Showing posts with label #femaleentitlement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #femaleentitlement. Show all posts

Monday, 14 November 2016

Reality Pushes Back

Part #1 - before The Trumpening:

So I know this older and quite fat woman, she's gotten fired (along with a bunch of others). Worked as an analyst and actuarial at a bank here in New Zealand (note that 90% of NZ banks are ultimately owned by Australian banks).

She's having a whine about how awful it has been for everyone, how her boss collapsed, how her team has been split up randomly amongst other "bosses" who have no idea what they do or how to use them effectively, etc etc etc.

Final whine was about she doesn't know why she's been fired, the company used to win awards for their diversity...

Basically she got fired because she was costing the company too damn much for not enough return. And she thought that it was unfair because of VAGINA. Hah! Reality's a bitch innit.

Part #2 - after The Trumpening:

It's a couple of weeks on, she's resigned herself to reality (and a big fat bonus + severance check - note that it was still cheaper to fire her ass and pay her a year of "shut-your-cake-hole" money than to keep her hired).

She's now walking daily and has lost a couple of kilograms.

Trump got in though. Whinge...whine...bitch...creeb...typical leftist fucking drivel, which I for one am utterly sick of hearing. It's not even humorous any more, just a sign that the person desperately needs a double-tapping to the head. Some people are just incapable of shutting up and not driving you crazy.

Me: Trump won't press the button. He can't. Senate and House will stop any overt lunacies, the Generals would disobey, etc etc etc.

Her: (utter silence)

Even retards fucking get it eventually.

Especially note the walking. For someone quite a few kilograms overweight, she's suddenly gotten onto a fitness kick. Why?

Might it be because she's no bloody use when she doesn't bring in money? Plus she's basically unemployable? Add to that being a whining fat bitch who doesn't sleep in the same room with hubby because "he snores"?

So she has decided to sweeten the deal with hubby by getting thinner - because being married to a bitching whiner is easier if she's skinny and fuckable.

I'm picking that soonish, she'll be moving back into hubby's bed instead of sleeping separately.

Speaking of fat chicks (no more fat chicks! - this PSA brought to you courtesy of Black Poison Soul). You cannot shame a fat chick if you want to remain employed. Here is the effects of this principle:

If a man is fat and overweight - even just moderately - the doctors are on his ass 110% giving him shit about changing his lifestyle and habits for his own good and health and etc.

Fat chicks? Enormous fucking silence. Not one peep to women about how they should change their lifestyle and habits for their own good and health and etc.

Such is the socially-diseased power of fat bitches in society. (Warning: do not fuck, can lead to unwanted pregnancies and a painful life! - this PSA brought to you courtesy of Black Poison Soul.)

Thursday, 13 October 2016

Check Your Privilege

No, not your male privilege. Shut your mouths, you feminazi hoes - unless you want a dick in it. Then get down on your knees, we'll oblige.

Your fuckin' urban privilege, you white university educated bitch.

Over on Cracked there is a two-page article about How Half Of America Lost Its Fucking Mind. It explains the whole Donald Trump phenomenon, referencing and explaining the tropes behind movies, and lays it out like shit on a shingle.

It's actually quite fuckin' awesome.

Which leads to a question, for all those feminazi cunts out there.

If Donald Trump is a rapist to be reviled and all that sorta shit...

...who the fuck bought 80 million copies of Fifty Shades of Shit?

(Yeah I know, thought I'd run outta stuff to say for the moment. Who'd'a fuckin' thought.)

Saturday, 30 July 2016

Welcome to the Divorce-Grinder

Thanks to the men over at /r/MGTOW, I have discovered this particular webpage:

Marriage Statistics

Back on my post What do you like to do? I showed that it was more like a minimum of 53% of marriages end up in divorce (because the divorces were only reported from 44 of the states in the USA). In the page above they state 50%, though I can forgive them for that.

What I find very interesting is the failure rate of first marriages (a couple of tables up from the bottom):
First Marriage Survival (Probability of lasting more than 10 years) [Bold mine. - BPS]
Probability that a first marriage will survive 10 years = 6.6 % - 1 in 15
If there was no birth during marriage = 3.7 % - 1 in 27
If there was a birth before marriage = 6.5 % - 1 in 15
If there was a birth 0-7 months after marriage = 7.4 % - 1 in 13
If there was a birth 8+ months after marriage = 7.9 % - 1 in 12
If true (and I can see no reason why it wouldn't be - in fact, given the under-reported divorce stat I could make a case for these survival stats being slightly higher than reality) then this has to be the absolutely most damning piece of evidence against marriage in the USA. The entire Western World. (Hell, the entire world, period!)

So, look at those two statistics on that page. I'm'a spell it out:

50% of all marriages fail
--vs--
6.6% chance that a first marriage will survive 10 years

So the second statistic seems to be saying: 93.4% of all first marriages will fail within 10 years.

Which means the 50% of all marriages failing - might actually be within the first year. Only.

This fits in with my old post re the Real Divorce Rate in NZ.

I find this a very difficult poison pill to swallow. I can imagine it, though. If you think about it, reporting on the long-term chances of a first marriage failing at being over 93% - you'd just destroy the institution utterly. Not even the most stupid of male fools on this planet is gonna go for that. Maybe if you lobotomized him first.

It's more palatable (though still painful for men) to say "yeah, 50% of marriages fail". Try to minimize even that, sweep it under the rug, keep it outta the mainstream media as much as possible. Yeah, it won't happen to you, buddy. You live a charmed life. You're special. You're different from the rest. Yeah.

It doesn't seem like it's completely true, though. First year, sure. Further down the line though, once you've been her slave for 10 years, when there's some fairly substantial goods and money gathered together and put aside...

*pop*

...there goes your bubble.

From the above, 2.077 million men a year get married - of which ultimately 93% will be thrown into the divorce-grinder within 10 years of getting married. That averages out to 1.93 million married men every year getting screwed over and being stuck for x number of years (say, another 10+?) filling cupcake's pocket. During which time cupcake goes out and gets her vag crammed with as much cock as possible. (Anecdotally and depending, anyways - some P is Q != all P is Q.)

The more successful female predators getting a larger chunk of a slave's life due to being more patient? This really *is* the Art of Whore. The lawyers who take advantage of this, who feed off this, are the true bottom-feeding scum-sucking filth of this world. It's absolutely no wonder that divorced men with children loathe the Family Court system.

So. That's something pretty bitter and poisonous to have to swallow down, even for us men who've had our eyes opened to the bullshit around us. Just a matter of time, you're sure to be reamed anyway. Nothing else that I can think of shows as starkly just how disposable all men are in the eyes of the female sex.

Including our own sex - I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed, yet eventually even I twigged. Someone else will have caught it too. They know. They didn't open their mouths to try and sort it out - why/why not? Who knows?

By extension, it shows how truly screwed our civilization, our society, really is.

In my zombie-blue-pill-blinkered days, I basically had zero chance of achieving the lie that I'd been told all my life. No wonder that so many men these days resist the truth. No wonder that so many younger men resist marriage - they know that it's under-reported. It's actually way, way worse than we (at least, old fogies like me) had ever thought.

We are going to watch our civilization, our society, burn to the ground. I can see nothing that could possibly stop it, with that kind of shenanigans going on. Too much headwind against it. It would have to be an extremely radical (aka bloodily forceful and violent) social restructuring to actually make it worthwhile for men to keep things going. I don't know if the Western World has that kind of force left in them any more.

Brought to you by (an especially bleak look through) Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and absolutely priceless when it comes to getting pre-warning of your entire life and society and civilization and world going down the crapper. Probably sooner than you'd think and a helluva lot sooner than you'd like.

(I wonder what Terrence Popp and Blake of Redonkulas would make of this set of stats? Or Breitbart? Or would it be just too damn much to choke on?)
==================================================
ADDENDUM:

For a second and closer bleak look:

2.077 million marriages
-1.93 million eventual divorces
= 147,000 marriages every year which actually survive more than 10 years

Pathetic. Plus note that I don't comment upon the "happiness" of said marriages.

Monday, 1 February 2016

Real Female-Centric Society

To preface: I've known several people who state that New Zealand appears to be a "social experiment". If it happens here socially, the rest of the world is about 10 years behind on shit that is going to happen.

Got that? Keep it firmly in mind. You'll click to why by the end.

In my last post about Fleas, Lice and Ticks, I stated this:
This commentor makes what I consider to be one major mistake in his thinking: he considers hypergamy/parasitism to be unrestrained. In my opinion he is 100% wrong with that thinking.

Parasitism is lauded and actively encouraged in our matriarchical woman-centric society. Just ask most long-term married men and the victims of frivorce and the children who have been weaponized by mommy so she can use them to beat daddy over the head for child-support.
Which by itself probably makes any feminist/leftist cunt squirm - right before they launch a screaming tirade of filth about what a woman-hating misogynist fucking pig that I am. And then start calling for my death.

Plus, I've written quite a bit about what fucking worthless pieces of shit single mommies are, et-fucking-cetera. Cue more ranting, screaming, dribbling and frothing hatred.

Which indicates to me that I've stuck the knife in real deep and twisted it in such a manner that it hits their personal weaknesses.

But now:

This is where our matriarchal, female-centered, gynocentric society goes outright fucking crazy-insane.

Let's begin with this image snapped from Twatter:
Revolting as it seems, this is actually true. Krystal Harvey of Waiuku sexually assaulted a 1 year old child.

There's some more background:

1/ She is 23 years old

2/ The 1 year old child was a boy

3/ The 1 year old boy was her own son

4/ She filmed it for a minute or so

5/ She sold the film to a pedophile (who is 21 years old) for $300

6/ When the pedophile got caught, she was found out

7/ She was charged in June 2015 and admitted it in August 2015

8/ She's not going to jail - she merely got 8 months of home detention

9/ She attempted to get name-suppression - which thankfully failed!

You can read some more of the sordid story on the NZ Herald: No jail term for child abuser (just released on the 25th of January, 2016).

You can also read: Woman sentenced for abusing baby and selling footage (which states that apparently she knew that the pedophile would publish the movie up online). She will also be monitored for 20 months - from this link:
Her lawyer Annabel Maxwell-Scott told RNZ that meant Harvey would have to return to court every three months and she would be in the system longer than if she had been jailed.
Which tells us that a woman raping a baby would get less than 2.5 years in jail (28 months) - IF SHE WERE ACTUALLY JAILED.

There's a whole lot of other mealy-mouthed blather in the both of those links (reportedly from the fucking COURTS) which makes me very angry. It's probably a good thing that I live in the North Island, else I might be tempted to join the chorus who are making threats against her.

Also according to her lawyer:
But Harvey was a "naive and vulnerable young woman", she said, who had had "an extremely difficult upbringing".
Naive and vulnerable enough to get tatted and pierced up, which is female sexual display for "I'm a slut, fuck me". Naive and vulnerable enough to be a single mommy with a baby girl and a baby boy, so she had no end of actual guys fucking her in her life.

This makes me wonder if all women should be locked away. Partly for their own protection. Mostly for the protection of society as a whole.

One last thing to note:
  • Child abuse is RIFE in New Zealand
Think about that little social construct, coming to the society where you live, sometime in the next 10 years.

Friday, 22 January 2016

Living In Reality

Lunchtimes, I tend to get away from the work-office - because if you have lunch at work everyone will bug the shit out of you, so getting out is the only way of having an actual break. Usually I go to a park, quite often walking, sometimes the beach.

Reality is: when there's millions of dollars a day at stake, you need those breaks to relax/chill. I sometimes wonder what's wrong with the other workers in the place, it's like they're in denial. All a big laugh, whatcha doing tonight, we're gonna party, etc. I've written about it before.

Any rate, down a park yesterday lunchtime, eating and enjoying the sun/breeze/whatever. Very relaxing.

Suddenly the usual braying comes from some passing woman. I look over - about 30 meters away is two couples walking. The women are having a fine time at the top of their voices, laughing it up, etc. The two men are silent.

One of the women suddenly pops out with some bs about not cleaning up, leaving that to her man. The other has a loud laugh and says "same!". The two of them have a fine old giggle about this as they get into their cars, respective men still silent.

I suppose that you can't do a whole lot when your nuts are firmly in her purse.

The most interesting thing about this though: I was basically unmoved. Not shocked, not disgusted. Just a vague amusement, a kind of wonderment that these men still don't seem to grasp this. They live in denial rather than reality. They live willingly as slaves, no matter how bad the treatment dished out by their woman.

I suppose that I am living in reality, in not being interested in this bullshit.

At any rate, I seem to have slipped into a philosophical state. Don't really have much to say again (last time I said that, the stuff started flowing - go figure). I'm going away for a bit, will check in occasionally.

Keep your eyes open to reality.

Wednesday, 6 January 2016

Wake The Fuck Up

I ran across this again, remember it from long ago.

Like the old Psycho Ex Girlfriend audios that are still going out around there (google them - always great for a refresher).

Guy was on holiday in Europe, and his fucking girlfriend is so crazy and narcissistic that she doesn't remember even though he told her before he left...
Now, what can we learn from this?

For starters, do like he did and READ ALL THE EMAILS.

But the two things he says he learned are this:

  1. Careful when you date passionate people, because passion swings both ways. Sometimes they'll love you, but other times they'll hate you. And when they hate you...boy do they hate you.
  2. When you go to Europe for 2 weeks, leave your fucking phone on.
Those are such utter bullshit. The reality is that he didn't learn any real fucking lesson from that.

What he should have learned is:
  1. All women are fucking psycho
  2. Looking back, he missed the obvious prior warnings

Thursday, 31 December 2015

Learn To Be Lonely

I hadn't planned on any New Year's post or the like - or anything for the next few weeks. Yet here it is. Simply because something finally clicked in my head.

Why do divorced guys get married again? And again, and (sometimes) yet again? Three-four marriages?

They can't stand the loneliness.

Which finally explains a guy I know who just got taken (again) by his latest Russian bride. That's his original chick and two Russian girls so far. I wonder if he's going to try for #3 Russian bride - or maybe he'll go for Brazilian, or Argentinean, or Filipino, or whatever the du jour of the moment happens to be.

Happy fuckin' Christmas mate. Are you going to stop banging your head into the wall any time soon? You must be about broke by now.

Admittedly, thinking about it, it's only us old farts who go around doing stupid shit like second-third-fourth marriages. We still cling, in some weird way, to the idea of "the one".

There is no "One". The world isn't filled with elves, fairies, and unicorns that shit rainbows. It runs on blood, sweat and diesel.

The younger generation has it much easier than us old farts. They can generally read the writing on the wall. That is probably why the stereotype of the fat no-hoper young guy living in the 'rents basement and playing video games came into being. Boilerplate shaming language flung around by feminists and fucktards with an agenda, to describe a situation that they can't otherwise figure.

Like I said in "What is MGTOW" - it doesn't matter what the fuck you do. So long as it's your choice and you are in control of your life as much as possible.

The younger generation read the writing on the wall. They have many stellar examples and pillars of female respectability to enjoy the company of.

Why, even our bestest friend mattress girl is lauded as a paragon of wonderfulness. Something that all of teh wimminz should aspire to.

Of course, there's GamerGate - ComicGate - the other various Social Justice Warrior pussies who got their digs in while they could - the guys getting fired over a bad joke because Sarkeesian decided to take offence -

Yeah, the younger generation got their heads down. Fuckin' sensible, those guys. They know it's better to be lonely, than to be shafted. Way better than playing Russian Roulette with half the chambers loaded. Add another bullet for each marriage after the first.

Which makes a whole lotta sense. Most younger guys who are effective MGTOW never even read about it on the interwebs. They don't bother coming out here. They already know all this shit. They got eyes, they can see, they got brains, they can think. These days it truly doesn't take much to smell the shit and connect the dots. Her age doesn't matter much - the problems are relentless from the majority of women (maybe 80%).

It's just us older farts, and the guys still shaking off the blinkers and brainwashing, who have wandered into the manosphere. Trying to get a few answers. Pity that it's so full of scammers and con artists.

If you ever see me selling anything - some kinda infobook or the like - you know that I've sold my soul out and become a scammer.

Wednesday, 28 October 2015

A Twisted Entitlement

Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia!!!

I've always been had a great deal of skepticism regarding the so-called high-quality of Russian women. I never really explained why in depth, and I won't. I'll just provide a few glimpses from my perspective here in New Zealand:

* a pair of young Czechoslovakian girls over on a "foreign exchange program" (you can guess what they were exchanging - as a twosome)
* a Russian slut in a bar who sent up a shitload of red flags that set aaaaall the alarm-bells ringing
* a friend whose second wife was a Russian slut who took him to the cleaners
* the above friend is currently on his third wife/second Russian slut, who is sucking the life outta him (and I don't mean via his dick - it didn't take her long to get started)

In timely fashion, Didact puts up a piece about a few facts that were missing from an article on RoK. (Okay it was almost a month ago. It's taken a while for me to get around to completing this post. What the hell.)

Many times I have mentioned a video about Western men looking for girls in the Ukraine (hello Roosh, you sure know what process you started there - the quicker sluttification of teh localz - be proud). The video is by Journeyman Pictures and is titled: The Desperate Western Men Hunting For Wives In Ukraine.

Here it is again, and it's now time to rip apart the obvious entitled mental processes of these entitled whores - welcome to Odessa:


The opening scene is in a bar. These are bar girls. To be more precise: many of these girls are the local sluts (women of "loose morals") looking for a husband who doesn't know what they're like. The economy is down the shitter, alcoholism is widespread, women outnumber men almost 5 to 4, and girls as young as 18 are signing up in their hundreds to "russian bride" websites in a desperate search for a husband aka slave.

Take me away from this place, this hellhole, rich western man. I will show off my sexy body to you, take lots of provocative poses, make you believe that you can have me, even actually give myself to you, only take me away from here.

One is a 27yo divorced mommy. Hmm. Interesting. She thinks that she can compete with her younger sisters, also desperate, while she has a rugrat in tow. She tells the story of the destruction of her marriage...she's already too old for the local men...oh dear. Poor little darling. Poor, poor, pitiful me...Lord have mercy can't you see...poor, poor, pitiful me...

Go ahead. Play that sympathy card to the camera for all it's worth.

One of the local men, talking about how hard it is to find a girlfriend. "They want everything, while at the same time, give nothing in return." My, my, where have we heard that before?

These internet sites also organize "romance tours". I will say it: sex tourism. Tell these lovely young things that you're looking for a wife, though of course you have to try the merchandise first...lo...she parts her legs for you. Who is desperate here? Check out the catalog, Russian-speaking tour reps will arrange dates for them. (Hold on tight, we're not 5 minutes into the video yet!)

I particularly like 65yo Arthur: "It's like purchasing a very nice, used Cadillac. It's nice, but it's used. I tell them I need to drive it before I make a decision about taking it home and putting it in my garage. If she was a virgin that'd be different, but I don't think they make them any more. So I need to test-drive 'em. And as I tell them, they need to test-drive me - I'm an old man and might not do the job for 'em."

What does this army of waiting women seek?
Woman: "I want to meet a handsome young man."
So long as he makes six figures - which he must, if he's spending $3,500 on a romance sex tour.
Woman: "I just want to use every opportunity I get to try and meet the right person."
Playin' the field.
Mother: "Men in Nikolaev like drinking too much. Beer flows like a river in Nikolaev. They like fighting and when they marry sometimes they hit their wives. That's why girls like foreigners because they are kind and attentive."
Daughter: "Well, I think that mum's right, but all the same...I don't know. I guess there are decent men in Nikolaev. But it is very difficult to find a boyfriend there because mum's right when she says there are more girls than men in Nikolaev. To be honest, I'm probably too young to really understand everything that's going on here."
Narrator: "Have you ever had a serious relationship?"
Daughter: "No."
Even so - I'll bet that she opened her legs to several men. Looking for a kind, gentle man...who she can be a parasite on.

Music too loud for conversation - go up and dance girls! Just look at that body...just look at that body...

And now, we get to the entitled bitch having a whine (at 25:10):
For me it was very unpleasant. Sitting down and a man walks past with a beer glass in his hands and examines all the girls. Standing opposite the table and examining each girl in turn. It's very unpleasant. It seems to me it's just bad manners. Or maybe it's because they see there are a lot of beautiful girls and that it's okay.
In actual fact it's not. It's not okay and it's very unpleasant. It seems to me that the majority came here not for a wife, but for sex tourism. It's obvious. Very poor city. They think we are all poor, so unhappy that we will agree to anything. But that's not the case.
I feel upset for our girls because, as I've already said, not the best men come. It's very upsetting when an intelligent, beautiful and independent girl cannot find a man here and has no alternative but to look for men at these kind of events.
Of course, there's a percentage that do find their man here, but it's a very small number.
How hard is it to dissect that lot? Seriously:

* she found it unpleasant = want some blue cheese to go with that whine?
* she figures it's for sex tourism = hello Captain Obvious!
* she figures the men are only there because it's a very poor city = yep, girls with real options don't even think about chasing foreign men
* not the best men come = likewise men with real options don't bother going there for a wife, just some nookie cookie
* intelligent, beautiful and independent girl = is there a reason why someone would want a foreign version of a western woman?
* there's a percentage that do find their men here = she's upset because she's not one of them

The twisted entitlement of the female mind - the same everywhere you go.

What more did you expect?

Monday, 12 October 2015

Neil Strauss Latest Update

So it seems that Neil Strauss of "The Game" fame is also busy reinventing himself. Hello Roosh, you got some competition in your quest to make "better" men to man-up for teh wimminz. I'm still curious about where you expect the worthwhile women for these men to come from.

As I've written before, PUA Is Broken. Nothing has changed my mind about that. In fact, if anything, the entire anti-MGTOW brouhaha just reinforces it: yanking out the feminist boilerplate shaming language shows the feminine-oriented mindset behind those who open their mouths and take a blast at the MGTOW. Dick In Pussy is still the end-all be-all validation that they seek.

So lets go see what Neil Strauss is up to, in his quest to "reinvent" himself. This is an interview in The Guardian:
While waiting for his drink, Strauss falls into conversation with a group that includes two middle-aged tourists and a young woman. The woman is in her 20s – tanned, blond, wearing denim short-shorts. Game-klaxon! I watch to see how Strauss will react to her, only he doesn’t. He chats with the tourists, about nothing much. Then he chats with her, about nothing much. And then he walks away.
“The old me would have been performing everything for her attraction,” Strauss says when we’re out of earshot. “Thinking of sex with her. Or how to lure her away from her boyfriend, what have you. Even in, like, a work meeting – if there was a woman in that meeting, everything I said was for her, to get her phone number afterwards.”
And now?
“I’m attracted to people, sometimes. But I think that part of my brain was trained for years. Constantly, wherever I went, whenever I walked into a room, these little lights would go on on a switchboard in my head.” The switchboard is still there, he says, only now anyone can illuminate it; anyone interesting. “I can relate to people on a human level.”
So it seems like he's gone from "robotic skirt-chaser" to "semi-aware human being". I'll provisionally accept that, with a kilo or two of healthy skepticism. So here we have the first time he went into rehab:
Around 2010, he met and fell in love with a Mexican-born model named Ingrid De La O. She was perfect, Strauss thought, their relationship together “the best I’d ever had”. Yet he found he couldn’t stop pursuing other women and cheating on Ingrid. When she learned about the cruellest of his infidelities (her best friend, a church car park), Ingrid agreed to forgive Strauss only on the condition he be treated for sex addiction. So he entered rehab for three months. Here his problems really began.
By opening up his psyche to trained therapists for the first time, Strauss learned he had quite an assortment of mental and emotional conditions. In short order, he was diagnosed with anxiety syndrome, depressive disorder, two forms of sexual disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. “It was like a hammer hitting me on the head,” he says. “I really thought I was normal.”
Hmm. No duh. So it looks like The Rawness was 100% accurate in his assessment of Neil Strauss and Mystery and PUAs in general. It's very interesting to know that. Let's now look at the second time he went into rehab (an excerpt from his book "The Truth"):
The day I went to sex therapy: an extract from The Truth, by Neil Strauss
"What are you here for?" the nurse asks me.
"Cheating."
She says nothing. I think about that word. It sounds lame. I’m in a hospital because I couldn’t say no. So I add the other reason I’m there: "And, I guess, to learn how to have a healthy relationship."
I think of Ingrid, whose heart I broke, whose friends threatened to kill me. The nurse looks up. It is the first time she’s made eye contact. She smiles sympathetically and continues looking through my intake folder. I ask if she thinks I’m really an addict. "I’m not an addiction specialist," she says. "But if you’re cheating on your relationship, if you’re visiting porn sites, or if you’re masturbating, that’s sex addiction."
She opens a drawer, removes a red square of paper, and writes my first name and last initial on it in black marker. Then she slips it into a small plastic sleeve and loops a long piece of white string through it. "You’re in red two," she says. "You’re required to wear your badge at all times."
"What does red two mean?"
"The tags are colour-coded. Red is for sex addicts. And the red two group is in therapy with Joan." She then picks up a large poster board from the floor and holds it on top of the desk, facing me. There are eight huge words on it: Joy, Pain, Love, Anger, Passion, Fear, Guilt, Shame.
"This is called a check-in," she says. "You’ll be required to check in four times a day and report which emotions you’re feeling. Which ones are you experiencing right now?"
I scan the display for crawling dread, for utter worthlessness, for total confusion, for intense regret, for rule-hating frustration. "Anger." She types it into my file. I am now officially institutionalised.
I feel another emotion coming on. "What’s the difference between guilt and shame?" I ask.
"Guilt is just about your behaviour. Shame is about who you are."
She leads me back to the reception desk, where I see a woman with her arm in a blue fibreglass cast being led out of a nursing station: another new arrival. She has pasty skin, blue-black hair, lots of piercings and the look of a vampire. I’m instantly attracted.
From the other direction, a woman with long blond hair pouring out of a pink baseball cap saunters to the reception desk. I think what I always think, what every man always thinks: what was puberty for if not to think these thoughts?
"What are you here for?" I ask the blonde. Her tag is blue. "Love addiction," she replies.
Perfect. I ask if she wants to get dinner.
Check-in emotion: guilt. Also, passion.
Well, well, well. Three holes in the ground.
She says nothing. I think about that word. It sounds lame. I’m in a hospital because I couldn’t say no. So I add the other reason I’m there: "And, I guess, to learn how to have a healthy relationship."
Weakness exposed. This is not any form of Alpha as espoused by the PUA section of the manosphere. This is someone amplifying and explaining - excusing! - himself. To a woman.

Nothing quite sells like public abasement of the famous, does it? Though maybe that's just my cynicism speaking. Still, it's a good start to rake in more $$$$. We'll leave it at that and see what happens - though admittedly it looks very much like Strauss has manned-up and swallowed the entire spectrum of mainstream "women can do no wrong" philosophy.
-------------------------------------------------------
Addendum:
"I’m not an addiction specialist," she says. "But if you’re cheating on your relationship, if you’re visiting porn sites, or if you’re masturbating, that’s sex addiction."
Now, I sincerely wonder if a professional nurse would say something like that. It's not her place to casually toss out such value-judgements. Leave it to the specialists.

However, if she had actually said that - it speaks volumes. Volumes to her sense of feeling entitled to pass on such value judgements. Especially when she's not a specialist in the area involved. She's merely throwing out a personal opinion, in a way potentially damaging to a patient.

Deeply unprofessional.

To dissect this more, reaching deep into the feminine-centric viewpoint which (this admittedly anecdotal nurse) exposes:

* if you're cheating on your relationship
* if you're visiting porn sites
* if you're masturbating

These three things are considered sex-addiction.

Why?

If you're cheating on your relationship, that's not a "sex addiction". That's just cheating on your relationship. The most that you could say is that it's morally reprehensible for both sexes, if you've effectively gotten married. (Ignoring the whole "Marriage 2.0 is no longer enforceable" and "it's okay for women to cheat but not men" blah blah that many of us in the manosphere know starkly.)

If you're visiting porn sites, that's not a "sex addiction". That's just being horny and wanting some mental stimulation. Again, the most that you could say is that it's morally reprehensible for both sexes. (Assuming that you buy in to the bushwah about "this is your brain, this is your brain on porn, any questions?" crapola going on out there.)

If you're masturbating, that's not a "sex addiction". That's just taking care of a momentarily-overwhelming physical urge. (The whole hookup culture is just mutual masturbation with another person's body.)

Take any or all to extremes? In conjunction? I would buy that. However, that was not mentioned. The impression is that it was merely thrown out as an "all of these things are automatically bad", whether individually and to whatever degree.

So why did this (anecdotal nurse) label these as "sex addiction"?

Might it be because they bypass anything involving the actual emotional and physical support of a woman?

And there's the feminine-centric outlook.

I might be really reaching - extrapolating way too far - yet I get the subtext from this little bit of writing of what this (anecdotal nurse) said: "(All men should be utterly sexless. (Except the ones who turn me on.))"

Are you willing to become someone's sexless slave?
Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Sunday, 11 October 2015

Women's Whinging Starts Early

This is something that mankind has known for some time (thousands upon thousands of years):

* women are never happy
* women always want more
* women think the world revolves around them
* women always whinge until they get what they want (for the moment)

Unfortunately we men have recently (over the last two-three generations) been brainwashed out of understanding these basic and easily-observable truths. These truths have been replaced with such things as:

* sugar and spice...
* happy wife, happy life...
* she's the better half...
* she can do no wrong...

Blah, blah, ad fucking nauseum. Replacing the "politically incorrect" aka truth that paints women in a bad light (you misogynist pig!) with the "politically correct" aka ten tons of bullshit that allow her to get away with murder (literally...but she's so cuuuuute!).

Thankfully it doesn't take too much kicking in the balls for men to start realizing the lies that they've been told. (Hopefully not too much, anyway.) After you've had your name splattered with lying mud multiple times, been dragged through the rape-court/domestic abuse court/divorce court - you generally start getting a fuckin' clue.

That's assuming that you're not a hopeless case. Which some men really are that fuckin' clueless. That's another story though, and a sad case by itself.

Any rate, sometimes you get to see just how early these little parasites start their whining. Case in point today: early teens.

Teenage twat: Whinge whine whinge shopping whinge whine whinge...

Mother twat: It's not my fault that there wasn't anything you wanted to buy.

Teenage twat: Whinge whine whinge shopping whinge whine whinge...

Thankfully they then passed out of earshot.

One instructive thing about it though: women are just as susceptible to women's whinging. Case in point, mommy twat's response: defensive, blah blah blah. The correct response is: "Shut your whining mouth."

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Thursday, 24 September 2015

Prime Whore

So this is an oldie from the University of Man. (WTF happened to them? I dunno - never got it straight - and tbh really don't give that much of a shit. Some of the stuff was gold and that's all that matters in life: separating the chaff from the wheat.)

So here we have The Art of Whore, followed by a picture which exemplifies it 100%. Enjoy, and try to ignore the "alpha/beta" thing. It's just the difference between a strong and a weak man.
Bottom-feeding scum sucking Cory Catfish, thy name is beta.
Thank you for cleaning the algae and fecal remains of bigger, stronger, faster fish from the pond of society. You are the homeless guy I give my leftovers to, packaged in a glossy takeout box from a restaurant you could never afford. You, beta, are the malleable putty that fills the karmic gap between what she wants and what she deserves. If ever there was an exultant scavenger, a happy beggar, or a willful fool foraging through the rotting leftovers of discarded femdom like a soon-to-be roadkill raccoon, it's you. Thank you for your service.
A man with options would never put a ring on a finger that's been wrapped around a dozen cocks.
A man with options would never pay the ultimate price of commitment for a born-again virgin fucktoy.
A man with options would never let his son's first home be a womb that's seen more traffic than I-35 during rush hour.
A man with options would never allow his son's first kiss to come from the lips of a mouth that's hosted lotsa cocksa.
A man with options would never let his son's first nourishment come from a rack that can be viewed on any number of cell phones.
A man with options would never let his son's first throne be the lap of a woman who's been passed around like a blunt at a frat party.
A man with options would never be a dickstand for a woman who squandered her youth and beauty on the men who respected her the least.
A man with options would never consider being the last man standing at the end of a long line of conquests she racked up while being the Grand Marshal of a rather impressive cock parade.
Do men with options pass up on whores because of religious ethics?
Sometimes.
Do men with options pass up on whores because a promiscuous lifestyle stunts a woman's ability to bond with her husband and children?
Yeah, I reckon.
Do men with options avoid committing to whores because of social pride?
I certainly hope so.
But there's one gloriously simple, easy to define and even easier to defend reason why men with options do not marry whores: They don't have to. Beta males have four primary deficits when it comes to making sound relationship decisions, which leads them to permanently settle down with Gangbang Barbie after the rest of us are done with her.
The Art of Whore: Why Betas Marry Leftovers
(1) Their inability to identify a whore/slut
Thanks to a lack of experience with women, betas believe that a whore is a filthy girl who will sleep with just about anybody. When their pea-sized brains conjure up the idea of a whore, they imagine a woman who stops at a red light, sees a man waiting at a bus stop, and has an unbelievable urge to put the car in park and go bang him. Betas think a whore is a girl who goes out to the bar four nights a week and bangs four different men.
Dead wrong.
With this definition of a whore, it's no wonder why betas defend women - they've never seen a whore. But in reality, whores are selective. In fact, they're probably the most selective women in the mating market.
The Art of Whore is displayed by women who harness their sexual power and unleash it with stunning accuracy on the men at the top of the social hierarchy – often in a serially monogamous fashion (with a few "mistakes" along the way for good measure).
Wake up, beta. That nice girl in your social group who has a different boyfriend every three or four months on average, has casual hookups on vacation, and has that "special friend" who keeps her warm at night in between boyfriends is a two-bit worthless whore.
"But wait, Mentu! Most girls do that these days!"
Now you're getting it. Walk with me.
Whore is not about a number; it's about her decision-making abilities and the value she assigns to sexual congress. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, so the men she lets through the gates – regardless of how many or how few - tells you everything you need to know about her relationship value. I don't care if she's slept with 5 men or 50 men; her sexual past reveals her relationship worth and her ability to make sound decisions.
Take for instance a healthy 28-year-old woman. In my experience, your average American woman has had anywhere between 12 and 23 sexual partners by this time. Let's call it an average of 17. A reasonable man would not assume that all 17 men dumped her, or that she dumped all 17. A myriad of reasons, situations, emotions and circumstances led her to this place. So what does this tell us?
It tells us that a number of men just had fun with her (promiscuity), she had to bounce a number of men after she opened her womb to them (bad decision-making), and a number of men sampled a mini-relationship with her for a while and decided not to keep her around (low value).
So, beta, which of those 3 traits - promiscuity, bad-decision making, and low value - would you like to have instilled in your children? Which of those traits do you believe will make her an excellent wife? Which of these traits do you believe will not increase your likelihood of being cheated on or landing in divorce court? Can you see yourself waking up in the morning, rolling over, looking at her and thinking "Thank God I committed to a worthless whore who has a 15-year track record of making bad decisions?" Of course not.
But this leads us to the 2nd primary deficit of the beta:
(2) Their susceptibility to shaming language
Betas cower in fear and quickly acquiesce when confronted with shaming language. "I'm not like that anymore", "You can't judge me", and "A woman's worth is not decided by her sexual past" seem to be the go-to responses for women who find themselves in the awkward situation of justifying why they've banged more men than can be comfortably seated in a small Family Diner.
For the record, the correct responses are "Yes you are", "Yes I can", and when it comes to marriage, "Yes it is."
Does promiscuity make her a bad employee?
Nope.
Does it make her a bad friend?
Nah.
Does it make her an evil person who is likely to knock over a liquor store and steal a getaway car?
Not at all.
Does a promiscuous past mean she can't do good in the community and make profound societal contributions?
Of course not.
Does it make her a high-risk marriage partner and a shitty role model for your children in a society built around the family unit instead of the "it takes a village" approach?
According to the church, the Centers for Disease Control, your buddy who laughs at you behind your back, biological evidence, gender anthropologists, a growing number of psychologists, your own gut instincts, and yours truly: Yes, it most certainly does.
It always amazes me how betas will agree with a woman that her past education reveals her dedication to scholarly pursuits, her past work experience reveals her quest to improve her business acumen, her past payment history reveals her credit worthiness, her past workout routine reveals her desire for a healthy lifestyle, and her past volunteer efforts reveal her heart of gold, but her past sexual habits reveal absolutely nothing. That, my beta friend, is The Art of Whore.
If you buy into that shit, you deserve whatever ill may befall you.
(3) Their unnatural dedication to the female definition of "fairness"
Here's where the rubber meets the road for most bottom-feeding beta males.
We've all heard the statement, "It's not fair that a woman who sleeps around is a whore, but men who sleep around are studs!!" >:'O
There has been more than enough digital ink spilled on this topic within the manosphere, so I won't go into it. Everybody knows it's easy to be a whore, but hard to be a player - and society doesn't award trophies for doing easy shit. It's not a double standard; it's two different standards for two different genders with two different barriers of sexual entry and two different sets of risk factors.
But forget that for a moment. For the sake of this article, let's assume that the woman's statement is true. That's right, let's assume for a moment that there is an unfair evil double standard afoot.
What the fuck do you care?
If you're a beta male looking for marriage, it's not your job to be fair - this is your life, not a general assembly at the UN. Your job is to find the best mother for your children that you possibly can.
It doesn't matter if you banged 5,000 women on camera last night; you need to find the most competent, capable, qualified, trustworthy, physically and emotionally stable woman you possibly can to help raise your children.
Let her worry about your past and whether or not she thinks you're qualified to be their father, and you focus on her qualifications.
Come to think of it...That actually sounds quite fair, wouldn't you say?
(4) Their lack of options
When it comes to liaising with whores, Alphas are volunteers, and betas are voluntolds. The Art of Whore is not lost on the Alpha male - they volunteer to use them for what they're good for, then pass them off to the betas who are voluntold to put a ring on their finger.
Beta, your lack of options is making you weak, distorting your judgment, and may eventually land your pansy-ass in divorce court. The Art of Whore is real, and women work to better their craft every day. What have you done lately besides make excuses for her?
Women proficient in The Art of Whore get what they want: A decade-long ride on the cock carousel with no consequences, then a willing hapless beta with open arms, an open mind, and an open wallet to cushion their landing and finance their recovery.
As long as you're standing there ready, willing and able, I honestly can't say that I blame them for taking you up on your generous offer.
Here is an example of Prime Whore (I've lost count of how many girls I've fucked within an hour or two of meeting - and I'm just an average guy, pleasantly ugly at best):
Giving it up with a snap of the fingers for someone they don't really like, making the guy they like wait. How fucking sweet of this two-faced hypocritical cunt.
Enjoy your gangbang barbie.

Or learn to be strong.

Brought to you by Crap-Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Wednesday, 15 July 2015

Gay Divorce And Spousal Support - Didn't Take Long

Back when on this post "So Gays Can Marry Legally in the USA", I asked a simple question:
I do wonder if the LGBTQBDSM-whatever brigade have a clue as to what they've really let themselves in for. Studies show that breakups are even more common in their sector of society, moreso in the situation of lesbian relationships. 
Which brings up a superficially-amusing thought: in the case of frivorce, which one is the woman who gets alimony from her partner? [Emphasis mine. - BPS]
We are now looking to have an answer soon - and it took only 3 WEEKS to get to this situation: Glory Johnson seeks $20K a month in spousal support from Brittney Griner
After getting dumped by Brittney Griner, Glory Johnson is now looking to get paid. 
The jilted wife of the WNBA superstar, who last month filed to annul their 28-day marriage, wants $20,000 a month in temporary spousal support and an additional $10,000 in attorney fees, according to court documents presented on June 29 in Maricopa County, Arizona.
I guess you might call this a "pump'n'dump".

Like we couldn't see that coming. Fucking dipshits.

Amusingly, the whole "gay marriage is legal" thing came out about 3 weeks ago. It took 1 week for someone to decide to see how much $$$ she could get from her "wife".

As a mate said: "Do we flip a coin to see which one's the man?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHH!!!!!!

Monday, 29 June 2015

Why Social Media Sucks

No, not just because it acts as narcissistic supply for the typical modern whore.

No, not just because it's filled with banality.

It's because everything you say can and will be used to destroy your life.

It's because of people like this entitled bitch using it as a platform for her lies to destroy a Nobel Laureate's career (I'm cherry-picking from the article, read the whole thing for yourself):
On Monday, June 8, a British academic called Connie St Louis uploaded a sensational document to her Twitter feed. Beginning with the question ‘Why are the British so embarrassing abroad?’, it offered an account of bizarre remarks that a Nobel Prize-winning biologist by the name of Sir Tim Hunt had made earlier that day at a conference in Seoul, the capital of South Korea.
Within hours, Sir Tim was being hauled across the coals in newspapers and TV bulletins across the world. Unable to defend himself, since he was travelling back to the UK, the bespectacled professor’s only response was delivered via a voicemail message to Radio 4’s Today programme recorded in haste via mobile telephone in Seoul airport.
Then, early this week, the simmering dispute took a further, seismic twist.
It came courtesy of The Times newspaper, which revealed the contents of a leaked report into Sir Tim’s fall from grace compiled by an EU official who had accompanied him to the Seoul conference.
This individual, who has not been named, sat with him at the lunch and provided a transcript of what Sir Tim ‘really said’.
Crucially, it presented a very different take to the one which had been so energetically circulated by Connie St Louis.
Strangely, given that there were more than 90 other journalists present at the fateful lunch in Seoul, no other detailed accounts of the toast have emerged.
And then it turns out...
Perhaps, therefore, we should ask two other related questions: who exactly is Connie St Louis? And why, exactly, should we trust her word over that of a Nobel laureate?

A good place to start is the website of London’s City University, where St Louis has, for more than a decade, been employed to run a postgraduate course in science journalism.

Here, on a page outlining her CV, she is described as follows:

‘Connie St Louis . . . is an award-winning freelance broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist.

‘She presents and produces a range of programmes for BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service . . . She writes for numerous outlets, including The Independent, Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Sunday Times, BBC On Air magazine and BBC Online.’

All very prestigious. Comforting, no doubt, for potential students considering whether to devote a year of their lives (and money) to completing an MA course under her stewardship. Except, that is for one small detail: almost all of these supposed ‘facts’ appear to be untrue.
All neatly illustrating that the herd as a whole is as stupid as bricks and doesn't deserve a voice (in fact the majority of these morons need to be muzzled).

Also neatly illustrating why anyone who uses FaceCrap, Twatter, and InstaCunt on a regular basis should be trusted almost as far as you can spit a mouthful of fishhooks.

Finally, very much illustrating how even academia will turn on each other in the moment that any kind of leftist distortion of an unfavorable type gets mentioned about any one of their own members - even one of decades good standing and tremendous contributions to science.

Oh, here's a picture of the award-winning freelance broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist entitled bitch who started this shit-storm of what appears to be lies:
The Herd, in it's hatefulness, destroys itself and progress and anything good.
=========================
Lets do an additional aside here. You've probably heard of Leonardo da Vinci.

You may have heard of the Antikythera Mechanism. It's an ancient analog computer which was designed to predict astronomical positions and eclipses for calendrical and astrological purposes. Also for the Olympiads, the cycles of the ancient Olympic Games. (From Wikipedia.) Yeah, they had brass gears and the like before 100BCE. It wasn't until the 1300's that they got "reinvented" again.

You may not of heard of Hero, though.

In case you didn't hear of him, the Greek inventor Hero (Heron) first invented the steam engine (the Hero engine, or aeolipile) in 10CE. Now, there wasn't much bloody use for it in Alexandria so it never really took traction as it were. Until you realize:

The ancient world had a number of rudimentary railways. Of course trains didn't run on them. They were grooved paths which had vehicles pulled, probably by a mix of horses/humans/gravity. The most famous was the Diolkos, crossing the narrowest section of the Isthmus of Corinth and allowed ships to be quickly transported overland. It operated from roughly 600BCE and was still going in the time of Hero.
If the two - steam and railways - had been combined, goodness would have happened.

Hero also created basic robotics. He mostly used his automatons to put on plays. His biggest achievement: a completely automated play that lasted for more than ten minutes. Supposedly each segment of the play had two different settings and could do different things depending upon how it was arranged (binary, anyone?). Apparantly it wasn't bad either, according to: Techgnosis: Myth, Magic & Mysticism In The Age Of Information.

Hero was not just an engineer - he was supposedly brilliant at mathematics and a great theoretician. He came up with the basics of Fermat's principle. He came up with the basics of optics which supposedly weren't improved on for a thousand years (by the Arab scientist Alhazen). He discovered Hero's formula and imaginary numbers. He played with the Pyramidal Frustum (here's the Wolfram|Alpha link if you're so inclined - it's basically a pyramid with the top chopped off).

He may even have invented wind-powered machinery. Nobody's quite sure about that. There just doesn't seem to be much in the way of information about them before he showed up.


So, 2000 years ago a prototype steam engine was created. Then what happened? Civilization declined.

It was 1600 years before the steam engine was effectively reinvented and put to use.

If we would stop listening to the banality of the herd, who are concerned only with their preening fucktardisms and the latest stupidity from the Cuntdashians, we might have traveled to the stars by now. We might have colonized other worlds. We wouldn't be limited to a single planet that we are currently polluting in various ways. We wouldn't be in the social situation where we are now.

The herd sucks.

Social media - the voice of the herd - sucks.

Monday, 11 May 2015

Female Dirty Tricks

There is one thing that I've come across again fairly recently. I wasn't going to bother with it, then realized that I'm not sure if some men are consciously aware of it - and it might cause an "ah-ha!" moment for those who haven't quite clicked to it yet.

It's the tendency of women to take advantage of a Man at his most relaxed periods:

* just woken up
* right after sex
* tired after a long day

At that point she will come up with a demand for something that she wants. Usually nominally relationship-based (spending more time together or making it more of a formal arrangement). Sometimes it can be of a more mercenary ($$$) nature (often disguised as something "romantic" that can be done as a couple).

Of course, being relaxed the man might mumble an assent out of sheer reflex.

If not then nag him. Until he acquiesces or gets extremely pissed off. If he acquiesces - hooray! If he gets pissy - drama! Either way she's won.

Because men will generally grumble yet do what they've agreed to in the heat of the moment. Even though we've been manipulated. We kinda know we have been, on some level, yet we have the grace (aka brainwashing) to still keep our word to our manipulator. Even though we might be pissy about it on the whole.

If it happens on a semi-regular basis, then things will gradually build up in his subconscious - until he finally decides that he's had enough, that he's not happy with the way things are going, and he dumps her. At which time it's an opportunity for her to indulge in more drama. The real reality is that while she may have won individual battles, she's actually lost overall.

There is another couple of situations which this can manifest in too:

* when he's horny
* when he's sick

Ever agreed to something when you're horny? If so then you know intimately what I'm meaning when I say that you just got manipulated and screwed-over. There's even a socially-acceptable situation where women take advantage of this all the time: "Buy me a drink? Thanks, bye sucker!" (There's a reason PUA's flipped the script on these grasping whores, with the old-school: "No, but you can buy me one.")

Any of this is very nasty behavior on a woman's part. Deliberately manipulating a man during these moments in life. Nagging him until he acquiesces just to get her to shut her mouth. Note that this would be the default action for most men. Not to harp on the "mangina" or "beta" or the like - most men have been trained by their mothers/sisters/school/society that saying "no" to a woman is A Bad Thing™. Reinforced by their father having to knuckle under and give mommy what she wants.

Because of this training most guys aren't gonna give her a nasty look and say: "I just woke up and you've just been a bitch and given me a shitty start to the day. Piss off." Where the reality is that any of that kind of behavior is grounds for an instant: "Get lost." For all time, never let her back into your life.

Manipulation. Deceit. Underhandedness. Nasty, cold and calculating selfishness. A real piece of work.

All the hallmarks of a greedy predator trying to get her way.

If you've just had that "ah-hah!" moment - remember it for future reference.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Tuesday, 5 May 2015

What You Can Destroy

Uncle Bob has an interesting article up about how a century of feminism has failed women, written by Belinda Brown of The Conservative Woman. I'm going to cherrypick a few bits from the article, though I think the entire post he's put up is worth reading and thinking upon - this is simply my take on it:
Firstly, feminists may be a minority, but they are powerful. Women have real power in the family, rooted in their reproductive capability. This may, entirely through women’s individual decisions, lead to a secondary role in the public realm. Feminists have used this lower public status as a bargaining chip to pursue their own self-interest in every possible avenue of public life. Today feminists control the traffic lights and the road rules, men are only chauffeurs, even when they appear to be in the driver’s seat.
...
Secondly feminists are not amenable to rational argument. There are none so blind as those whose view has been eclipsed by ideology; ideology built on distortion, piled on top of stupidity and upon lie after lie until the truth lies buried deep beneath. Feminists are not going to turn traitor to an ideology which has not only nurtured their careers but determined crucial, life changing, and possibly life destroying, decisions in their private lives. The courage required to recognize their error would not be outweighed by the gain.
...
Feminism works well for women who want visible power and influence. But it has no strategy for social reproduction. Boys on Ritalin, internet addiction, obesity, oversexualised children, men in prison, fractured families – feminism has no long term survival strategy. These are just some examples of its scorched earth spawn.
...
You are right, Neil, that ultimately it is women, women who destroyed so much through their pursuit of self-interest, but who, because of their reproductive potential hold the key. This time round it is going to be very much harder. Men trusted us, they served us, they built our houses, fought our battles and they received our respect embodied in patriarchal structures in return. But now they have nothing. What is more they have found out that if they do give us what power they had, we deprive them of their children, we take their resources and we give them nothing, nothing in return. This time round we can’t expect them to do our bidding, as they did for so long. If we want to win back their trust and if we want them to co-operate with us, and I do, we will have to concede some of our independence and be prepared to place some dependence on them. In this, for their own security, we will have, I am afraid, to allow them to take the lead.
...
This is what the feminist century has done. By almost destroying the family it has shown us that it is the cornerstone of society. If we want self-fulfilled, happy, creative individuals, a functional, well networked society and a civilization worthy of emulation, we need strong healthy, resourceful families built on the commitment and selflessness of adults, persistence and a lot of hard work.
As I have quoted before: "If you can destroy something, you control it." - Muad'Dib, Dune

However that doesn't mean that you should destroy it. Especially for your own selfish gain. Which the author admits that feminism has done. (Note: While a lot of Men would like to destroy the feminist-centric grip on society, I am beginning to doubt that there will ever be a strong or lasting effect. There are too many white-knight manginas and assholes willing to throw all men under the bus for an opportunity to empty their nuts into a woman.)

It's interesting that the author also refers to feminism and MGTOW as Scylla and Charybdis. Two poles, steering between them safely. Unfortunately she makes one very large mistake in her thinking (given that this is a female writing the article, I cannot say that I'm surprised):
Only the steadfast women who are happy to prioritise the interests of their husbands and their children can set this process in motion. The feminists can’t, nor can the MGTOW. Women can do it, but only with the help of men. Together we can undo the damage which feminism created and rebuild a world of which can feel a little more proud.
"...only with the help of men..." - indeed.

Picture a couple together, standing shoulder-to-shoulder against the world, marching boldly and proudly into the future. A pretty and noble image.

Rah fucking rah.

The author's female entitlement mindset is such that she seems to automatically and unthinkingly expect Men as a whole to step up to the plate and help the process along. The final sentence reeks of a sub-rosa "man up" message. Fail!

A woman can shout to the world that she is happy to prioritize the interests of her husband and children. Yet we Men no longer have reason to cooperate and do our part in the process - let alone believe anything that women say.

Belief? Trust? In a woman?

Our harsh experiences have proven otherwise.

Feminism hasn't "almost" destroyed the family. Feminism has destroyed the trust between the sexes - at least, for the current generations.

With no trust, with no enforceable worthwhile marriage, there is no family.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Monday, 4 May 2015

All The Wells Have Been Thoroughly Poisoned

Occasionally I go over and read Donal Graeme - he's a Christian Red Pill blogger who decries Churchianity and brings up some interesting stuff. I should read him more than I do, though I'm both atheist and getting busier these days. Commentor Mindstorm recently pointed me over there to a post:

A Truce ... or Victory?

Some of the comments in there are starkly illustrative of the mindset of people still trying to get men into the game-aka-war going on between the two sexes. Commentor The Shadowed Knight resists this and states:
I am not interested in a truce. I am not interested in a war, either. Women can fight; they want that drama. Every man for himself, and this man is leaving the field. For many of us, any truce will come too late to do much good. This fight left too few decent women standing, and the effort involved in finding them is too much for me. 
The Shadowed Knight
Yes indeed, he strikes right to the core. Too few of worth, too hard to find, forget it. I'm outta here, left the other slaves on the plantation, looking for a nice pleasant fishing-hole to enjoy. Want to join me? Drop your hook over there, maybe you'll get Old Mossy who hides under the tree roots.

Of course, there's the obligatory women-centric types seeming to try and shame the men back into getting involved with them. Some are obviously women, some are a bit harder to tell if it's a feminist-oriented male or someone with other skin in the game. I will quote one female commentor:
This fight left too few decent women standing, and the effort involved in finding them is too much for me. 
Even if you found one that you were convinced is one of the few decent women left, I doubt you’d fight to snap her up. Not just you though; that applies to most men these days, including those that hang around here, despite the fact that it’s hard to find one.
(Donal Graeme did give her a mild earful for coming across as a shaming-attempt. I would not have been so mild.)

People can state what they wish. People lie.

Women, as chameleon, are nothing but lies. ("I'm not like that!" When it's evident in every push-up bra, every drop of scent, every layer of makeup, every piece of slutty revealing clothing, that she is like that. Stop lying, woman.)

This is what these fucking retards never seem to grasp. Women. Faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they think that opening their mouth and saying something means that Men will take it as truth. Whether it's true or not.

Bull.

Shit.

The type of mentality which comes across - as if they're entitled to lie and sincerely expect to get away with it and that men will give them the pussy-pass if they're caught out - is both amazing and disturbing. Female entitlement to the max.

Cory Doctrow once wrote a piece on MetaCrap:
Meta-utopia is a world of reliable metadata. When poisoning the well confers benefits to the poisoners, the meta-waters get awfully toxic in short order.
To paraphrase and apply this maxim to the so-called sexual marketplace:
The sexual marketplace is a world of reliable relationships. When poisoning the sexual marketplace confers benefits to the poisoners, the sexual marketplace gets awfully toxic in short order.
Women have very thoroughly poisoned the sexual marketplace. It has been for their personal short-term gain and not for their family's nor civilization's long-term gain.
----------
Imagine a caravan of camels going through the desert. The sun burns down, the plodding pace, the feet dragging through the shifting sands. They stop at various oases and wells, trading, getting water, fresh food.

One particular village realizes that caravans are very profitable and poisons a well, luring in caravans. Those who go there die, their carcasses stripped, the bodies hidden away before the next caravan arrives. Several other villages note the prosperity of this village of robbers and decide to emulate them. The mentality spreads to yet other villages. Soon, all of the villages are doing it.

The caravan trade slacks off. Alarmed at the loss of their prosperity, the villagers get together and send out word: "We do not do these things. Come trade with us without risk."

The caravan trade picks up again. Prosperity returns to the villages in the form of more dead caravans, their corpses stripped, their bones hidden away in the endless sands.

Again, the caravan trade slacks off. Some of the villagers, deciding that they're sick of the others actions - even though they personally profited from those actions, perhaps even participated in them - split away and settle new villages.

No caravans arrive.

Surprised, they get together and have a big conflab then send out word: "We are new villages. We have absolutely nothing to do with those filthy robbers of the old villages. You can come trade with us and you will be welcome."

Still no caravans.

All the wells have been thoroughly poisoned - in the minds of the caravan-masters.
----------
Women seem to be so irrational (or entitled) that they apparently cannot grasp that men are actually rational when it comes to danger. That we see overwhelmingly common behavior. That we realize this behavior is going to be so common that we are most likely going to be subjected to it. (Is this a function of men as hunters, becoming good at recognizing danger in our surrounds and patterns of behavior in things around us?)

Plus, the whole idea of "new villages" reminds me of "born-again virgins".

Plus, the whole idea of so-called Red Pill Women stinks of the poison of personal opportunism.

A woman may not intend at all to follow this behavior.

Feelings change.

Good intentions go out the window.

Emotions take over.

You actually have the nerve to tell me you're not like that? You actually have the chutzpah to tell me you've changed? Cry me a fucking river. Woman, you lie.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Thursday, 16 April 2015

Relationship Suffocation

One of the things that I've noticed with "relationships" since my divorce: a lot of women have this weird-ass desire to be in your fucking back pocket all the time. To the point where you feel like you're suffocating to death.

We all know that it's hard enough to get into a relationship with a woman these days. Most of them are so fucked in the head that they put you through a million hoops for shits and giggles. Then they look at one bad boy, go over to "talk" with him, and ten minutes later are giving him a blowjob in the back-seat of his car. It means nothing to her, just a good time. Weirdly enough, when they get with you they suddenly become all clingy and insecure.

It's a creepy dynamic overall: "I'll fuck him and it's just fun, you I'm more serious about." So they see you as long-term more'n a simple fuck. Because they see you as more long-term, they get all insecure about you doing anything without them. It's kind of hilarious.

Someone that she sees as being a piece of shit goes to do what he wants and she'll not make a peep.

Someone that she sees as being head-and-shoulders above that (or a $$$ provider) goes to do what he wants and she's suddenly creeping all over him and bitching and whining and insecure.

Even more amusing is when you flip the script and a man does something like that. He creeps on her and she scrams. She creeps on him and he's expected to take it and like it. It's not okay for him to be insecure, it's totally okay for her to be insecure.

The fucked-up-ness and doublethink of women is amazing.

Tuesday, 14 April 2015

Why We Should Legalize Rape

So, over on Amerika is an interesting post on why we should legalize rape:

Legalize Rape, Revisited

To break it down into a nutshell, he states that rape is no longer the life-destroying crime that it used to be (complete ruination of a woman) - it's more along the lines of beating someone up. These days, no woman is expected to go to her wedding a virgin - even though when that happens it's an excellent start to a marriage.

The thing is that our society now accepts casual sex. No woman will ever tell you how many men she's had. You are considered a loser if the thought of it bothers you. You are considered a loser if you catch her out fucking some other guy - and you dump her. You are considered a loser when you won't take her back nohow, no way.

All of this, no matter what, you are a loser - because casual sex is acceptable.

However: due to "remorse" the woman who gave it away freely can next day - or any time up to decades or even the end of her life later - retroactively state that it was not consensual sex. He raped her. Perhaps even claim against his estate (keep an eye out for that).

This has been experienced by several famous people recently - including Bill Cosby:


Yeah, like those girls don't want any of the billion dollars the man is worth. I hope that he spends that billion dollars fighting against them and smearing their reputation worldwide. Fucking gold-digging cunty little whores.
So.

Even though it was consensual last night, now that she's got seller's remorse - it was rape.

Even though it was consensual at the time, because you're now worth a bunch - it was rape.

Cha-ching! $$$$$$$$

THIS is why we should legalize rape. Society is basically forcing it on us. If a girl wants casual sex, then next day says "it was rape" while he says "it was casual sex" - it becomes a he-said she-said. Retroactively changing the mind about something that actually isn't completely life-destroying means that the man becomes disproportionately punished (by default) for doing something which was not wrong at the time.

When the average modern ho girl has had 20+ men in her - taken them happily and freely - also done innumerable hand-jobs, blow-jobs, tit-jobs, anal, jizzed on the face/back/ass/belly, etc. Can we seriously consider that sexual penetration is a life-destroying crime? Given that she's already given it away for nothing over and over and over - or at least is in the process of doing it over and over and over.

It means nothing any more. Even to her.

So yeah, too bad for those girls who are actually, violently, forcibly raped. Your shitty sisters - giving it away for free - being fickle cunts who change their mind retroactively - even years or decades later - have screwed you over.

Yes, I'm pointing at those slutty little cunts.

They're basically forcing society to say: "All right, next overnight offender. What'd this one do? He raped her? A $100 fine. Next!"

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Friday, 10 April 2015

Mixed Thoughts In The Herdmind

This is some additional thoughts to the post on Bromance, No Homo, and Slash. I should have made that much clearer, especially my reason for adding the LGBT are Dodo's part to the end of it.

I simply couldn't get it to fit quite properly.

So here it is, a bit more that hopefully makes things clearer in context.
=======================
It is very telling the mixed thoughts going on in the herdmind:

1/ Full glorification and support for LGBT etc.

2/ Utter intolerance of normal male friendship and generally branding it as homosexual

So they at the same time both glorify and denigrate homosexuality. A prime example of Female Doublethink and Self-Deceit. and Female Best Intentions and Lies Women Tell Themselves.

Someone out there knows how the herdmind thinks (or rather, doesn't reflect!) and appears to be using and abusing it with great enthusiasm. You almost have to admire the sheer amount of insane doublethink that is being shown by society (which is basically driven by women). Plus the chutzpah and hubris exhibited by whoever it is feeding this mindset of warped doublethink.

We sure as shit have realized that women do not engage much in the way of retrospection. They seem utterly unconscious of the craziness and delusions and lies which goes on inside their heads. Really, if they were conscious of it, then they'd probably kill themselves.

Because it'd be impossible to consciously believe that you're a fuckin' Princess who belongs on a fuckin' Pedestal, with a Golden Uterus that makes you the Perfect Immaculate Person and the Ultimate Goddess From Whom No Wrong Can Come - while at the same time completely realize and understand what kind of piece of shit you truly are deep inside.

The true depth of mutual illusions and self-delusions in the female herd/creature is breathtaking.

Wednesday, 8 April 2015

Serving Divorce Papers

So, this turd was recently dropped by The New York Daily Turd:

Judge says Brooklyn woman can use Facebook to serve divorce papers
A Brooklyn woman scored a judge’s approval to legally change her relationship status to “single” via Facebook. 
In a landmark ruling, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew Cooper is allowing a nurse named Ellanora Baidoo to serve her elusive husband with divorce papers via a Facebook message. 
Baidoo, 26, “is granted permission serve defendant with the divorce summons using a private message through Facebook,” with her lawyer messaging Victor Sena Blood-Dzraku through her account, Cooper wrote. 
“This transmittal shall be repeated by plaintiff’s attorney to defendant once a week for three consecutive weeks or until acknowledged” by her hard-to-find hubby.
“I think it’s new law, and it’s necessary,” said Baidoo’s lawyer, Andrew Spinnell.
A sign of the sad degeneration of our times, when a fuckin' social media platform can be used for the transmission of fuckin' LEGAL DOCUMENTS.

Sheeeit!

Oh. Wait. I didn't think it through properly.

FEMALE PRIVILEDGE! SHEEEIT!

Just goes to show, doesn't it. I hope that the guy had the nouse to disable his Facebook - even if he's not using it no more. (Yes, even if they're both from Ghana, and he's jacking her around. Not relevant. What's relevant is that this is a bloody dangerous precedent to set. What comes next: "I divorce you. I divorce you. I divorce you." via the phone, or text, or just writing it up on a random wall?)

Fuck these entitled whores and their enablers. Don't make it any easier for 'em than you can.