Friday, August 1, 2014

Nothing angers a slave-owner more

Than the sight of an escaped slave become a free and independent man:
Besides the warm, pumpkin-candle scented aisles of the Hobby Lobby, there’s another new club for self-effacing female enablers of angry white men. Women Against Feminism had, last time I checked, 16,013 followers on Facebook. Its tumblr is constructed of selfies of young women, dressed and posed like ads for DIY escort services, holding up bits of notebook paper on which they’ve scrawled screeds against feminism.

Here are just a few quotes from a compendium of such blinding idiocy and prejudice that it defies description.

Black nail-polished hands hold a notebook over a half-shirt exposing a bellybutton: “I don’t need feminism because I don’t think it’s necessary to belittle and dispose of an entire gender in the name of equality.”

A note is propped against the protuberant cleavage enhanced by a pushup bra under a tank top. “If I’m wearing a top like this I want you to look.”

A woman with two or three lip piercings: “I don’t need feminism because blaming men for your OWN insecurities and mistakes is WRONG & ABSURD.”

These women are slandering the movement that enabled their freedom. They live in a world in which they and their mothers can vote, decide whether or not to work, who and when to marry, and whether and when to have children. That was not the case for women within living memory. They have feminists to thank for that, not Rush Limbaugh’s ideological forebears.
And yet, when male critics point out that feminists are to blame for all the negative fruits of women voting, working, and failing to produce the next generation, we're told that it is the fault of the men who gave in to the dictatorship of the petticoat.

Aging feminists are angry that women are wisely beginning to turn away from an insane and incoherent ideology that is societal and civilizational suicide. And that anger is a positive sign that the equalitarian wave is finally beginning to recede.

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Equality in action

As I have repeatedly pointed out, equality is a myth. It is no more real than a unicorn. Those who appeal to it are simply engaging in meaningless rhetoric. And we have absolute proof that the feminist appeal to equality was never anything more than a means of guilt-tripping men into giving them power that they would promptly use to establish pro-female inequality.
The latest trend in dining all over the world including Dubai, Las Vegas, London and Zhengzhou, China is women-only restaurants, where men are not allowed. What may seem like an unfairly exclusive establishment (especially if it was the other way around) has become the norm in various cities around the world, as steakhouses and beer-tasting clubs in London are mainly female-oriented.

The latest eatery to cater to the fair sex is set to open next month in London’s Soho area, as The London Evening Standard reports that Sofakingcool on Frith Street will reopen as KC’z Bar on February 1st as a women’s-only restaurant.
It sounds like a joke, doesn't it, in light of the way women have methodically gone about destroying men's clubs. But it isn't:
‘Many women want to be around other women they can socialise and network with while having fun,’ explains Gates. ‘A lot of them will be lesbians, if you want to focus on that, but certainly not all of them. I envisage all different types of women coming in, from athletes to creative individuals.’ Gates also emphasises that, although men will be allowed in on designated nights, she wants to create a ‘safe zone’ for women to go where they won’t be seen by or bothered by men.
There is the "equality" for which feminists have been fighting: the chance for lesbians to get the straight girls to themselves.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

The greatest crime against a woman

It's not domestic violence. It's not rape. It's not even a sexually transmitted disease. All of those terrible things convey much sought-after victimhood on a woman; that's why so many women claim they were date-raped or near-raped or pushed or frightened just to be able to posture as Saint Victim. The greatest crime a man can commit against a woman short of actually murdering her is exposing a factual element of her sexual history to the public:
“The Bachelorette” contestant Nick Viall stunned his former TV flame on Monday Night by revealing to a live studio audience that he had sex with her during the 10th season of the popular series.

In discussing their brief relationship on “After the Final Rose,” an emotional Viall, who earlier tried but failed to talk to “Bachelorette” star Andi Dorfman, said the two were intimate before she decided to accept the marriage proposal of Josh Murray.

“If you weren’t in love with me…I’m just not sure why you made love with me, either,” Viall said softly.

The visibly stunned “Bachelorette” quickly gathered herself.

“First of all, I think that’s below the belt,” Dorfman said, “that’s something that should be private and kept private.”

Viall, still obviously heartbroken, tried backtracking but it was too late.

“I’m not trying to put you below the belt…”

“You already have!” she snapped.
As the Chateau pointed out, it is just possible that this was a brilliant black-knighting, but it was probably nothing more than a sad and disappointed delta trying to figure out how it was possible for a woman to act on sexual desires unrelated to committed romantic love.

Speaking of THE BETA OF THE MONTH, my vote is for candidate number two, whose girlfriend went off on a vacation without him, got drunk, disappeared with two men, and came back home pregnant. The fact that the guy didn't ditch her on the spot, but promptly fell for the usual routine - "shes absolutely scared to death, shaking, sobbing, apologizing profusely" - would make one despair for the male sex if one wasn't aware of the socio-sexual hierarchy.

Understand this, gentlemen. The waterworks are a standard routine that women run to get out of trouble with men. The fact that she's pitching a weeping, frightened mea culpa, complete with anguished, body-wracking sobs, doesn't mean a damn thing. It's a performance. It is not indicative of how uniquely terrible she feels, how truly trustworthy she is, how out of character her actions were, or even of genuine remorse. It means nothing except that she is trying to convince you to absolve her of the consequences of her actions and resolve the situation to her benefit. The routine shouldn't influence your thinking in the slightest.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

The decline of interparty marriage

More than half of all Republicans won't marry a Democrat.
Last week, some striking data emerged into the political blogosphere, showing that inter-party marriage has become increasingly frowned-upon on both sides of the aisle, but more so on the Republican side. What this shows, of course, is not only that both sides are increasingly upset by the idea of interparty marriage, but also that Republicans are significantly more upset (roughly 50 percent to 30 percent). And there was much fulminating about why--assuming the survey data are correct--this might be the case.
It's not at all hard to understand at all. Obama got only 39 percent of the white vote in 2012. He wouldn't get 30 percent today. The Republicans are increasingly the party of White Christian America. The Democrats are increasingly the party of Brown and White Secular America. This supposed distaste for interparty marriage has little to do with politics and more to do with a distaste for interracial marriage and interreligious marriage.

It's not because of psychological differences or the supposed openness of liberals - anyone who has ever spoken to an American liberal knows there is no more close-minded creature on the planet - but because it is primarily lower-status white men and women who don't shirk at marrying Asians, Hispanics, and Africans.

This sudden decline in interparty marriage may be an early sign of America's white population finally beginning to realize that the "melting pot" was always a myth and it is a separate nation unto itself in what has become, post-1965, a multiethnic country.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Science confirms the DLV

Men Like Nice Women, But Not the Other Way Around
In the first of three studies, researchers explored whether women or men perceived a receptive opposite-sex stranger as sexually desirable and, if so, whether that “responsive” quality registered as overtly feminine or masculine. The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be “more feminine and more attractive.” Past research suggests that physical cues of femininity stimulate sexual attraction because they suggest higher estrogen levels, better overall mate quality and solid reproductive health.

On the other hand, women didn’t necessarily perceive a responsive man as less masculine, but they also did not find a responsive man more attractive. What’s more, when women perceived their male partner to be responsive, they were less attracted to the man.

In other words, it appeared that in an initial encounter men liked nice ladies; women thought nice guys were kind of lame.

The second study required participants to engage with either a responsive or unresponsive person of the opposite sex, then interact with them online while detailing a current problem in their life. The goal here was to remove the potentially confounding elements of live social interaction (smiling, physical attractiveness) to see if they could isolate how much responsiveness—or niceness—played into attraction.

Again, the men in the study thought responsive and attentive women were more attractive as potential partners, while women found men with those same traits to be less desirable....researchers are still unsure why women are less sexually attracted to responsive strangers than men.
Men find nice women to be attractive. Women don't find nice men to be attractive. The Masters of Game have been observing this for years; science is finally beginning to test some of the Game hypotheses, and unsurprisingly, are confirming them. It's very simple. Being nice to an attractive woman is a display of low value. Being a jerk to an attractive woman is a display of high value. Women are drawn to DHV and repulsed by DLV. Because hypergamy.

Don't be nice to women you meet. No matter what your Mommy tells you, they don't find it attractive. They are attracted to men who blow them off, who demonstrate contempt for them, who regard them as being unworthy of attention. You don't have to be cruel or rude, except to the most attractive women, simply refusing to kowtow to them and looking around the room when they are talking to you is sufficient in most cases.

Civil disinterest is the best uniform approach. Treat an attractive woman exactly the same way you would instinctively treat a fat or ugly woman, and you'll significantly increase the likelihood that she'll be attracted to you. Men don't make the rules of female attraction, we are merely subject to their consequences. So learn how to play by the rules.

Why doesn't being nice repulse men? Because men are not hypergamous and therefore are not repulsed by DLV.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Magical thinking

I always find great amusement in magical thinkers, those who genuinely appear to believe that reality is defined by their description of it. This artist has taken the concept to verbose new heights:
I started the series because the world’s attempt to control women’s bodies, behavior and identity really bothered me. This kind of oppression seems so entangled in our culture that most people don’t even realize it’s there. My goal with these illustrations is to show this oppression in all its shapes, and make people question themselves about it. The project has grown, and I like to talk about other themes as well, such as racism, ableism and LGBT issues.
But "the world" isn't attempting to control women's bodies, behavior, and identity. Not the Western world, anyhow. Most of the problems the Western world presently faces, and the root cause of its future challenges, stem from the fact that historical restrictions on female behavior have been considerably loosened. In fact, the only people even attempting to restrict anyone's behavior tend to be women.

Since women are authoritarian barbarians by instinct, once freed from their civilized restraints they promptly began beavering away at destroying the foundations of civil society and civilization that were so painfully constructed over the centuries. In less than 40 years, they have destroyed their society's ability to sustain itself, in another 40, their societies will no longer exist in anything remotely identifiable with the civilization of the 1980s and before. 

But at least the grunting, tattooed, illiterate 80-IQ female denizens of the dysgenic barbarian future will be assured that they are entitled to self-respect as they are gang-raped by roving bands of grunting, tattooed, illiterate 80-IQ male denizens of the broken shards of Western civilization. And that's really the important thing.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

A lesson in online debate

This Twitter exchange should help illustrate why the critics of Game are so hesitant to directly challenge any of the leading Game bloggers; despite their pretensions they know very well that they are overmatched. It's not even a little bit difficult to expose their inability to intellectually hold their own, let alone beat us, even when using the very limited medium of Twitter.
RedPillPhil
@DavidFutrelle our all-stars like @heartiste, @Steve_Sailer, @ChuckGLP, @Aurini, @voxday would intellectually eat you alive

Vanilla Rose
@RedPillPhil Um, this is embarrassing. For you. @DavidFutrelle has ripped the writing of @heartiste, @voxday et al to shreds. Regularly.

RedPillPhil
he won't directly debate them though. He just makes snarky little hit pieces.

David Futrelle
I've written many times about @heartiste and @voxday. They're (accidentally) hilarious!

Vanilla Rose
@DavidFutrelle exposes the stupidity of the writing of @heartiste, @voxday, @rooshv and others.

Vox Day
Snarking and posturing != ripped to shreds. He's simply not in our league.

David Futrelle
Vox, you rip yourself to shreds every time you open your mouth or type words on a screen.

Vox Day
Irrelevant. Even if true, in that case, you're still not doing it. It doesn't support the claim.

David Futrelle
I'll take on any "dark enlightenment" bloggers (that's hard to say w/ a straight face) in a cat pic duel.

Vox Day
Why not take me on in an actual debate. An easy topic like: should women have voting rights?

David Futrelle
Yes, women should have voting rights, because they, like men, are human. I win the debate! The end. Thanks!

Vox Day
Sorry, David, you haven't won yet. Yes, you are human. Did you vote in the recent EU elections?

David Futrelle
No. I vote where I live, in the US.. So are you contending that no women live in the countries they vote in?

Vox Day
I'm demonstrating to you that merely being human grants no voting rights. Do you concur?

David Futrelle
There are a few basic requirements for having the right to vote besides being human but being male isn't one

David Futrelle
There is no reasonable reason to deny anyone the vote because of gender.

David Futrelle
... and that's preetty much the end of the argument, despite whatever spurious reason you come up with to deny women the vote. Debate over.

Vox Day
You're begging the question.
Of course, their cognitive disadvantage isn't the only reason they prefer to stay at a safe distance and snark and posture rather than attempt to directly engage and destroy our arguments in front of our supporters. Critics such as Futrelle and Scalzi are of low socio-sexual rank, which means that they have the usual gamma male's distaste for conflict that has a clear winner. The reason is that as long as they can avoid losing, they can still claim victory in their delusional gamma style.

Notice how Futrelle tries to immediately declare himself the winner. This is normal. It's all about the spin with gammas; substance is to be avoided to the greatest extent possible because the more of it there is, the harder it becomes to spin the selected narrative. They are undefeated in their own minds, victors in a long series of imaginary encounters. But even in a short, character-limited exchange such as this, I was able to show Futrelle's reasoning to be incorrect twice, so it is little wonder he does not dare risk a more in-depth encounter with me or one of the other men. The longer it went on, the more inconsistencies I would have been able to expose. Once he realized this, he promptly repeated his initial position and retreated.

This is why we are winning. This is why we will win. Our critics and our enemies have to run away from us every single time we enter a new arena. All we have to do to continue convincing men of the truth of our perspective is to avoid getting lazy, to keep developing and presenting refined ideas, and to remember that rhetoric is no substitute for dialectic. And every time there is a minor encounter of this sort, more people will see that there is no rational foundation for the feminized dogma our opponents are so ineptly defending.