the fears and prejudices of the masses. Given the democratic system we have in place, a spoil system along racial and sexual lines is inevitable and indeed, it is being born even as we speak. I owned some homes in the San Jose area after the prices plummeted during the housing melt down. The other day, I was renting one out, a black lady came to apply. The government is paying most of her rent. She showed up in a black late Mercedes SUV! It was worth more than the car that I drove. We are seeing people with their government food vouchers at Wholefoods buying luxury items that many hard working middle class choose to forgo, often sporting expensive handbags and such. But these kinds of scenes will be child’s play compared to the injustices that my kids will see when they started contributing to society.

I went down this road originally burdened by the weakness of my fellow Asians in America. Ironically, as I learned that Asians are not as weak as I thought, I am seeing the beginning of the end for the West, and it brings me no pleasure to find the answer that I was looking for.

Should have taken the blue pill.

Scharlach #fundie donotlink.com

[Supposed Twitter conversation between a self declared neo-reactionary(Scharlach) and an anarchist recounted for his audience, had to cut well over half due to ramble so more under the link]

Anarchist: Cultural groups are not as different as you’re implying here. I’ve traversed enough of this planet to know that human cultures are very similar . . . the differences are relatively small.

Scharlach: The differences are small? That’s interesting. I heard just the other day that Afghanistan might go back to stoning adulterers.

Anarchist: What? Huh? I don’t get it? Huh?

Scharlach: Nevermind. I’d just say that your globe-trotting has most likely been from cosmopolitan city to cosmopolitan city. Everyone looks the same in those cities because they’ve all just adopted your Western norms and ways of living. These people are a minority.

Anarchist: Well, then, the key for democracy is to . . . . to . . .

Scharlach: To what? To make sure that no one on the globe really is all that different from anyone else?

Anarchist: You’re putting words in my mouth!

Scharlach: You just said a moment ago that you define democracy as a system of governance in which individuals group together to decide on things that impact them directly. So let’s look at the Afghan example: do you think it’s alright for Afghans to stone adulterers?

Anarchist: Of course not! That’s horrid! It’s especially horrid because it’s almost always the women who get punished, not the men! Misogyny!

Scharlach: Maybe. But I personally think Afghans have every right to stone adulterers if that’s their cultural consensus. Just as Americans have every right to jail anyone who stones anyone else, if that’s the American consensus.

Anarchist: So you have no problem with murder, slavery, genocide, so long as they’re “culturally consensual”?

Scharlach: I think that any attempt I might make—as an outsider—to solve a problem in Africa or the Middle East would only make matters worse. And you should agree with me, too, if you believe your own version of democracy just defined a moment ago. You need to ask yourself, if you’re such an anarchist, such a believer in organic decision-making among people involved in something, why do you feel this impulse to interfere with something happening in an alien culture five thousand miles away from you? Do adultery laws in Afghanistan “impact you directly”? Does slavery in Africa “impact you directly”?

Anarchist: First, even if it didn’t, we still need to take moral stances on some things. And, second, yes, it does: slavery in Africa makes electronics cheaper for me.

Scharlach: This is exactly what I was talking about at the beginning: in a democracy, it’s only a matter of time before everyone comes to believe that everything affects them directly . . .

Anarchist: [Silence]

Scharlach: And in the end, maybe everything does, in some Cloud Atlas kind of way, affect everyone at some level. Which is why the universalist democratic impulse is dangerous. When everyone has a voice about everything everyone else does, the world becomes its own tyranny.

Steve Sailer #racist donotlink.com

Sweden is the most pro-feminist country in the world, so it’s not surprising that they get more of what they pay for. I suspect Swedish schools are suffering from an unintended but malign interaction of First World feminism and Third World male supremacy.

In the First World, male supremacy is defined in practice as men achieving more than women, so much effort is made to Close the Gap. The easiest way, of course, is to discourage males from achieving so much. Boys wasting time on video games is less a problem than a solution for the pressing problem of Male Supremacy.

In contrast, in much of the Third World, especially Islamic and African cultures, male supremacy means women doing most of the work. So, when males from these kind of cultures grow up in a First World culture obsessed with keeping men from out-achieving women, and with not criticizing Third World cultures, well, there’s a handy win-win solution: the males just slack off even more.

Don’t overlook interaction effects: as identifiable and under-performing minorities take up ever more space in the brain of the educational establishment, Closing the Gap tends to become an obsession, which can mean that investing in high achievers becomes politically suspect. For example, after Sputnik in 1957, the U.S. focused for a number of years on finding diamonds in the rough and on mobilizing the talents of the talented. But with the black equality becoming the highest value in the land and shocking realization that there weren’t many black diamonds in the rough, standards plunged across the board in the Jeff Spicoli Era of American education in the 1970s

Jesse Powell #fundie donotlink.com

So everything was great and blissful with my new discovery until, until I started to realize that the feminists would be opposed to my dream of me having a traditional family and that it would be hard for me to find a woman who didn’t want to work during her marriage with me. This is when my anti-feminism began in earnest. Very quickly my belief in patriarchy was no longer really about getting a woman at all and it was instead a kind of Holy Crusade to destroy feminism. Feminism was the great enemy lurking behind every bush and poisoning the minds of all the women around me and endlessly trying to threaten me and bully me to try to get me to become evil like them.

It is funny, why was it that I never experienced the fantasy of “taking care of” a woman until my mid-20s? I had definitely fallen in love before that time multiple times and I do remember feeling strongly protective towards women I was attracted to occasionally and seeking to be “controlling” at times and I did give women gifts a few times but it wasn’t until the point of my conversion to patriarchy that I actually had a full blown fantasy of “taking care of” a woman financially 100% like how the traditional family model worked. Looking back I am sure this was because I somehow knew or felt that it was “forbidden” and “shameful” for me to actually fantasize about and idealize taking care of a woman. That the very thought of “taking care of a woman” was repulsive and disgusting according to the feminist cultural messages that had been drummed into me my whole life. I think by the time I had reached my mid-20s I just didn’t really care anymore about the stigma I would face in wanting to “take care of a woman” because I was already being rejected by women anyways so it wasn’t like my situation would get any worse by trying something new.

So, I felt the forbidden feeling of wanting to take care of a woman and I had the forbidden thought that taking care of a woman was actually a morally good thing to do; that being the end of my time as a feminist man.

What happened next was that women rejected me because I was now pro-patriarchy and therefore “sexist” and an “oppressor” and things like that but after my conversion to patriarchy I experienced this rejection in a totally different way. After my conversion to patriarchy I experienced women’s rejection of me as proof of my heroism and good moral character and that I was standing up for what was right and that the feminist women were wrong. The feminist women were wrong because they wanted me to return to the man I was before who was rejected and hated by women for my weakness and who was immoral and selfish because I wasn’t giving to women what women needed from me and deserved from me as a man. I responded to women rejecting me romantically by turning my mind towards politics and the great crusade against feminism thinking if I couldn’t serve women through a personal relationship with a woman I could serve women through the political means of making the culture overall more friendly and supportive of women’s needs by making the culture overall patriarchal instead of feminist.

VDARE reader #fundie donotlink.com

After the Malaysian Airline was shot down over Ukraine, Britain’sleftwing Guardian put out a list of airliners shot down by dastardly villains of the world. In keeping with its anti-European, pro-Colored Revolutionary past, the Guardian did not include the shooting down of deliberately targeted Western airlines such as in the 1978 and 1979 Viscount shootdowns in Rhodesia.

Nor did it include a number of other incidents involving non-Western and Communist attacks in recent history. Instead it focused on various European military accidental shootings. Hoping to mold the world’s media, The Guardian is apparently hell bent on restarting the Cold War with a European nationalist Russia by focusing on the imminent threat and horror of white guys with missiles.

The same holds true for other media outlets such as CNN. These articles ignored the purposeful and premeditated murders of civilians in the Viscount Air Rhodesian massacre. To the staff at propaganda organs such as the aforementioned, some lives especially, if they are white, and most especially if they were victims of those who were not, just don’t seem to count.

With the Viscount Shootings when black guys with missiles deliberately targeted white civilians, the world was silent. In fact so silent the Dean of the Cathedral of St. Mary and All Saints of then white Salisbury, Rhodesia made one of the most important speeches against western appeasement in history

In his sermon the good Dean castigated Western leaders’ appeasement and silence and warned their complicity would merely expand such acts. Sadly, our leaders are as complicit in their appeasement and silence as ever, except when it comes to white guys with missiles. And remember dear readers, what happened to Rhodesia and South Africa is being done here to the United States as we speak.

Peter Brimelow #racist #wingnut #conspiracy donotlink.com

In the wake of the August 5 shootings at the Wisconsin Sikh temple, it is of course necessary to stipulate that VDARE.com is definitely opposed to murder.

It’s necessary because of the Left/ Main Stream Media’s unscrupulous determination to suppress all political opposition by smearing it with these tragedies—part of the totalitarian reflex fundamental to Cultural Marxism, leading to atrocities like the wholly false allegations that Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance was implicated in the 2011 Arizona/ Gabrielle Giffords shooting or that the Aurora CO “Dark Knight” killer was a member of the Tea Party.

It’s also necessary to stipulate, because you won’t see this in the MSM, that what happened in Oak Grove is far overshadowed by mass killings perpetrated by immigrants—often of other immigrants—the curious and ongoing phenomenon that VDARE.com calls Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome. At our most recent count, it involves at least 48 incidents and 411 deaths over 30 years.

This astonishing record would be whooped up as a Trend if the MSM were not so Politically Correct. Instead, immigrant mass murders go straight down the Orwellian Memory Hole. For example, who remembers that seven students at an Oakland CA visa mill college were killed (i.e. more than at Oak Grove) by a Korean immigrant just this last April?

Finally, let’s stipulate that the MSM may have finally found its Great Brownshirt Defendant: Wade Michael Page, the alleged killer, appears to have been connected to the neo/crypto Nazi underground.

Contrary to the impression given by MSM eulogies and despite their beards, Sikhs are not Amish—they are a pretty tough lot. (See here for the opinion of “An Indian-American Reader.”) In fact, they’ve been involved in a couple of Immigrant Mass Murders themselves—see here and here. And see here for a devastating account of Sikh organized crime and terrorism in Canada.

This does not mean, of course, that Sikhs should be shot by Americans. But it does mean that maybe they should not be welcomed so credulously by Americans either.

It’s long been a joke that violence in a cause of which the Left approves is immediately exculpated with the demand that its “root causes” be considered.

When are we going to hear about the “root causes” of the Wisconsin shootings?

For example, Page, obviously a man of limited economic potential, worked as a trucker in civilian life. Trucking and taxi driving are two trades in which Sikhs are disproportionately represented. Has it not occurred to any MSM pundit that sheer American worker displacement might be a factor in this tragedy?

Which means we`ll be seeing it again?

Roosh V #homophobia donotlink.com

The World Health Organization (WHO) has come out with new guidelines that advise all homosexual men without HIV to take anti-HIV drugs to prevent themselves from becoming infected. This policy has presumably come about because HIV prevention education has not gotten through to homosexual men who continue to practice unsafe anal sex with dozens of new partners a year. This has hastened the global spread of the virus.

While the media has done a great job portraying homosexuals as “just like” heterosexuals (deserving of marriage benefits and infinite compassion), it’s clear that the similarities are few. Homosexual men engage in extreme high-risk and extreme promiscuous activity and, as the article linked above states, are “19 times more likely than the general population to be infected by HIV.” Bisexual men have become the perfect vessel to transmit the HIV virus to the heterosexual population, especially to women, who are more likely than men to become infected by HIV during patriarchal male-female sex.

Last year, the NBC made a stink about gay men not being able to donate blood, and even now there is a growing political movement to allow gay men to donate. Thankfully for my relatives in the US who I hope never needs donated blood, the ban on gay men from donating still stands, because health organizations (WHO, FDA) fully understand the danger that homosexual men pose to society due to their degenerate lifestyle.

[...]

The American media has become so infected with the politically correct virus that it is silent when it comes to informing the public of a real virus, all because it contradicts their heterophobia party line that aims to paint gay couples as wonderful and loving.

[...]

A common argument for homo acceptance is the following: “Why do you care how two gays live or whether they want to get married?” Because their lifestyle is spreading a virus that can kill people who aren’t gay. Society should rightfully accept that homosexual men are the bringers of death, a sort of grim reaper wrapped up in fuzzy progressive packaging. Even the FDA is vigorously fighting attempts to allow them to donate blood for the general population. We should be thankful they are on the side of those who don’t have HIV or engage in activities which easily spread it.

image

Whenever someone waves a rainbow flag in your face and insists that you get with the times, tell them that maybe they can start a beef instead with the World Health Organization. They are so alarmed at what gay men are doing that they are pushing a desperate and expensive policy to prevent an epidemic that is not being controlled in spite of everything we know about preventing HIV with condom use. The least we can do is keep this virus contained within the homosexual population, and it may soon be prudent to even consider legislation that prevents homosexuals from sleeping with non-homosexuals.

Jesse Powell #fundie donotlink.com

Almost always when I talk about how things “should” be I am describing a kind of ideal model of how society should work and I am furthermore trying to recreate how society actually did work in the past. My proposed model of how “things should be done” is always based on the assumption of how a society that is already healthy and high functioning would work.

So I am not saying that women should not have the right to vote today right now; I am saying that in the distant future when things are “good” women not having the right to vote would help to maintain a positive social order and good relations between the sexes.

As far as Afghanistan? I don’t know about Afghanistan. I live in the United States and more broadly the Western World. I am advocating for what would work and what would be good in reference to the environment that I actually live in and know something about.

As far as punishing women. I am saying that in principle it is legitimate for a husband to “punish” his wife to enforce his rules regarding the wife’s relationship with him or the wife’s responsibilities and behavior regarding the family. Likewise it is legitimate for the male community to punish the husband for the husband’s misdeeds regarding his wife or his family.

As for how exactly a husband should punish his wife? I would say how he chooses to or according to what the husband thinks is the best approach assuming the husband is following community standards of what types of “punishment” are preferred and what types of “punishment” are considered too dangerous or too prone to abuse or too damaging to be acceptable.

I would say the basic rule should be that a punishment against the wife should be minimally harmful to the relationship in itself while still accomplishing the goal of correcting the woman’s harmful behavior. In addition punishment based on the withdrawal of a reward is better than punishment based on the infliction of a harm as punishing through the withdrawal of a reward is less prone to abuse and requires that a man be providing a benefit to the woman before he would be in a position to punish the woman. In this way the woman’s obedience would be motivated by her desire to continue to benefit from the man rather than her fear of being harmed by the man. Obedience motivated by continued access to rewards is clearly more ethical than obedience motivated by avoiding harm.

Jesse Powell #sexist donotlink.com

Immediately after my conversion to patriarchy around 1995 I became aware that feminists, meaning the culture at large and almost all women in general, would resist my effort to recreate the 1950s ideal of family life for myself as an individual. This filled me with a great rage against feminists. The feminists were bent on destroying me completely; first they messed up my parents so that they would be selfishly oriented and not focused on my developmental needs as a child and as a future man. This is why I was particularly weak in my social skills and why I didn’t see what my positive purpose in relation to women was. Then the feminist culture in general tried to suppress my strength as a man telling me I was an “oppressor” if I showed strength in relation to women. So my particular weakness due to my parents neglecting my social needs combined with the globally imposed feminist culture telling me I should be weak as a man and I was obligated to make myself weak as a man in order to avoid “oppressing” women led to my strength level being so low that it was pretty much impossible for me to get women to be romantically interested in me. This was entirely feminism’s fault because feminism is what led my parents to be selfishly oriented and to neglect my needs as a child and a future man and feminism was responsible for the general cultural message that men were the oppressors of women and so men should weaken themselves in order to avoid oppressing women.

Finally as a young adult I figured out a way to escape from the universal rejection by women feminism imposed upon me; that being 1950s style male breadwinner patriarchy. The problem however was that me embracing 1950s style patriarchy I knew would lead to hostility and push back and that the whole culture and legal system was designed to make traditional family life fail and be unworkable for the purpose of promoting and elevating the feminist version of family life; the feminist version of family life and its associated cultural messages being what plunged me into my failure with women in the first place. So before my conversion to patriarchy I was too weak for women to be interested in me; after my conversion to patriarchy my goal was to be stronger than what the feminists wanted me to be with all sorts of roadblocks and danger and discrimination against me as a man being set up by the feminists for the purpose of weakening me and undermining me because the feminists deemed me to be “too strong” and therefore an oppressor of women with me not going along with their “gender equality” script; “gender equality” being simply female supremacy in practice.

So immediately after my conversion to patriarchy a great rage in me developed against feminists because I could see feminists were bent on destroying me as a newly emerging patriarchal man just like they had already dedicated themselves to destroying me as a child and a young adult by making me too weak to appeal to women before hand. There was no escape from feminist tyranny and feminism’s goal was to destroy my capacity to form relationships with women no matter what I did. So the first 2 years after my conversion to patriarchy I focused my energies on figuring out all the different ways feminism messed up society and developing a general plan in my mind about how patriarchy could be reintroduced and how feminism could be eventually destroyed and overcome.

One might ask themselves; after seeing that patriarchy would get a lot of resistance from the culture and that it might prove unworkable and impractical for myself as an individual why didn’t I try to pursue the middle level of strength feminists and the women around me wanted from me and that would produce a reasonable level of success with women consistent with the average level of success with women among men in general? Why did I start out being too weak as a man and then go to the opposite extreme of being “too strong” trying to be like a man from the 1950s and then refuse to “go to the middle” like the society and the women around me wanted me to do?

The answer to this question is that once I saw that patriarchy would work as a way of attracting women and would be good for children I saw the 1950s man as being a good man, a morally good man, and that the 1990s man others wanted me to become was a bad man by comparison because he did not care for women like the 1950s man did and he did not provide to his children a mother to look after their needs full time like the 1950s man did. The 1950s man was objectively better than the 1990s man so of course I was going to choose to be like the 1950s man regardless of the fact that the culture around me and the women around me wanted me to be a 1990s man rather than a 1950s man at that time. Since the 1950s man was objectively superior to the 1990s man if the women around me wanted me to be a 1990s man that meant the women around me were bad, that they wanted me to be a bad man because they were bad themselves. If the culture around me wanted me to be a 1990s man and not a 1950s man that meant the culture around me was bad. Of course it was already clearly established that the culture around me was bad because the culture is what made my parents what they were and the culture is what told me to weaken myself as a man so that no woman would ever want me.

Eren Jager #racist donotlink.com

Yeah, Zheng He was Persian and Chinese. Genghis Khan was Tocharian and Mongolian. Almost every Asian who has ever risen to prominence had White admixture. Asians cannot claim credit for the Chinese civilization, because Whites built it for them. The White Zhou, Qin, and part-White Manchu, and all of the Emperors of China had White admixture. Just look at their court portraits, these men are tall, bearded, have narrow and straight noses, and narrow faces. You can also see a chin, not present in Mongoloids who are pureblood.
I am getting tired of all the Colored races claiming credit for White accomplishments.

Dota #fundie donotlink.com

One can immediately glimpse the contrast without being an art major; the Greek sculptures possess a more detailed knowledge of human anatomy and are models of representation; their Indian counterparts, however, are used as decoration (in keeping with India’s introverted culture) often adorning temple and cave walls. A closer inspection reveals that the Indian sculptures are more voluptuous, possessing fuller breasts and ample hips compared to their Greco-Roman counterparts. If the old Western ideals of physical beauty precluded voluptuousness, why then is society obsessed with big breasts today?

I hadn’t thought about this until I stumbled across a blog called “seductive Jewess”. The blog is now offline but the author maintained a large database of softcore, mainstream, and pornographic actresses; all Jewish and all large chested. He believed (from what I could infer) that the preponderance of large chested Ashkanazi Jewish women in porn (hard and soft) had over the decades imperceptibly altered society’s tastes.

The fitness model look is very recent, which is obvious when compared to the soft and feminine bodies of models from the 70s and 80s. I do know from personal experience that Asian women find the hard bodied muscled look on women to be rather hideous.

The majority of female fitness models these days have undergone breast augmentation surgery. This isn’t entirely surprising given their extremely low levels of body fat. However, I can’t help but notice that these female fitness models are as toned and shaped as fit men in the 60s and 70s. You can see it in their shoulders, arms, and long torsos. If you ignore their faces, they look like men with breasts. Some have pointed out that the preponderance of homosexuals in the fashion industry has led to gays projecting their ideal of beauty (lean, muscular men) into the female models they work with.

In conclusion I wish to say that the purpose of this post is to leave you with some food for thought. Is beauty in the West being subverted or is my post completely off track? Subversion or evolution? Your thoughts are welcome as always.

Eivind Berge #fundie donotlink.com

Elliot Rodger's manifesto is absolutely amazing. It reads like an expertly crafted and professionally edited novel. In fact, it is so well written that it almost makes me suspect the whole thing is a hoax. It is hard to believe that a sophomore from a community college who keeps dropping his classes can produce such a captivating and immaculate book. With the director father and all, could this be something other than it seems? Some sort of viral marketing campaign, perhaps? Propaganda against the NRA? But no, with all this deadly serious news coverage, I guess we have to conclude it is real.

This isn't insanity, either. Rodger is mentally stable throughout his life, but virginity naturally becomes increasingly frustrating as time goes by. He has poor social skills, which despite counseling will never improve, but he's not schizophrenic and does not slip into psychosis or anything like that. At worst he might be a high-functioning autistic, but even that is unclear. Maybe he is just suffering from social anxiety. The most insane part of the book is when he thinks he will win the lottery and dabbles in the law of attraction, but he gets over that and there are no magical beliefs guiding him on his way to revenge. He is rational and calculating and meticulous, even planning his suicide well in order to avoid capture and imprisonment (use two handguns with a spare in case one jams). There is absolutely no doubt that the rampage is caused by sexual deprivation, and up until the end he holds out some hope that he will get laid after all and cancel the whole retribution thing. As long as he can't have sex, he is determined to destroy some of the happy sexually active people around him. Girls who pick other men and the lucky men who get laid are targeted equally, and he even plans to kill his housemates and brother and step-mother.

You either have to experience celibacy yourself or read this manifesto to comprehend how dangerous this sort of man is. While reading, I was struck with the realization that he is at least as smart as you, and he is going to use that intelligence to kill you. This means he has a good chance of succeeding, which he did. There is no "treatment" for this condition (besides getting sex), because the incel is just as smart as the psychiatrists or cops or whoever tries to intervene, and so he will anticipate their moves and thwart them. The close shave with the cops when they almost search his room is chilling, but here he demonstrates that he is indeed sane and from then on he sleeps with a loaded gun nearby to ensure he will get in at least some kills if they come back.

The monster virgin is a true product of our sex-hostile feminist society, which denies that involuntary celibacy can ever be a problem and is more concerned with constructing the bizarre lie that women can be rapists than acknowledging the basic needs of men. You reap as you sow.