Is it All About Sanders?

It occurs to me that the events which led to my being banned from AVFM are ultimately not just due to the fact that I’m more supportive of the PUA‘s than the Socialist MGTOW’s, but because, mythically, Bernie Sanders was supposed to be the guiding light of the Socialist MGTOW’s, and I’m represented through their kaleidoscope glasses as the archetype embodiment of his nemesis, thanks to sixties era television.

In other words, the supposedly politically-neutral AVFM is being moderated by a Socialist element, such that the fact that I happen to be a regressive authoritarian, anti-universalist separatist, and male-supremacist, would make me an enemy of the Equalist Socialist paradise that certain marginalized men foresee as their endgame Shangri-La.

Perhaps now that Jude Law’s security crew has been attacked by “gentle cappuccino-colored migrants who are coming for the sole purpose of enriching Europe’s stale, oppressive culture,” those elements of the “North American Manosphere” who persist in the notion that there is no rapefugee culture in Europe might just change their tune. The reason for this change of tune might be that a celebrity MGTOW (a.k.a. mostly perpetually unmarried Leftist male who gleefully sows oats with female Leftists who never wear aprons or do housework because such women are the enemy) was attacked, and doubtless his “security crew,” who was also attacked, is also male.

Sorry boys, or rather men, Bernie Sanders isn’t going to save you despite penis even though those trad-con bitches don’t want to talk to you thus making you a pet “victim”, so “man up!”

Or don’t. I don’t care. I just hate to see you get sucked into the wrong side of a religious war that has been going on ever since there has ever been too many people for too few opportunities. The war is “communitarianism” vs. “authoritarianism”.

Truth is, I’m not interested in seeing Islam abolished but rather, I’m leaning toward the notion of Balkanized Theocracies. If so many women insist on throwing themselves at Islamic criminals, this represents a need for a male-supremacist order of some sort, and wouldn’t it be nice if elements of European Culture would “man up” to provide their own such that beauties don’t go getting themselves mangled, raped, and killed by warring elements in their efforts to be dominated, finally, and otherwise taken off the damned pedestal.

I’m thinking that various feuding Christian factions need to revitalize Deuteronomy as a counterweight to Sharia Law and The Talmud. Naturally, they don’t all agree on how. I am in debt to this blog in terms of how gynocentricism killed the Church. Let’s get back to basics, fellows, can’t we?

European women are tired of being placed on pedestals (including “Equalist” ones) by Beta men, to only be attacked and killed by the sons of angry women of color. Please fellas. Man up!

 

You Poor Guys

One of the reasons so many men jumped on the Feminism bandwagon, in my experience, in the 1970’s, was that it was supposed to put an eagerly voluntary pussy in every man’s bed. A string of them in fact.

If only women were more sexually assertive rather than “oppressed” by Christianity, her parents, social standards, etc., then pussy would be everywhere and thereby ordinary men wouldn’t have to work too hard for it. It would be “free” to all.

For example, men wouldn’t have to be professionally successful, admired by their peers, good looking, healthy, with good character and values, interested in commitment, mature, or really anything. It was one great big Kindergarten party. Everybody in the pool!

Naturally, this wasn’t an experience which turned out to be universal and understandably a lot of men became resentful or otherwise felt duped by the rhetoric and propaganda, not to mention hot pants, tube tops, midriff-baring tops, bralessness, bikinis, see-though blouses, erotic dancing, exotic dancing, pornography, singles bars, etc.; ‘Where’s the party?’

Contrary to the Feminist delusion of “Patriarchy,” men didn’t seem to feel a need to help their brethren score or otherwise provide assistance in getting a leg up on the competition, except in vague terms or for consideration of friendship or other exchange. Naturally, some men supported each other to even include some nasty sorts of things like gangrape, but those weren’t the ones with character and values. Unfortunately, the universal application of character and values onto any demographic is an impossibility, despite universalist propaganda to the contrary.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs continues to prevail despite whatever “education” or propaganda that may be imposed onto the public may promise.

Sexual and relationship outcomes entitlement reigned back in the ’70’s then as now, among both men and women.

It is unfortunate that it would seem that plenty of men going MGTOW today are expecting some sort of reward from women that wasn’t forthcoming when such men seemed to be available. Standoffishness or the intended image of it isn’t any more effective as a seduction strategy all by itself than is it effective for female hypergamy.

Education on anti-feminism is also a poor seduction strategy in my experience. While it might be fun to attempt to educate and debate Feminists, such isn’t likely to reap sexual rewards within the actual debate. That said, one never knows who might be observing such an exchange, and that’s where the discussion might possibly bear sweeter fruit. The same would apply to me, an anti-feminist woman attempting to educate brainwashed, pussy-whipped men. I might teach them something, but it won’t be enough or otherwise pave the way for a relationship.

Meanwhile, a man intending to seduce me by insulting me or almost any woman by declared references to his unavailability or standards in a relationship has already missed the point. Actions mean more that any rhetorical protestation and neither men nor women are inclined to say what they mean when it comes to the mating game.

However, the notion that universal outcomes are available to all those following a mass movement script seems to be part and parcel of The American Experience. Seemingly, it is still women who police the various etiquette standards or lack thereof which provide entrée to the inner circles of the various demographic choices available.

That said, I don’t think most women of my experience have a clear idea of exactly what standards they are supposed to be promoting particularly when popular media and pop culture seem to have taken over that role right out from under the feet of women, and imprinted upon it a Leftist, Socialist, or Egalitarian view.

Feminists who call the male sense of entitlement to sexual outcomes “rape culture” are also missing the point. There’s some truth to the observation of various PUA writers that women are constantly giving out hypergamy signals in terms of sexual availability but yet, such men who are not up to female “standards” no matter how unrealistic or arbitrary, are considered shameworthy for even trying to catch the lofty female’s attention on his own terms.

When celebrities walk around and allow themselves to be photographed in designer clothes that don’t fully cover their assets, ordinary women often assume that such a costume signals social status, while perhaps ordinary men just see it as pornography or otherwise “open season”. Meanwhile, given the effort such a woman has exercised in order to appear “glamorous” and otherwise above her own realistically-assessed social station, she might feel a sense of outrage that a lowly, unemployed, young, etc. man doesn’t give her the dignity she imagines that celebrities are afforded (News Flash: celebrities ordinarily employ bodyguards).

This is one of the many downstream social effects of rampant consumerism combined with Socialist propaganda. It’s not “Patriarchy” but rather Consumerism as filtered through the Feminist lens. Unfortunately, it would seem MGTOW is largely also a Feminist or Feminist-backlash movement which accedes to the same Socialist script for the promise of egalitarianism or equality of outcome.

On the other hand, those men who have arrived upon a winning seduction formula, whether by use of MGTOW, Feminism, or any other supposed adherence to form, aren’t obligated to reveal their secrets to other men and certainly not to women.

 

Not Interested in Taming a Man

I started to write a long-winded comment in response to this essay:
http://gynocentrism.com/2014/09/28/how-to-tame-men-gynocentrism-style/
but then realized perhaps my contribution isn’t particularly appreciated. I’m sure the author will either confirm or deny my intuition with either action or inaction. We’ll see.
However, I feel as if I have something to say in response to the essay and therefore might as well say it here. Here goes:

Continue reading

Hypergamy vs. Madonna/Whore

While I am an anti-feminist, this does not imply that I agree with all things said by all anti-feminists, for I am a unique individual with a unique life and therefore a statistical outlier by most commonly-known metrics of today.

While I support the choice of a man to “go his own way” I find MGTOWs to be oddly conflicted, not the least of which is the presence of the “T” for “They” in MGTOW—as if MGTOW is a herd comprised of individuals swearing allegiance to that herd-mentality while denying the existence of authoritative hierarchy (a natural outgrowth of the older generation effectively betraying the younger, in so many ways, while not providing a particularly sustainable backlash).

Whereas Feminists use the sophistry of Not All Feminists Are Like That as a deflection from all rational charges of hypocrisy, apparently All MGTOWS Are Like That, or else they are kicked out of the club. I don’t blame them for this reaction given that “inclusiveness” gets old however intuitively, and dare I say maternally, wish to spare them from some of the pain I have encountered in the course of my own path.

Meanwhile, there really is no right answer or happy medium between “everyone should be a little girl forever and ever” and “you are either with us or against us.” Debates between the merits of kindergarten inclusiveness vs. militarism or other objective-oriented top-down cohesiveness need to concede that both dynamics are necessary and neither will ever be “equal” nor even “opposite”. However, when it comes to MGTOW, it isn’t clear to me whether a leader can possibly truly emerge (albeit there are plenty of pretenders) or whether it strives for a false “Communist” structure with members either being in “the party” or consigned toward slavery to it as a “good comrade”.

None for me, thanks.

Meanwhile, a statement by “Jim” tells me that I had best address this whole Patriarchy vs. Female Feral Behavior thing before notions of “one true way” male supremacy get out of hand:

Moment to moment female sexual choice needs to be forbidden, and Islam needs to be forbidden outside of Dar al Islam.

Have you guys learned nothing? Forbidding something makes it more desirable/sacred/etc. in the long run. There have got to be exceptions even if there’s no good reason to reveal such exceptions to children, our “glasnost” age notwithstanding. However, in a “democracy” all rhetoric has to be geared down to the lowest common denominator for maximum adherence thereto. Democracy has some serious drawbacks and requires revolution from time to time.

For the record (and I suppose I should have made this announcement before I caught the eyes of a bunch of Christian Bigots) I am not opposed to Islam. Nor Christianity. Nor Judaism! I’m not opposed to religions albeit, it is a given that every pyramid scheme eventually becomes corrupt.

As Rupert Sheldrake’s guru says:

All Paths Lead to God.

However, I’m not personally super-keen on monotheism myself, because I think that diversity of Gods is actually a good thing albeit probably not all at the same time. I believe that there ought to be seasonal Gods and rituals, with not all seasons being universal constructs. Location location location.

All utopias are destined to fail eventually and longevity is not its own reward. That said, of course, I can see the value in keeping most women on a short leash. Specifically most women are happiest with guaranteed outcomes; i.e., “security” and depending on men to provide it, at least until they grow the fuck up. Monogamy sounds like a reasonable trade-off for that security during a female’s reproductive prime. Exceptions to that rule however must apply to exceptional people such as my special snowflake self.

I would like to introduce the concept of the Gangbang vs. the “Mitzi Gaynor” dynamic, with the former being ideally (or at least historically—in my own lifetime) male dominated and the latter a dancing diva on a stage full of identically-dressed men who defer to Mitzi in every way (and might even be gay).

https://www.youtube.com/embed/xXo2Fgrnj6c“>

The female member of the first configuration is a slut and the latter is a whore. I realize that nowadays (and perhaps always) it is very difficult for the outside observer to tell the difference. Whores make a business of pretending to be sluts, and sluts who desire to live long often pretend to be whores. The relative weight of money vs. sex is the deciding factor.

If the point of an engineered utopia is to constantly increase population then:

Without implying any endorsement for the strategy, one must observe that a society that presents women with essentially three options — be a nun, be a prostitute, or marry a man and bear children — has stumbled upon a highly effective way to reduce the risk of demographic decline.

Source: http://newamerica.net/node/8092

However, at some point, more babies is not better, and, in my view, overpopulation relative to opportunities and resources combined with the technology to hold-up a calcified dystopia invariably leads to some sort of “feminist” population correction mechanism a.k.a. “The Apocalypse”. More on the subject here: Population Sustainability

Moreover, as the quality of available men degrades, such as now, thanks to the estrogenization and shaming of men, forcing women to be faithful to these chemical-eunuchs is not going to work. Men who play rough will always be—at least secretly—in demand. I ought to know. Moreover a “Dominant” man willing to pay for the privilege of whipping a “slut” is a case of two oxymorons coming together.

Understandably, a man-boobed social reject is likely to throw a hissy fit and commit violence against someone to include himself. He’s been fooled, badly, by propaganda among other constructs. It is a sad state of affairs, however, in my view, let such men serve as living examples of the hazards of being born of an emasculating mother and an abandoning father.

Perhaps I embody a cautionary tale myself. Time will tell.

There are more than one, two, or three female archetypes. There are more than one, two, or three male archetypes. However, in monotheism, only certain archetypes are considered valid.

The Holy Father, Son, Virgin, and “Holy Spirit” are the only acceptable Christian archetypes, with that last undoubtedly standing in for “mother”, but, after some past Apocalypse, someone combined the female archetypes and removed the sexuality of the “goddess” as a means of staving off the next Apocalypse. My theory, of course. Alternatively, Christianity might simply be Judaism-Lite for the masses, because “give the people what they want” and that will repress peasant rebellion indefinitely. This simplistic view might be better applied to a particular brand of Christianity rather than another, but, I digress.

Removing the goddess archetype might seem like a grand idea however, eventually, all good ideas engender backlash. Nowadays, all sorts of women want to be goddesses, princesses, queens, etc. Fail!

I’m still trying to figure out which archetype am I but clearly, if I were to be forced to marry and be faithful to an effeminate man, I’d probably turn gay or celibate or crash planes full of civilians.

I’d rather be beaten and humiliated regularly and forced to gag on cock as a dietary regimen. Oh, did that sound sarcastic? I meant to say, I’d prefer… However, due to my awareness (among other reasons) of the Madonna/Whore disassociation of female archetypes in the male mind, I chose not to reproduce. I couldn’t take the chance of reproducing my father’s dysfunction in a man of my choice. Whereas my mother was clearly sexually available, my father it would seem barely acknowledged her once she adopted the maternal role in his mind. He might have preferred to sex it up with whores, perhaps, but given that his moral sensibilities didn’t permit that, he chose to use his daughters that way instead, but without corrupting us by any sort of compensation whatsoever. An extreme example for sure but meant to illustrate that “hypergamy” is not limited to women. Rather, narcissists of all sorts tend to disassociate or split archetypes rather than to love, honor, cherish, and fuck the same person at the same time. This being the case, prohibiting women from disassociating archetypes but permitting men to do so is bound to backfire eventually.

However, this one-sided disassociation is probably a really good idea if one wants an unbeatable utopia thanks to endless growth. Additionally, one might wish to avoid making a woman like me into some sort of role model for other women because productivity is likely to lapse.

The Virgin Mary is the ultimate in hypergamy given that she couples with the top dog of all, while remaining utterly “unsoiled” by mortal man. On the other hand, Lilith, the bad woman, seriously needs a good gangbang. That could have forestalled a whole lot of shenanigans, and there we would be, happily living a tribal, nomadic, hunter/gatherer life, without the need for crop rotations, fences, Great Big Walls, etc.

Meanwhile, Bacchus, that rolly polly God of hedonism and war, has no business getting married. Rather, what that man needs is a bunch of coke whores. As for me, however, I don’t respond well sexually to mere money nor gluttony, therefore, Bacchus is not the man for me. Rather, in my view, there is freedom in slavery. This particular Oracle likes to be whipped. Lacking such I issue all sorts of disruptive prophecy. Someone get that Oracle a gag! There goes the neighborhood.

Bisexual Female MGTOW Shenanigans

Is it just me or does anyone else find it hilarious that a certain iconoclastic female MGTOW supporter is willing to offer her body in order to recruit a certain brilliant female antifeminist by the name of Karen Straughan to the former’s cause of tamping down all gender differences into sort of a socialist equalism while denigrating anyone who disagrees with her man?

(Be sure to read all of Straughan’s comments in the above linked thread. Pure gold as always.)

If men and women are the same, why not send an homme fatale? Could it be that the former fully understands (and exploits) the higher market value of female sexuality in terms of the male consumer and thereby expects that a bisexual female consumer would be equally inclined to pay a higher price for it because men and women are the same?

For the record, even though my own bisexuality has receded to the point of nothingness, I am such a huge fan of Straughan that even I would be more than honored and delighted to get any sort of attention from her. Furthermore, I hardly would have anything in which to bargain with such as to attempt to change her mind with my over-the-hill female body. Quite the contrary. Furthermore, I doubt that there exists such a woman who could sway Karen’s arguments with sexual and emotional manipulation. That’s one reason I admire her! I will even go so far as to conjecture that Karen’s obvious identification with the male psyche excludes the bargain that she is to sacrifice herself for women, such as she describes as the “traditionalist” bargain of men sacrificing themselves for women in return for authority in the public sphere (as if authority is a desirable goal of all persons or power is the key to happiness and satisfaction in life).

However, in my view, such an attitude of sexualizing the political would be disrespectful to Straughan’s arguments. Moreover, I doubt she is at a loss for offers. Therefore, I’ll say it here right now that what I have to offer is a fabulous home-cooked meal for the favor of her fully-clothed company. I offer this in gratitude for articulating so well the disquiet in my heart with regard to Feminism as well as for her acceptance of the “traditionalist” bargain I ascribe to as being wholly mutually satisfactory within my loving partnership.

In exchange for partaking of a meal of my making, there would be absolute no need for her to renounce any of her associations or otherwise compromise herself in any way except I would fully expect for her to arrive with a good appetite and to be just as adventurous with the plate offered her as she is in her choices to accept speaking engagements across a panoply of venues. If she likes, she can even bring a date, of any gender of her choosing, and together do anything they like in my guest room that does not require extraordinary clean-up on my part afterwards (because I’m a fan but not that kind of fan).

So, how about it Karen? This offer doesn’t have a time limit so long as I have an available guest room and place setting in my home in Southwest Florida.

Just to show my open-mindedness, I would offer the same to the two MGTOW troublemakers, on the condition that in my presence they remain fully clothed at all times, and are fully prepared for any eruptions of laughter I cannot contain.

Fill-In-The Blank Pride

Pride is one of those problematic things. It can often blind one to balance and reality. In my view, one of the blinders is class.

Of course we have the Black Pride and Gay Pride movements. I understand how marching together provides some sort of sense of unity. However, just how much do gangbangers have to do with executives? Street punks and DINKs?

Of course the same applies to Feminists, Jews, Arabs, Hindus, Asians, and Whites, along with members of all nationalities, language groups, religions, etc. Do the folks at the top really care about the folks at the bottom and vice versa? Of course, there are those who do care—in both directions; however, those aren’t normally the type to wholly embrace pride. Cooperation is practically the opposite of pride.

I wholly support freedom of association and freedom from association. Sometimes it is important to regroup and reacquaint oneself with one’s particular demographic group. Your age, race, marital status, country of origin, address, level of education, level of income, nutritional status, genes, and IQ all play a part in who you choose to align with when times are tough. Whereas someone may be so courageous as to reach across the divide to embrace or at least cooperate with a different demographic; this requires wisdom as well as courage or it may well backfire.

Ambassadors and diplomats are interesting people. They have learned how to cross-over and work with different demographics and interests. The same could be said about bartenders, teachers, and medical practitioners, for example, or at least the good ones. I believe that somewhere in these various professions there must be a place for me for I don’t actually have a tribe. I don’t fit into any of the boxes. I realize that might sound arrogant, but it isn’t. It is a lament. I am very tired of paying the price for appearing to be what I am not on numerous levels. At the same time I also appreciate my chameleon qualities as they have saved my life more than once.

I wonder if my life would be better if I dyed my hair a different color, for instance. However, I have changed my hair twice on the direction of men and in both cases nobody was pleased with the results. Since my appeal to men is very important to me, I don’t believe I can be persuaded by another to change it for the third time.

When times are tough, and there is competition for resources, no amount of “education” will promote cross-cultural cooperation unless there is a clear material, spiritual, or intellectual interest, for example. Forcing cross-culturalism which usually amounts to capitulation also tends to have an agenda. Doing so during an international recession seems to me to be particularly cruel and Orwellian. It would almost seem as if we are all gladiators and their prey, fighting for the entertainment of a particularly cruel audience.

I wouldn’t dream of forcing cross-culturalism. It usually backfires, and pandering may even be worse than capitulation. However, in my personal belief, Feminism as an ideology is so toxic that men of diverse demographics who are able to see its irrationality, revisionist history, and economic motives at least have that issue in common. However, men and women who have been wholly duped are generally too much trouble to attempt to educate on the issues, which doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying.

People who foment divisiveness however have their own agendas.

Various Feminist movements follow the same formula as every other aggrieved group with Fat Pride and Slut Walks being divisions thereof. Why should Heterosexual White Guys be left out of Pride? Probably because to most people such a thing means war and war is supposed to be bad while babies are supposed to be good. What about severely damaged, marginalized, and injured white guys? Those are or were the major constituents of the U.S. Army. Perhaps their increasing numbers indicate that we are about to have another war.

I also believe that pride is a sign of immaturity, which we are all allowed to have a little of. Babies are also immature, of course, as is the fetishization of babies to the exclusion of mathematics, demographics, and economics. Of course, women in their sexual prime are particularly fetishized such that it is practically illegal to criticize them. Whereas the fetishization of strong, capable, independent men is a privately if not politically powerful force. As more and more women speak out against feminism, this movement is slowly coming out of the closet. We are indeed a marginalized, terrorized, and scapegoated group with no particular unity amongst ourselves.

The undercurrent of these various pride movements is anger at “the other”. At some point, if one feels “oppressed,” then I suppose some anger is in order. However, be aware of demagogues who capitalize on and thereby perpetuate that animosity.

When it comes to heterosexual women preaching misandry however and representing themselves as the spokeswomen of all women I take exception. I think that chivalry complicates the whole notion of “equality,” in that women for the most part require some sort of extra protection and men would appear to be as ideally suited to be protectors and women appear to be ideally suited to be baby makers. However, just being well-suited isn’t a mandate particularly when certain loud women can be so scornful of men and there are already record numbers of people on this planet.

That said, I suppose a war, plague, bomb, or atrocity is necessary once in a while to thin the population. But I don’t believe that baby-makers are the best suited for those sorts of decisions, and I suppose that would include most non-baby-making women as well as non-protective men. In general, I don’t like putting victims in the roles of avengers albeit I suppose there are exceptions. However, since it is nearly impossible to rate victims nowadays according to level of victim-hood (because the term is not objective and neither is testimony, persuasiveness, or tears), I find myself to be suspicious of most victims even though I are one. Curiously, however, I believe the testimony of many men who have confided in me personally as well as the public testimony of others. Men, it would seem, are between a rock and a hard place. I truly wish you guys would look beyond your demographic and class differences in order to protect my aggrieved interest group if not yourselves.

Female Programming

I am a walking library of alternative and self-administered remedies. I don’t write about them. First of all, practicing medicine without a license is illegal. Secondly, “everyone” already knows “everything” about health, medicine, and nutrition. This last goes double for self-righteous, selfish, ugly, fat people. They know that their problem is their “genes” and has nothing to do with their sense of entitlement borne out of obedience to authority and apple-polishing.

The notion that someone like me would ever marry a doctor is ludicrous. But, that’s what I did. I had thought that given that he was not just an M.D. but a PhD, and was from an entirely different background, culture, and nation would compensate for that choice. In the end, he taught me many things. However, on balance, not only did I teach him more and give him more, he will probably live longer than me as a result. I console myself that at least I still know how to love and came out with my character nearly intact. The funny thing about character is that given a choice between survival and character, most people will choose survival. As for me, I chose the survival of creatures I loved but that backfired horribly.

Nevertheless, sometimes I weigh all the pros and cons and crunch the numbers and otherwise determine that I need to compromise on my own principles. What I mean by that is that occasionally I patronize the mainstream medical establishment. The level of establishment varies but I even sometimes find myself patronizing professionals who are part of medical groups, accept insurance, and who otherwise follow standard protocols with regard to the patronization of testing laboratories. Those doctors who continuously bend the rules may find themselves being ratted out by those same laboratories. Any lack of conformity is grounds for marginalization. I try to be sensitive to that fact when I patronize such a practitioner.

First, however, there tends to be a gauntlet of forms, personal interactions, magazines, and television.

Daytime television it would appear consists of women sitting around talking to each other complimenting each other on fussy hairstyles, clothing, and manicures; and complaining about men. Their inane banter is interspersed with frightening news items, and soothing commercials.

Survival for poor women consists of being “saddled” with babies and not being able to work while spending an inordinate amount of time fussing over hair, clothing, and fingernails. Failure to conform to this stereotype would result in marginalization from both income and social acceptance among their peers.

I advise men who are not rich (and even those who are) to learn to eschew women who are overly fussy with those three things. If you want to change the world, however, I would suggest corresponding with your favorite pornography producers and ask them to start showing women who are similarly modest in appearance. Once you find a woman who you believe is capable of love over mere self-interest, ask her to give up two things for you: 1) The approval and acceptance of her peers; 2) Her television.

Just my suggestions.

Calling the Opponent Crazy is a Dishonest Way to Invalidate Their Point

I reblog this in honor of Carla Emery.

Emma the Emo's Emo Musings

I noticed feminists and manosphere writers are calling each other crazy, emotionally damaged, complete with fake pity and condescension. Sometimes it’s pretty obvious the writer is just being a jerk on purpose and wants to damage that person’s reputation. Other times, it seems the writer either truly believes their own words, or they lie very well and never drop their mask.

Well, I’m not gonna tell people to stop it “to be nice”. I just want to inform everyone that whether the opponent has mental problems or not, is completely irrelevant to whether their argument is correct or not. It’s usually just a quick way to make it look like the opponent’s argument has been invalidated. It’s dishonest and illogical. There are also disadvantages to using it knowingly.

  1. If you say “He has no authority on censorship, because he’s crazy”, what will you say if a totally rational, emotionally healthy…

View original post 183 more words

Evolutionary Behavior of the Sexes

Edited with updates to graphic links.

As much as I am an anti-feminist and sympathetic toward men who are negotiating today’s loaded minefield of the gender wars, I find that I have come to critically examine the latest in “evolutionary” thought as pertains to the different motivations of the sexes.

Ironically, I find the latest evolutionary psychology research to be anti-evolutionary, that is, a method of preserving our calcified aristocracies despite their faulty philosophical values, pyramid schemes, and faulty genes.

As complicated as many of these theories may be, the man who can simplify evolutionary thought for the apparent or perceived benefit of other men can make himself very rich.

There is a well-circulated video going around which you may recognize. It is The Universal Hot/Crazy matrix:

The brilliance of this simplification is of course matched by its humor. However, there are some problems, that is, it would represent the same faulty logic of today’s evolutionary psychologists for the same reasons.

However the very simplicity of the approach makes it ripe for glib and facile analysis. In short, it is just my cup of tea.

As funny and clever as this piece is, I’m expecting the “sign up now” speech at the end enlisting all the bright young energetic members of the male audience into the presenter’s pyramid scheme…Amway?

“Even if you’re ugly, boys, you too can have a beautiful and not-too-crazy wife. All that matters is money and I’m the one who is going to help you get it. Just sign up now. You’ll be inviting me to your wedding.”

I presume that his wife has already availed herself of every cosmetic procedure known to man, he tells her how beautiful she is so often that she has come to believe it, she doesn’t exist (so he hires a model to play “wife”), or she is actually a tranny (I’m old enough to remember when this word was not a “slur” but was rather an empowering group-identification endearment).

The reason why “unicorns” are so rare today is because it used to be that privileged young girls were protected from all the various things (propaganda, traveling salesmen/”educators”, “bad” men, women’s magazines, “the cinema”, etc.) that drive women crazy and ruin their looks today.

Girls were also once taught certain social graces: how to be useful, charming, diplomatic, productive, etc. such as to feel good about themselves and exude that good will toward all who would encounter them.

This example filtered down the classes such that even poor families knew better than to leave their precious little girls unprotected. Unfortunately, this protection was called “oppression” by bitter, crazy, and ugly women of all ages, many of whom joined convents as the last possible refuge for their kind. Others’ joined The Woman’s Movement, The Temperance Movement, held evangelical revivals, or became the very teachers the world depended on to teach their girls some grace. This backfired, terribly.

These wonderful and kind “oppressed” women generously allowed “equal” little girls all the “terrible” things that were denied them by “The Patriarchy” while meanwhile subjecting those girls to a constant stream of shaming techniques for the crime of being young and beautiful.

Such a girl would either grow up terrified of other women (and therefore willing to do anything to be sheltered by some rich man such as to not have to deal with harpies ever again), physically sick, if-you-can’t-beat-em-join-em-butt-ugly-and-crazy, obsessed with her looks well beyond care for her own sanity, or all of the above. A very tiny minority however would become so propaganda-resistant that such a woman would run-for-the-hills to be cared for by the wolves rather than submit herself for “study” by the rapidly burgeoning academic class. Such women, therefore, effectively don’t exist. Of course a beautiful woman surrounded by wolves is not exactly a marriage prospect–even if a beau manages to fight his way past all the wolves, if he were to hurt her wolves she’s likely to kill him and be well physically equipped to do so.

Some women however learned from their experience with the harpies and decided that youth and beauty in a girl was not only not a crime but was a cause for celebration. These women took to “Princess Parties” for their special little darlings with gusto. Whereas girls of all classes once had two fancy dress occasions (“coming of age” and wedding) suddenly every day was a fancy dress occasion, just like for actresses and prostitutes. Everyone was a star. As a result, even boys wanted to be Princesses. Everyone wanted to be a Princess. Princesses are good! Even a “Half-Breed” like Cher can be a Princess.

Isn’t she beautiful?

I wonder whose job it is to tell her this every day?

Here is her beautiful daughter, Chastity. Cher is of course more beautiful because after all she is multi-ethnic; whereas Chasity is also multi-ethnic but “fair game” so to speak:

What? Oh sorry. What a hunk!

Here’s a better pic:

Chaz Bono must have money, obviously. “Real men” don’t need no fancy beauty procedures. What a catch.

Absolutely anyone can be beautiful or handsome. It helps to either have a great attitude or to have lots and lots of money. If you are on top of the pyramid in fact, you set the standard. You define what is attractive and what researchers say is attractive. It’s known as fashion. Evolutionary psychologists today are little more than glorified fashionistas.

While I am sympathetic and understand the confirmation bias held by individuals of all sexual persuasions, ages, economic brackets, etc., if men such as the presenter were genuinely interested in studying or creating “unicorns”, their wives would divorce them and take them to the cleaners faster than you can say “Cinderella”. Besides it isn’t as if most men feel worthy of such a prize (which is why so many beautiful women end up alone). Such is the sad realization of men who divorce their ugly hate-bucket to marry a trophy with less than discerning personality screening skills but then run out of money before bride-number-two’s scheduled facelift.

Rich men, on the other hand, don’t necessarily have the power to marry who they want to marry. It is sad but true that the aristocracy is a prison of sorts. There are only a limited number of eligible brides (but an unlimited number of hopeful Cinderellas). Wouldn’t it be great if there was a reasonable and scientific justification for the sexual behavior of scientific patrons? That would surely save a lot of marriages outside of the aristocracy. As for the calcification within the aristocracy, I’ll bet we haven’t fully seen how that will play out.

Besides, the pyramid scheme is the whole business and is how “beta” men rule the world today. In addition to Amway, there’s also Christianity (of various types), Judaism, Islam, Darwinism, Patriotism, Race-Pride, and Political-Party Pride. The important thing is to build the pyramid with as many suckers as possible, through any means necessary, and then call the result “Providence” or “Evolution” or some other good and natural and scientific name. Demographics and behavioral conditioning studies—as well intentioned as they may be—have the misfortune of actually destroying their own field of research. It’s a paradox. To look at something changes it. There’s just too much money in pinning down the correct answer and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Eventually, tiny little skulls and asthma in a girl will be considered “beautiful” and wars shall be fought in such a fair damsel’s honor.

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the most beautiful woman in the world:

Just kidding. Here she is:

Why not just name her, “Chastity”?

Profile of a Misogynist: Mike Buchanan

Thanks for spelling my name right. By the way, Paul Elam, Mike Buchanan, etc. have way too much class to associate with me. You ladies on the other hand, are about my speed. Too bad you’ve banned me. I’ll just have to respond to your comments to me on my own blog.

Mancheeze

Mike Buchanan is a traditional conservative (Tory) from the UK. He is an MRA that plays tag along with Paul Elam. He got so frustrated with his own government for helping women that he quit the Tories and started his own political party called Justice4MenandBoys or J4MB. His political platform is focused on ‘stopping feminism’, which will never happen.

‘For over 30 years, men’s and boys’ human rights have been assaulted by politicians pandering to the demands of women driven by misandry (the hatred of men) – feminist MPs, as well as feminists in key positions in state institutions.’

There are 2 people in his political party gearing up for the 2015 election and is currently developing his platform.

He’s been on British TV a few times but says he probably won’t be invited back. No surprise. On his website he gives out awards for ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ as well as other similarly named…

View original post 412 more words