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

Wednesday, 14 February 2018

Its A Trap!

You thought I was going to yack about Valenshits Day, didn't you?

Hahaha, nope! (Though that is a trap.)

Feminism.

Feminism is an extended infantile tantrum.

Bothering to respond with more than an amused laugh at these retards is falling into the trap. Akin to accepting the bait. Giving them the attention that these retarded children crave.

Academia sure as shit fell into that trap. Bizniz and Das Guberment also.

Of course, Das Guberment makes $$$ off catering to retards, so there's no real surprise there.

Positive or negative attention. Like good and bad advertising - it's still advertising. Spanking a crying child, good or bad attention, it's still attention. Better than nothing.

Feminism and feminists were nothings who were getting nothing. By whining, crying, and screaming - they get something. Some attention is better than none.

Yes, it's good to deconstruct it for the new kids on the block. Poor bastards, we all need it explaining to us to start with. We need that antidote to the brainwashing and lies, the shit-sandwich we were all fed as young'n's.

Getting all riled up over it is giving them more of the attention that they crave-crave-crave.

Why do you think that celebrities come out with stupidly uninformed opinions? Good or bad, it gives them the attention (narcissistic supply) that they crave.

Without that narcissistic supply they are a pathetic nothing.

This is why Jessica Valenti spouts off her horseshit, then goes around wearing a t-shirt that says: "I love male tears" aka I suck cock and swallow. It gives her a lot more of the attention/narcissistic supply that she craves. Without that attention, she wouldn't have anywhere near as much cock to suck and semen to swallow.

Without that acting out, that outspokenness, that spouting of uninformed and stupid drivel - these retards would be faced with their own worthlessness.

Thus: An extended infantile tantrum.
===================
A related anecdote, from about 4 years ago, illustrating the above.

Back when, a fairly skinny vegan chick wanted to go out with me. (Vegans - they seem to be either very chubby or skinny as fuck. It's weird.)

Any rate, I said to her: "I eat meat. You have a problem with that, fuck off." (Because who the fuck wants to be earbashed by some dipshit fanatic. We get enough crap at work, take more shit from the girl we're fucking? Hell no!)

She got all broken up about that and we didn't end up going out/fucking. No problem, thank goodness, one less retard in my life. She finds herself another man in short order.

A few months later she turns up one night with the group - back when I used to go out on the town on the regular - she's got a puffy eye and lip. All the girls are billing and cooing over her, etc etc ad-fucking-nauseum. "That eeeeevil bastard man!" Apparently he's been tooling her up a bit from day dot.

Personal opinion: probably every time she opened her mouth.

I looked at the lot of them and said: "She had problems with me eating meat, yet no problems with getting her teeth punched out on the regular by him? Stupid bitch."

I collected a bunch of hate over that one HAH!

Narcissistic supply. Good or bad, it's better than nothing.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the cost. Now I'm back to the beach, hopefully the rain stays away for a while.

Wednesday, 13 September 2017

Nothing Compares

Sinead O'Connor, oh my.

Born 8 December 1966, younger than I am by several months.

Whatta fuckin' train wreck.

Shaves her head way back when, starts to grow her hair back, shaves it again - permashave now. Does an open letter to Miley Ray Syphilis about sexualising women in music.

Four different children to four different men: Jake w/John Renolds (married), Roisin w/John Waters (married), no children w/Nick Sommerlad (married), Shane w/Donal Lunny (not married), Yeshua w/Frank Bonadio (not married), no children w/Steve Cooney (married), no children w/Barry Herridge (married - for 17 days, only 7 days spent together).

Hang on, that's 7 men. She only married 4 of them - and only 2 of the men she was married to she bore children to. That's 2 "single mommy" events, where the fuck does she get off giving Miley Ray Syphilis advice on the sexual comportment of wimminz?

Har fucking har!

Now looks like a great grandma biker chick, tatted to the max and rammed face-first into the steel wall of a battleship at the age of 50 years.

Grief, I look better'n her. And I'm pleasantly ugly at best.

Now the poster-child for feminism has had a meltdown. Poor, poor, pitiful me...


Thank you, Terrence and Blake of Redonkulas.


Friday, 30 December 2016

Darwin Award to California for Encouraging Child Prostitution

Time to rip the leftists and wimminz a new one. Sadly, they will not cry at this - instead they will simply cover their ears and chant "lalalala I can't hear you lalalala" at the top of their lungs. This is because they are utterly incapable of learning anything - due to their brains being a safe missing the key and welded up that has been set into a 100x100x100 meter block of concrete dropped into the remotest part of the Challenger Deep...
So on the Washington Examiner, I see that the state of California Californication has supposedly legalized child prostitution.

Wait, whut?

I read further into California Democrats Legalize Child Prostitution, and realize that the bloody title is (surprise!) shit-awful clickbait material. Reading a bit more:
Beginning on Jan 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right.
Hmm. Sounds like fuckin' horseshit to me. Dig a bit further - it turns out that the end result might have similar effects to having made some things legal. In that, the police will no longer be able to arrest (or prosecute) the underage for selling their bodies:
SB1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.
Wait, whut? Fuck, there's an echo here...

So time to go check out Snopes commentary on Child Prostitution Legalized In California:
The Democratic governor announced he signed SB1322 to ban police from charging people under the age of 18 with prostitution. 
Interesting.
This does not, however, mean that child prostitution is legal. It is still illegal for Californians to hire prostitutes (child or otherwise), and sex traffickers will still face consequences if they are caught prostituting children. The new law means that children involved in sex trafficking and prostitution will be treated as victims instead of criminals.
Ah. A very fine line. And that actually means?

Going back to the first link:
Pimping and pandering will still be against the law whether it involves running adult women or young girls. But legalizing child prostitution will only incentivize the increased exploitation of underage girls. Immunity from arrest means law enforcement can't interfere with minors engaging in prostitution - which translates into bigger and better cash flow for the pimps. Simply put, more time on the street and less time in jail means more money for pimps, and more victims for them to exploit.
A few notes:

1/ Note that only women and girls are mentioned, not young boys. Expected bias from a mainstream news source. They seem to think that nobody is going to be interested in sodomizing young boys - or perhaps boys getting fucked up the ass is of no concern whatsoever. /sarcasm

2/ It's not legalizing child prostitution in any form. It simply stops the police from easily getting them off the streets.

3/ Since the police can no longer get them off the streets quickly - then what? Straight back into it once the car is out of sight? "Hey mister, I'm eleven years old - want to fuck me?"

As the article states straight-up: "Minors involved in prostitution are clearly victims, and allowing our law enforcement officers to pick these minors up and get them away from their pimps and into custody is a dramatically better solution than making it legal for them to sell themselves for sex." Barring the bullshit about making it legal - the general idea for this situation seems sound, get them the hell out of the area/game asap.

No longer possible, the police just can't stop (or protect) them any more. Shades of the Rotheringham sex ring, only now it can be semi-open - not quietly ignored or swept under the carpet.

So, some simple-yet-complex questions:

a) If a pedophile gets picked up for paying an underage prostitute, can he plead guilty to paying for sex rather than having sex with a minor?

b) What about prior acts? Can they be re-pleaded as per the above, so long as the pedophile paid for it? (As being different from abduction/kidnapping/rape/whatever.)

c) What about pizzagate, with the above things in mind?

I'm rather stunned by the level of idiocy displayed by the morons who signed this into law (back in September). There's a reason that I'm going: "Wait, whut?"

'Cause while it is still not legal to pay for prostitutes of any age or sex - it looks like in the state of California it will be a helluva lot easier to find those underage prostitutes. Sure, you can probably get them off the streets, though it likely means that Social Workers Wankers rather than the police will have to become involved to do it.

Which makes me wonder at the real reasons behind this abomination of law. Every damn pedo in America looking at California and going "hmmmm" with anticipation. The Social Workers having even better job prospects, and (possibly) more powers handed to them. Perhaps even an increase in the number of police to deal specifically with the unintended fallout from this law.

Leftists and wimminz. I'd almost laugh, if it wasn't so fuckin' frightening. The feelz and intentions are more important than thinking things through thoroughly and looking at the worst of what might happen - never mind adjusting to what actually happens in reality.

For this, I have to hand it to California for the stupidity-uber-allez Darwin Award: likely turning your own leftist/SJW promised land into a smoking hellhole of sexual perversion. Way to go ya morons.

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.

Wednesday, 30 March 2016

Something to Think About

From Aurini. This shows a bit of the bullshit we Men have to deal with in life.
They talk about the losers of society, doing their dipshit best to fuck over everyone else - so that they (the losers) can feel entitled and empowered and of worth in this world..

The whole business of the SJWs and Leftists and Feminists and Marxists reminds me of something I read long ago. Sawing the bottom off the ladder and shifting it to the top. In other words: jobs for the boys.

In this case, jobs for the worthless.

Tonight I will have another sip of Grand Marnier, and muse about the idiocy of humanity. It is no wonder that the intelligent among us shake our heads and walk away from these types. The stupid are far too stupid to realize that they live only by the sufferance of civilization, which they enthusiastically shit upon and tear down at every opportunity.

Some call us losers who run away. They don't realize: we have no skin in the game. In fact our skin has been forcibly removed from the game, generally after we ourselves have been skinned alive. So now, why would we waste our time with their garbage? Life is far more interesting and fun than wasting our time by polishing a turd.

In the end it's still a fucking turd.

Friday, 29 January 2016

The Long Decline

Hold tight men and wimminz-whores, I got some real bad news for everyone.

So every now and then I get some scamming whore in Russia (or Georgia, or the Philippines, or wherever) sling me an email with a picture.
This one's actually particularly fucking amusing in the email:
Greetings!
What's up!
I'm Hasretim.
I need a stable sweetheart to adore, look after and understand each other, to enjoy common ideas.
I have an intention to find a responsible sweetheart who is not going to play games with me.
My personal email is the only guarantee that I can come in contact with you as soon as possible.
Will all my heart, Hasretim.
So this Russian sslore (scammer-slut-whore) sends a  pic of some chick in her undies (Natalia Raisa, according to Google Image Search). For shits and giggles I sent back a message along the lines of: "Nice undies. I want some cunt-shots, be sure to spread those meat-flaps wide."

Of course, no reply after a month or two. Damn, why might that be? She's so obviously selling her body! Or the fantasy of somebody's body.

One of the more amusing things was a prior sslore, one who I strung along for shits and giggles. 'Lo, one of the pictures included her holding up a piece of paper with my name! Sadly for her though, Google Images had already come to the party - she was on:

1/ A Russian stripper site
2/ A Russian escort site
3/ Had done some stuff in Russian sports (announcing or something by the looks)

Couldn't be arsed trying to find out any real details about the last, for obvious reasons given the first two.

The point is that this particular Russian sslore had a photo taken of herself holding up a blank piece of paper for later modifying. She either sold her image to a scammer factory (probably for a few bucks) or was involved in the scam herself. Highly likely the latter, come to think about it.

It was fun when she asked for money via Western Union. "Sure babe. Who should I send it attention to, you via x stripper site or you via x escort site?"

Now, I've been having a slow think about this sorta thing. And remembering the Odessa Girls. And thinking about how Russia has been a feminazi-delight-shithole for 2+ generations already. I've come to a few semi-conclusions:

1/ Like advertising email spam, these scammers do this shit because it's still profitable - there are still enough people who fall for it

2/ Even after 2+ generations, teh Russian wimminz are still going strong with the "I want my Prince Fucking Charming" demands - and are getting shriller and more desperate and doubling-down about the whole business, while at the same time attempting to scam Western men for their $

3/ Teh Russian wimminz are feminist slores to the max, to a degree that makes our Western slores look like babies in comparison (they haven't grown up to be children about it as yet)

4/ These modern cunts will *never* realize the true mindset of the modern man they've created, which boils down to: I ain't being paid to fulfill your fuckin' fantasy, cunt.

Which we-all know the coin for fulfilling her fantasy of being a lazy cunt, 'cause we incessantly bitch about how teh wimminz ain't fulfilling their side of the bargain out here in the manosphere.

You want your fantasy fulfilled? Sure, cupcake. You only need to keep your side of the bargain - 'cause otherwise you can go get back on the gangbang bandwagon.
The most important take-home point though: these fucking nutcases are way ahead of teh Western wimminz and still going fucking strong.

Some people have stated, 2-3 generations and this shit will all burn out. I've thought so and said it myself.

I'm wrong.

Roman civilization got into much the same situation as we have. It wasn't a mere couple of generations to sort out, it was a couple of fucking centuries decline.

We're not going to be doing 2-3 generations to sort this shit out (short of a major and sudden technological collapse - in which case all bets are off). We're going to be 200-300 years.

We are well-and-truly fucked.

So if you're 20 and thinking that in 30-odd years the spoiled girl-children of your generation will have spawned some halfway decent girl-creatures that you can fuck/marry/impregnate, don't hold your breath. Yes, younger guys will fuck older wimminz and younger girls will fuck older men on the sly ('cause out in the open is too much against the prevailing herdthink). That doesn't mean the new younger crop of girls won't be screwed in the head still, probably way worse in fact.

That said, we (the current generations) are going to be spared the sight of the absolute worst of what happens. It's going to get bad, socially, from our point of view. Eventually though, the dead-end self-destroying meme that is Feminazism will die out, with a final population in the West of maybe 10% of what we have at present.

Until the next cycle of empire begins.

Tuesday, 8 September 2015

The Feminists Prayer

From commentor MindStorm, pointing us over to Dalrock's blog:
Oh great hamster in the sky, give us our daily alimony, child support and government cheque. Forgive our ex-husbands but give us their house and in his stead, give us eternal divorce bliss! In thy eternal hamsterisation, Amen!
Also:
Oh great hamster in the sky. Give us wimmenz a better deal! Our pitiful husbands be boring, un-tingly and not of high enough status. Oh hamster, give us a speedy frivorce with cash and prizes galore (spacious house included). Grant us too a speedy millionaire handyman, with two or perhaps three holiday homes in various island destinations around the world, to restore our tingles most hastily. Give him a suave Spanish accent too.. Don’t judge us though hamster but instead spin on thy wheel of rationalisations and bring us closer to thy mercy.

In thy hamsterbatory name, Amen!
Beautiful. I too would share a drink with feministhater.

Saturday, 29 August 2015

She Doesn't Need A Man

From the cesspit of FaceCrap, not an Irish sense of humor - a feminazi sense of humor:
Crisis averted, thank goodness!

I hope you don't have problems opening your bottle of antidepressants.

Sunday, 31 May 2015

Righteous Anger vs Bitter Hatred

People need to understand the difference between:

* righteous anger
vs
* bitter hatred

The sooner people stop automatically saying to someone: "You're a misogynist!" the better. Simply by attempting to shame someone in this manner shows to the world how closed and unthinkingly judgmental their mind is. It's so very unattractive - though the men and women who use this type of shaming language are incapable of grasping that subtlety of nuance. (A brick to the head would go unnoticed too.)

So here is the difference:

Righteous Anger: Anger that is justified for various reasons. In the context of the manosphere, that "righteous anger" is towards those who told them the lies and handed them the treatment that they've been dished out by others (typically feminuts and their mangina/white knight enablers, plus women who proclaim "I'm not like that!" while hypocritically being exactly like that - or worse).

Bitter Hatred: This has become the conflated trope of the now, where the word "misogynist" automatically means someone who is "bitter" and "hating" of women. Yes, there are men out there who are bitter towards and harbor hatred for women. Saying some men = all men is typical female non-logic: some P is Q, therefore all P is Q.

Some men hate women, therefore all men hate women.

Some men are rapists, therefore all men are rapists.

Funny how it always negatively put, instead of positively. How about this?

Some men give women multiple screaming orgasms, therefore all men give women multiple screaming orgasms.

Yeah, you're never gonna see that one around at all. Gives men far too much value. Can't have that! The vibrator is far more important than any man - and she will cry bitterly if that breaks, at least until she gets another one. (Funny how a man-substitute is just as disposable as a man, in the end...)

Misogynist (defn.): A man who hates women as much as women hate each other.

I'd have that put on my gravestone, however I sincerely doubt that I will be so fortunate as to have a gravestone. Assuming that that kind of posterity really matters to me. On the whole I have to say that it doesn't.

Maybe I should carve it on a mountain before I die, in letters 100 feet tall...

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.

Wednesday, 29 April 2015

A Commentor Attacks - Man Up! Edition

This happened over on Keoni's blog. Interesting. I shall quote the attacker's comment here (the first part in italics is what I said, the commentor is replying to a small part of my overall comment):
tz said...
Start a family now? That would be another 20+ years of difficulty in my declining years, very likely ending with nothing once they're gone and out the door. They would be forced to support me. That would be cruelty in the extreme.
What a whiny, selfish bastard (I can call one who rejects fatherhood this without it being an insult, just an observation).
They would not be forced to support you. This is what Christendom did before Social Security. My grandparents lived with us or my aunts/uncles, and I took care of my parents. "Honor thy Father and Mother". Whether they are saints or sinners. Are you planning on being horrible to your children? Who else will support you? Taxpayers? Or will you drink the hemlock?
What you mean is it would be cruel to you to have to depend on someone who would do it as an honor instead of creating a generation that isn't materialistic or narcissistic. But first you must repent of these yourself.
You will suffer to gain muscle, endurance, thinness, wealth, but not children?
I'm acting and I may be worse off than you. The first part is finding an area of the country (or world) that is old fashioned, and where there is likely "a herd of unicorns" even if the number is small. I am moving to this target rich environment a week from today. (It doesn't have a football or baseball team, Opera, or big-box malls)
Red Pill? Zion and "the real world" aren't beautiful, easy, or pleasant. Cypher preferred the Matrix. You want just enough of the red pill to get by but don't really want the civilization it represents. Where men were fathers and women were mothers, and the many children would keep the traditional ways yet find new opportunities (an old Italian saying on sons was one for the business, one for the priesthood, one for the police or army...).
Christendom is a way of life. It's author said to take up your cross daily. The Kingdom of Heaven can only give you profound an eternal joy at the cost of a bit of difficulty and suffering and losses will be returned 100 fold - with persecutions - Luke. It isn't a bacchanal or a debauch.
If the point isn't to restore western civilization to some small corner, the red-pill may as well be hemlock
Hmmm, some pseudo-intellectualism coming out here. Without much actual sense, at least in my opinion. So I will have to deconstruct and rebut it somewhat. After all, I've taken it as my duty to at least try and point out some of the poison in modern society. There's a bunch in here, which I'm not sure that the commentor realizes.
What a whiny, selfish bastard (I can call one who rejects fatherhood this without it being an insult, just an observation).
Whiny? Actually, I will admit to that. That was somewhat of the tone of how the comment I wrote came through. Tch tch bad me.

While the commentor can claim that it is not an insult and merely an observation - it is an insult. Deliberately so. The intent of using such language is to shame else such language would not be used. Stating that it's not an insult is disingenuous. Also hypocritical.

As an example, I often decry women using what might be referred to as "strong language". In fact I have been known to refer to certain segments of women as "cum buckets" and their single-mommy offspring as "womb turds". For me to say something along the lines of "this is not an insult, just an observation" would be both disingenuous and hypocrisy in the extreme - because I intend it as an insult and am using this shaming language to both expose and push said behavior out of common occurrence.
They would not be forced to support you. This is what Christendom did before Social Security. My grandparents lived with us or my aunts/uncles, and I took care of my parents. "Honor thy Father and Mother". Whether they are saints or sinners. Are you planning on being horrible to your children? Who else will support you? Taxpayers? Or will you drink the hemlock?
Who said I was a Christian? (Roman Catholic, Lapsed - and ineffably thankful, given the stuff which went on between the priest and his "flock" of young boys. I've always been glad that I'm basically ugly. Thank you LORD!)

Has this commentor blinded himself to the current tendency for children to move to other cities in search of work? Has this commentor blinded himself to the current tendency for children to barely scrape by and live with their parents? (There's a reason for the trope of boys playing video games in the basement. Where's the work for them? Held on to for dear life by the Baby Boomers and Gen-X - bastards like me.)

My grandmother lived by herself when my grandmother moved out. My mother moved out. My brother, half-sister, step-siblings, and I all moved out. There was nothing along the lines of communal living. That said, when my stepfather dies, I fully expect my mother to move in with me. At least I have a large-ish place in town, rather than semi-rural as they are now.

He asks if I will be horrible to my children, and if I expect taxpayers to support me. Or if I'll commit suicide. Again, this part of the comment is ladled with shaming language (in the form of sub-rosa contempt). Tch tch, he completely ignored the rest of the paragraph I put up (which he deliberately didn't quote - cherry-picking!). The full paragraph I shall quote here:
Start a family now? That would be another 20+ years of difficulty in my declining years, very likely ending with nothing once they're gone and out the door. They would be forced to support me. That would be cruelty in the extreme. As it is, I expect now to work until I die - unless I decide to retire to a country where my money is worth vastly greater than it is in my home country. I would be effectively isolating myself to live halfway decently into my old age. [My emphasis. - BPS]
As can be seen I said, quite plainly, that I expect to work until I die. I take full responsibility for my own "retirement" in whatever form I happen to desire. When the ultimate decline of senescence comes, hopefully I will have the mental fortitude (ie not be senile) to not linger in a hospital with "heroic measures" being paid for by the taxpayer.
What you mean is it would be cruel to you to have to depend on someone who would do it as an honor instead of creating a generation that isn't materialistic or narcissistic. But first you must repent of these yourself.
Again, the commentor seems lacking in reading comprehension (prior). Though to be fair, he hasn't looked at my financial analysis of the costs of women - especially the cost of each child (estimated $100k per child these days). Let's reiterate with a little figurative math here (these are not my numbers):

* income after tax of $100k per year
* mortgage of $70k per year
* food, insurance, car, travel, etc of $20k per year
* remaining $10k per year

We'll say that I'm 50yo, will retire at 65yo (the "usual" age). My mortgage will be paid off at that point. That leaves me: $10k * 15 years = $150k cash/retirement. Some 30+yo slut/single-mommy type will reduce that amount even further, as well as costing $100k per child. It would be extremely difficult to give any children a good start education-wise in life (plus fuck that noise of MA's and BA's in Liberal Arts degrees, etc).

Now, if I somehow had a successful marriage when younger and the house was paid off and the children out the door, with the mythical "happy wife", then this is what the situation might look like:

* income after tax of $100k per year
* mortgage - none
* food, insurance, car, travel, etc of $45k per year
* remaining $55k per year

When I retire in this situation: $55k * 15 = $825k cash/retirement. Remember, the children are already gone! Paid for, education done, out the door, all that good stuff. There is a *vast* difference and that $850k can be placed into various things which give interest - $40k a year at a roughly 7% rate (after taxes, etc). Without touching the principal. No social security required. While leaving the children two things when my wife and I finally kicked the bucket:

1/ a house and land (fully paid-off)
2/ $850k cash

This is what a prudent generation would do: accumulation of wealth over time. This is the middle-class dream. This is what the Baby Boomers pissed away from their parent's generation. This is what Marriage 2.0 and the accompanying divorce/frivorce industry specifically targets and destroys.
You will suffer to gain muscle, endurance, thinness, wealth, but not children?
There is a difference in degree, as described above. Read. Comprehend. Understand. Gaining the positives of muscle/endurance/thinness/wealth are accumulative at little cost, women and children are a drain at great cost. One that at this stage in life sucks the entire future to a dry husk of nothingness. I would then, indeed, be forced to either:

a/ suck off the taxpayer's teat
b/ drain my children's future dry
c/ some combination of both

Let's continue.
I'm acting and I may be worse off than you. The first part is finding an area of the country (or world) that is old fashioned, and where there is likely "a herd of unicorns" even if the number is small. I am moving to this target rich environment a week from today. (It doesn't have a football or baseball team, Opera, or big-box malls)
You have found this? Despite possibly being worse off than me? Excellent! More power to you. I sincerely hope one thing: that they're not the fucked-up churchian girls out there. May it work out well for you.
Red Pill? Zion and "the real world" aren't beautiful, easy, or pleasant. Cypher preferred the Matrix. You want just enough of the red pill to get by but don't really want the civilization it represents. Where men were fathers and women were mothers, and the many children would keep the traditional ways yet find new opportunities (an old Italian saying on sons was one for the business, one for the priesthood, one for the police or army...).
Christendom is a way of life. It's author said to take up your cross daily. The Kingdom of Heaven can only give you profound an eternal joy at the cost of a bit of difficulty and suffering and losses will be returned 100 fold - with persecutions - Luke. It isn't a bacchanal or a debauch.
Exactly, we know they're not pleasant. Accusatory/shaming language again: "You want just enough of the red pill to get by but don't really want the civilization it represents." Obviously he has not read my blog to any deep degree. I will excuse him on this one, for he hasn't gotten the full facts.

I will not, however, excuse him on: "Christendom is a way of life. It's author said to take up your cross daily." The author of the Bible (which by the way is a conglomeration by committee) did not state: "You will man up and marry those sluts." Nor did it say anything about deliberately allowing someone else to be a parasite upon you (at least, so far as I know). Many things in the Bible are very red-pill.

I've also had little good to say about the general idea of chasing and entertaining and catering to brain-damaged and broken women just so you can get an opportunity to dump a fuck in them. Especially given that most of the available ones are high n-count sluts (no I don't want to be her #50 man, just as she doesn't want to know that she's been my #50 woman). Plus it's damn expensive, for basically zero real worth in return.
If the point isn't to restore western civilization to some small corner, the red-pill may as well be hemlock
This I will applaud the man for. He has his head screwed on right in that instance. However he also misses the overall point: the red-pill is to make sure that you don't get your dick stuck in the mincer. It's a "take off the blinders, don't ignore the signs, take it all with a ton of skepticism" message for all men. It's also a "here's how to deal with this shit" template for younger men to follow if they should decide to marry.

At this point I am sighing inside. While the commentor has a (very) few good points, overall he comes across as someone with yet another leftist/feminist "man up" message. Sacrifice yourself unthinkingly. Throw yourself under the bus willingly. Man up and save that civilization.

Wait, that sounds familiar. Where did I hear that message before?

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

Thursday, 2 April 2015

Divorce is Failure

From the woman's side:

You got divorced = you failed

You got divorced twice = you failed big-time

You got divorced 3+ times = you are an utter failure

From the man's side:

You got divorced = hope you learned something

You got divorced twice = didn't you get the memo first time?

You got divorced 3+ times = some people just don't fuckin' learn do they

Now look at the two sides from their own perspectives.

From the woman's side: any successfully-married woman is going to look down on any divorced woman. Similarly, divorced women look down on women who have been divorced more times than they have been. Social stigma is high. The more divorces you been through, the lower the social status in teh wimminz pecking-order.

From the man's side: it's more supportive and humorous. At least, until the 3+ divorce fuckups. Then it probably becomes a mix of disgust and pity, as in "get a fuckin' grip man".

So there's a big difference in same-sex attitudes towards divorce. For men, shit happens - until you're too damn stupid after about 3 shots. For women, instant pity and shame.

Because despite what the femicunts rabbit on about: for a woman, divorce is true failure at the one thing that really matters for women.

Tuesday, 24 March 2015

MGTOW Lifestyle

Okay, since I have stopped being so damn negative about A Voice For Men, I have decided to go over there and have a look-see at what's going on. Here is a beautiful way to eat well, enjoy yourself, and make Feminists cry all-in-one:

Eating while MGTOW: Buck buck chicken

What made me laugh my ass off was this bit:
I then have a fortnight’s worth of protein for the price of buying some crazy feminist harpy two sour apple martinis.
The man writes so much truth there, as well as in the rest of his article.

Similarly, for the price of a bottle of Grand Marnier, I can't really take a feminasty out on a decent date. Besides, I get far more enjoyment from sipping just a little bit at the end of a hard day's work, rather than sitting across from someone who hates men and is looking for any excuse to say "you just want to fuck me!" after I've fed her a good meal.

Well, no duh, you crazy cunt. I mean, five minutes ago, sure. Except that you just turned my boner off. So no, I don't want to fuck you. I'd sooner stick it in a knothole than your nasty, rancid, infected, infested hole.

Dates for these feminists: none

Money wasted on feminists: none

Fucks given about feminists: none

The modern crazies are so completely clueless. It's almost breathtaking how stupid they are. Morons, the lot of them.

So what can we do? Just like buck-buck-chicken up there: do everything cheaply and enjoy ourselves. Cook some good food. Work out so you're healthy. Go out and enjoy the world, do some swimming or fishing or hiking or whatever (being in good shape helps here). Have a sip of your favorite drink at the end of the day.

And ignore the women. They don't deserve to share our relaxed, happy, awesome lifestyle. Certainly, the feminist-indoctrinated types don't bring any joy with them - for themselves or us. The others, well, they just want to enjoy the lifestyle without helping in the hard yakker of building it. That's the purest definition of a parasite that you can think of.

Unlike buck-buck-chicken, I can't be bothered making these morons cry. I'd rather read a good book out on the deck while I sip my Grand Marnier and listen to music and the chicken cooks for an hour. The morons can rant and weep off somewhere in the far distance where their whining and wailing won't disturb and drag down my good mood.

Be well and enjoy your lifestyle, brothers.

Monday, 16 March 2015

Jessica Valenti - Male Tears

Okay, sometimes I'm bloody slow to "get it". Guess you learn something new every day.

So JB gave Jessica Valenti a mild slapping upside the head, which I commented on here.

Then this morning, it suddenly clicked to me: "Male Tears". Duh, fuckwit, "the eye that cries when most pleased" - aka a penis aka semen.

So I double-checked on Urban Dictionary for Male Tears: yep, it's slang for semen.

It's a sub-rosa call-out of: "I do oral", "I'm into bukkake", "I want a pearl necklace".
If you want a pure example of "ignore what I say and look at what I do" - here is Feminism's poster-child. Hell, her mouth is wide open in that "insert cock here" position for the next playa.

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

Saturday, 14 March 2015

Always Guilty Of Rape and Time Wasters

Over on Return of Kings they point to that stupid piece of crap legislation which came out of Cali-fucking-fornia: Yes means Yes.

Talk about one of the most stupid laws on the books. Do you know who pushes these kinds of laws? The kind of stupid cunt who is so socially clueless that she doesn't realize that "No means no...and sometimes maybe...and sometimes yes...and sometimes 'fuck me harder!'...and..."

Now that's something you have to think about. Feminists. They're actually socially clueless retards and morons. Works for me.

At any rate, Yes means Yes has jumped the shark the pond and landed firmly in London:

Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

So there it is, if you ever fuck a woman then you are automatically considered guilty of rape. Unless you have some proof that she consented (a video of her screaming "please fuck and degrade me!" at the top of her lungs would be a starter). Keep that proof forever too: retroactive rape is no joke (Rolf Harris, Prince Andrew).

Okay, we can figure out what this Yes means Yes shit is too: it's also an attack by women upon other women. Specifically, an attack on the men - which rebounds and means that other women don't get hit on as much. The mentality is very much a feminist one of: "if I can't get laid then neither can you, nyah nyah nyah".

It's getting to the point where if you have anything to lose (job, home, social status) you avoid women by reflex. Simply because:

1/ You can't tell if she's actually interested or just playing plausibly-deniable games

2/ You have too much to lose

3/ She's not worth it

Which of course, this Yes means Yes crapola also means that all plausible deniability for a woman goes out the window. Unless you have zero to lose, aka you're a bad-boy/criminal/thug, aka you're willing to take the chance that she's not leading you on for shits and giggles.

Radical thought: maybe that's the reason that women seem to prefer fucking bad boys, crims, and thugs these days. They're the only ones who will take a chance at rejection and losing...nothing of worth. So what if she comes out with a sexual harassment/he raped me claim. These guys have nothing to lose.

Her: Even though I'm giving him the "yes" signal, he won't make a move. Why?

Him: What fuckin' signal? That one? Got burned by that one last month.

So here's an example of this process of false signals:

One silly cunt a few weeks back was talking quite intensely to me - she even isolated me from others, made sure that she had my full attention. Being a completely clueless fucker and not picking up on this at all (sarcasm) I simply asked her straight out: "Would you like some company while doing X." Turned out that she was a time-waster. She gave a socially-acceptable "no thanks", I made a few socially-acceptable noises, then I got the fuck away from her.

I'm not here to waste my time with some cunt who is sending mixed and false signals. None of us men are. It's only delusional women who think that they are entitled to waste your time when they have no real interest in you.

It's like Vox Day stated regarding online "dating": Face to face or forget it.

Never mind this Yes means Yes dogshit regarding rape and all. We men need to make it abundantly clear: No really does mean No. Unless you come out with a clear, explicit, and unambiguous Yes then you're not even getting the fucking time of day from me. (Maybe actually means: "No, however I'd like to waste more of your time and bask in your attention." I've fallen into that trap a couple of times.)

This sort of shit is what we men have to deal with. Women would have a fucking meltdown in short order if they had to deal with a tenth of it - in fact, a while back I posted the video about the lesbian who went man for a while "just to see what it was like". She went fruit-loops. (And that included hanging around guys indulging in female-style group therapy - hardly ordinary men.)

Yes means Yes. Just another abortion that will fuck up the interactions between men and women even more. Not that they're not already poisoned, given the preponderance of leading men on for shits and giggles and as a way to get her hand into your wallet.

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

---extra---

I know it reads paradoxical, that it reads like at the end of the post I am endorsing the Yes means Yes bullshit. In a way I am, only I'm flipping the script: "Unless you say Yes I'm not wasting my time on you."

Monday, 9 March 2015

A Subversive Strategy

Unca Bob tells about a woman who lost her Planet Fitness membership because she protested at finding a man in the woman's locker-room.

All Must Be Equal
I have been reading articles about how a woman at Planet Fitness had her membership revoked when she found a man who identified as a woman in the women's room, and complained about it.
So it seems that if you are LGBT-whatever (furry, identify as a woman, etc) you now have a stronger pass than the pussy-pass which women get.

This brings to mind a subversive strategy for screwing over women and their private spaces. All men have to do is "identify as a woman" and then walk into them. If the owner or women protest: "I am a woman in a man's body. I identify as a woman. Are you going to discriminate against me just because I'm unfortunate enough to be stuck in a man's body?"

Just the thought of such Black Knighting makes me want to smile.

The pussy pass is losing it's power in the face of the women (feminism) bending over to accommodate and use all the whack-jobs in society. While they once attempted to use these whack-jobs for their own purposes, the whack-jobs now have a stronger voice than feminism and women do.

Enjoy the schadenfreude.

Monday, 2 March 2015

Manginasphere Redux and Trolling

I don't know what's crawled up half the manginasphere's ass recently. It's like they've gone completely screwball mental. Did somebody slip something into the fucking kool-aid while I wasn't looking?

You will now note that The Rational Male is removed from my list of things to read. The reason: more ragging on MGTOW in the commentary. Skimming it I saw several "they're just sexual losers" and various variations. I'll admit that the caliber of commentary over there has seemed to go downhill drastically over the last year or so - or perhaps my standards have risen to some kind of impossible heights. I'm not sure.

At any rate, it's gotten to the point where I was reading the articles and skimming the comments. The detail I bail on unless something catches my eye and is IMO worth the effort. The latest article (which I refuse to link to, nor will I bother reading any future articles) has individuals in the commentary that seem so incredibly lopsided that I actually did read some of the ones presently there. Just the fuckin' "huh?" expression on my face must be priceless for an onlooker.

Got news for these cunts. Along the same lines of: "If FEMICUNTS can't push us into line, what makes you think you have a shit-show? And what makes you think adopting shaming language is gonna do anything?"

I don't have time for this crap.

Go ahead, call me a loser for not bothering to give you my point of view. You already shat all over it, multiple times, seemingly dismissing it without bothering to read it through and contemplate it deeply. Now that I'm gonna walk off and do my own stuff it ultimately proves to you that I'm a serious, serious, serious loser. I was gonna post a little "troll much?" comment, then suddenly thought: "Why?"

I hesitate to say this, because it's using shaming labeling language: this seems very much like a feminist/leftist/herd mindset. You can't win against that by engaging it, only by looking at it and shaking your head and not bothering to participate. Which still gets you labeled as a loser, but at least you have your personal dignity (and more importantly, sanity) intact.

Because otherwise, the problem with arguing with a moron on the internet is that they never admit that they've lost. (Thus why I have labeled them feminist/leftist, because that's their denial of reality and MO and doublethink in action.) They're effectively the ultimate troll that you just can't kill no matter how much you try - and the little mangina-heads get an ego boost because you bothered to engage them.

He keeps trying to persuade me. I must be important. Woo, I have been validated!

Fucktardism's galore from the mentally retarded.

Similarly, I'm getting steadily less enthused by the rest of the Manosphere. The manginas as a whole seem to be crawling out of the woodwork and shitting on anything that doesn't meet with their instant approval - which (to start with, of course) is about getting laid. That's their biggest deficit in life at this point (at least, all that they can think about). Any other message that they run across?

"Nah, fuck that shit bro, those cunts are just pathetically whiny losers." With variations ad infinitum.

I don't know why this bugs me so much. Is it because these idiots seem to have no brains? Of course it's not a one-solution-fits all - you take bits from here, here, here, here, and here - put them together to make a jigsaw of knowledge. You keep adding to it, learning more, growing more. Then you run across a bunch of people who seem to have no brains and think: "Why the fuck am I bothering?"

So what is this, the Manosphere now? Is it turning into some sort of slavish cultism and worshiping of individual internet personalities? What the hell is that? Did God have a deficit of brains when he gave these guys some? Or has things gotten so bad in the real world that even the sub-par are rushing around blindly for answers, somehow stumbling into here?

More, it's like the motherfuckin' Manosphere as a whole has suddenly had a rush of blood to the head (little head, not big one). It's like they think they've won against teh eevil wimminz - and now they're free to bash on da guyz dey don't reely like dat much, smak 'em ovah da head wit da mighty penis uv manhood - because it's now time to turn on each other. There's no other worthy foe in sight.

This is just stupidity and madness.

Is it just me? Have I gone off my rocker? I simply don't grasp this bloody lot. They seem insanely stupid to me with their attitudes. Brainwashed. Lost in translation somewhere.

Well, fuck it. For now I'm gonna sip some more Grand Marnier. I'm gonna try to regain my cool - though they sure as shit have tried it recently - and perhaps something more on-message and useful will pop out of my brain over the next few days. Though, dissecting the mess as the Manosphere turns on itself is definitely pointing out a certain amount of poison some-fucking-where. We ain't immune, by the looks of it.

I have a vague idea for a post about how women are masters at draining your life. Hopefully I can do it some justice.

Monday, 23 February 2015

Thor-ette and ComicGate

I've been vaguely aware of the tempest-in-teapot that is the whole Thor is a Woman brouhaha going on. For the first time though, I got to see what the new Thor looks like, courtesy of Didact. Be warned, along with the three comic pages are some extra images that are real doozies: Batman as Franken Furter from The Rocky Horror Picture Show. (Some things cannot be unseen.)

The Sackless Thor

While I'm no Thor-comic-book-fan, I have to admit: the comic comes across as pretty fuckin' sad. It's no wonder that the real die-hard Thor comic fans are spitting about the whole thing. Even I'm thinking "what the fuck?" Here's why:

First page: the Anti-hero gripes about a female Thor "Thor's a dude - about the only real one left" and "feminism screws up everything". I found it dryly ironic that that line's actually the best part of the three pages.

Second page: has Thor-ette mentally pissy because the anti-hero used the word "feminism" like it was a four-letter word. (Reality check: feminism is the new leprosy. The "I don't need feminism" women recognize this. When will the rest of you twats get a clue?) She mentally calls him a creep (ooooohh creepy dude!)

Third page: the anti-heroine knocks her partner unconscious, doesn't throw-down with Thor-ette because of "grrrrl power", and then lets Thor-ette knock her out. How limp. Plus Thor-ette has some serious body-language issues, at one point standing with her arms like a man's. Butch dyke lezzie, anyone?

Thankfully, Didact makes it up to the persistent reader by showing several pictures of the REAL Thor. Thanks man. You saved my sanity. As did the music by Amon Amarth.

I dug around via google and found the first four pages of comic #1 in a Blastr article/review. It also comes across as very limp. More, the brigade of the limp-wristed (rabbits, mangina's, SJWs, and feminasties) had it out with the more die-hard Thor fans. I couldn't read much of that burble. Bad for my sanity.

So thinking about this, I dub this whole load of bullshit with the hashtag: #ComicGate.

I wonder if the same thing will happen to the SJW and feminasty crowd like it did in #GamerGate. Or maybe Marvel will get a fuckin' clue, realize that their alienating their real audience: their male fans. 'Cause the female fans are only there to "participate" in a male space.

Excuse me. I can only take so much. I'm going to rinse my mouth and gut out with tequila - not ruinin' the taste of Grand Marnier with this pap.

Wednesday, 18 February 2015

Petty Bickering

One of the more - astonishing? - things that I see around the so-called manosphere is the petty bickering that sometimes goes on. In responses to posts, across responses to posts, et-fucking-cetera.

This is kinda sad when you think about it. Sure, go ahead and disagree and chuck your own shit out there. That's expected. But - the petty shit? After all, who in the real world has the time and energy for this kind of pettiness, hair-splitting, nit-picking, and other bullshit?

Leftists (including academia)
Women (all women, not just feminists)

Wait. Obligatory picture of a screeching feminist:
Yes, yes. So fuckin' mature. Movin' on.

So when we as men start fighting amongst each other - especially over such pathetic and petty things as fuckin' terminology - then it might be time to step back and take a close look at ourselves. Time to ask ourselves some serious questions.

Are we becoming what we hate the fuckin' most?

Are we turning into the Manginasphere?

Haven't we got enough fuckin' problems already, without engaging in a slap-fight with each other?

Fuck.

Excuse me. I'm steppin' outta the fucktardisms. You fuckers can do whatcha want, I'm gonna have a Grand Marnier and laugh at ya's for being dumbasses.