Wednesday 30 September 2015

First World Twats

This is an oldie from a while back. Some SJW twat having a period about people who paint and hide eggs for the kiddies to find at Easter (generally an American thing):
Make sure to boil those babies alive first. Ignore the screams - that's just escaping air.
So let's look at what's going to come next, in this edition of the "life is stranger than fiction" department:

• trees will have the right to not be cut down
• grass will have the right to not be stepped on
• water will have the right to not be drunk
• air will have the right to not be breathed

The sooner these pussy-cunt first-world SJW morons are punched in the face, the better. They make my fists ache.

Tuesday 29 September 2015

PostSecret Poison #7

This week's theme: "life is stranger than the weirdest fiction". Let's begin.
Though if men weren't constrained by society there'd be fucking in the streets.
MGTOW. You are only "broken" in the eyes of the herd, who have their own comeuppance coming down the line.
As Uncle Bob has said: "Women want license."
Wild guess, you broke up with your hubby and your man in the wings suddenly didn't want you no more?
There are better-looking girls to have lesbian fantasies about.

Hairpiece, schmairpiece.
Suspicious mind some girls have. Yeah I'm picking it's a girl. Men aren't generally this nasty-pathetic-aggressive.
I can't quite tell if this is someone pining for a life they failed to aim for. Or a secret Internet fatty.
Trust me. It's always the boobs. Even in women's minds.
Typical. Creepy. Fetishist.
Single mommy's child.
You're very forgettable.
This is news?
Because as a society we are all that screwed up socially and emotionally.
A good dose of "get over it" is needed here. Or you could, you know, divorce your bitch and shack up with her sister. Or just have her sister as a bit on the side. I mean, there's lots of options.
Never mind Math being teh hard, even Law is too hard. And not teh glamorous.
Fucktoy pining for the unattainable. Thought-experiment: Would she be so crushed if he was a pretty-boy who was secretly gay - and fantasising about fucking another man?

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

Friday 25 September 2015

Do You X Me?

The age-old refrain of a woman: "Do you X me?"

Where X = love, like, trust, etc

Her: Do you trust me?

Me: No.

Her: ...waffle and wibble and dribble and whine as you tune out...

She doesn't like that you said no.

But not because you said you didn't love/like/trust/whatever her. Even though that's what she's decided to whine about on the surface. Anything to keep the plausible deniability.

Because the question wasn't the real question, it was to actually set you up to do something that you really didn't want to do - and she knew you wouldn't - and she's unhappy that you headed her off at the pass.

The nasty manipulative little bitch.

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

PostSecret Poison #6

Another peek into the twisted morass of today's warped society:
Just something about those fuckin' jerks, ain't there - college slut.
A very special relationship with your gynaecologist.
Sometimes you bloody wish eh.
"Got it bad, got it bad, got it bad...I'm hot for teacher..." And people wonder why a teacher will muck around with the students.
Of course you fuckin' know: punishment. Marriage. Is. Dead.
Reality hits.
Still got that snotty, childish attitude. "The most responsible teenager in the house."
Creepy insecure stalker, coming to a "relationship" near you.
You can still see the female slant - lesbian families. Men, even gays, need not apply.
Been gettin' some or just wishing?
Just part your damn legs for him already - college slut.

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?
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?
Does it make her a bad friend?
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.

Tuesday 22 September 2015

Why Marriage Is Fraud

No-Ma'am is bringing it back again, with timely (and updated) reminders of why our modern Marriage 2.0 is a massive fraud:
Before the 1860’s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had “paid” for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not “own” her person, but in marriage he did “own” her reproductive ability and the products thereof.
The transferring of these “property rights” back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward.
Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could.
But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to “own” what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860’s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to “own” what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children.
Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.
If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breached your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.
If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breach of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?
Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”
That seems fair to me. All contracts are set forth in this manner. That is why they are contracts. A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and don’t deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed.
But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)
So what have we got left here?
What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!
If you go to a car dealership and buy a shiny new car, you might sign on the dotted line and agree to make payments for the next five years, but it is implied in the contract that you own the car.
The dealership cannot decide 6 months later that they want the car back, show up at your house, and just take it. And certainly they cannot force you to make the next 54 payments on it if they take it away from you with no breach of contract on your part. It is your property and they have no right to it. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest you signed a fraudulent contract. To suggest that you would still have to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance after they sell it to someone else because “it is in the best interests of the car” is to suggest an insanely fraudulent contract.
But this is what we are left with in the marriage contract.
The man gets none of the property or rights which the contract was originally based upon, but the “vendor” still has the right to make you into this:
“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the ex-wife. “You are divorced now with no legal rights to what you thought you paid for, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you, slave! MY children and I own your labour! You own nothing!”
Nope, let the little ladies and their childrengo back to living like this:
Have nothing to do with them.
Do not oppress them with marriage.
Do not oppress them by allowing them to live in your nice home.
Do not have sex with them. All sex is rape, dontcha know?
Do not donate sperm. That now makes you liable to be a slave too.
Again, make sure you do not oppress one single one of them with marriage. Do you hate women or something? Why would you want to oppress one of them with marriage, you misogynist! Put down that Bride magazine, mister. We know what you are thinking... now move on and think more wholesome thoughts.
Do not burden a single one of them with a child. Women can’t stand kids and would like to have nothing to do with them.
And, most certainly, DO NOT pay anyone for a product they have no intention of actually “selling” to you.
Do not feel you are obligated to work like a fool to pay taxes which support “the herd” of single and divorced mothers along with their feral children. You are not responsible to pay for someone else's property.
You don’t owe the herd anything. They don’t even want you to be part of the herd.
You are not responsible to be an economic performer who props up herd living with your labour while receiving nothing in return except a pat on the head along with a “good boy.” There are plenty of manginas who will prop up the herd until it can’t be propped up anymore. Let them work like dolts in an unsustainable system for someone else’s benefit then.
Give them as few tax dollars as possible.
Men should go back to only expending 20-30% of their labour ability, so they can return to living like this:
Why in the hell would you want to oppress one of those tricksters with Patriarchy?
Why even bother with a cow that doesn't give milk? Let alone pay for one.
It lowers divorce rates and cuts back on fraud.
Enjoy your freedom, my brothers.

Thursday 17 September 2015

PostSecret Poison #5

Life gets so busy at times. When there's nothing to say, I concentrate on other things that I enjoy. Right now though, back to the exposed poison of the world.
I had to start with creepy.
Validation. How many succeeded?
Viva la frivorce.
Is this your angry drunk?
Good little girl, sweetheart teenager, raging slut.
Pop psychology doesn't help when you actually loathe yourself and your life.
Got a little father-son action going - hoe.
Cheating on girlfriend and wife. Three girls on the go at once.
Entrapment didn't work.
Late bloomer. Often, a thorough fucking is all someone needs in life to sort out their head.
Predatory female lamenting the one that got away.
Attention-whore. Cut along dotted line.
Did you follow her example?
Insecurity does not become a man.
What tells you you're getting a husband?
So smartly arrogant that ya'all are stupid - and no guy likes a smart chick.