Feminist Psychos Disrupt Warren Farrell’s Speech in Toronto

Video here.

Very interesting video of insane Feminazis gone nuts in Toronto, Canada, at a speech by men’s rights activist Warren Farrell.

I really don’t mind Warren. He came out of the left wing of the Men’s Rights Movement which was called Men’s Liberation. Men’s Lib was a bit nutty and it was very pro-feminist, but at the time, that was the right thing to do. I still think that progressive men should be both some form of feminist (I am a moderate feminist myself) and some form of Men’s Rights Activist (MRA). We in the Men’s Lib movement prefer to call ourselves and our movement “masculinists.” So a progressive man can be both a feminist and a masculinist of some sort of another. It seems to be the right approach.

Unfortunately, Farrell has gone a bit overboard with the MRA stuff. He has said some stupid things here and there, as we call do. But his got caught on tape and in print. He has defended men who have sex with their daughters, basically accusing the daughters of being seducing little sluts. That’s just wrong. And it doesn’t matter how your daughter acts anyway. You can think whatever you want to, just keep your damn mitts off of her, at least until she’s 18. Even over 18, having sex with your adult daughter is a bit strange, and women in adult-adult relationships with their fathers claim to have been damaged by these relationships.

Responsible men will simply keep their hands off their daughters at any age. It is simply the right thing to do. Warren may have said a few other dumb things. The problem is that Warren has gone too far into men’s rights, so he’s gone insane in the same way that most MRA’s have and in the same way that most feminists have.

The truth is that all Identity Politics is garbage, pretty much. Most MRA’s are sexist, reactionary bastards. Most feminists are sexist, lunatic bitches. Most all White nationalists are racist monsters. In truth, Chinese nationalists, Hispanic nationalists, Black nationalists, Jewish nationalists and really all forms of ethnic nationalist crap are simply backwards reactionary crap and should be avoided by progressive people at all costs. It’s as wrong for women to hate men as it is for men to hate women. It’s as wrong for Blacks and Hispanics to hate Whites as it is for Whites to hate Blacks and Hispanics. It’s all wrong. All racism is wrong. All sexism is wrong.

The sane people need to turn their backs on both forms of virulent sexism in the MRA and feminist movement and reject all forms ugly racism in the various crap ethnic nationalist movements.

Hating people for their race or gender is wrong. It doesn’t matter if you’re the “oppressed” or the “oppressor.” It’s all wrong. By sanctioning hatred against Whites and men while forbidding the oppressed Whites and males from fighting back against their female and non-White attackers, the Left has thrown in its lot with bigots. Granted, female and non-White bigots, but bigots nonetheless. All bigotry is wrong. All bigotry sucks.

Gender Feminist Bitches Attack Me at Manboobz

Here.

The article is not about me at all, instead it is about something else entirely. The subject is a 14 year old boy who writes that he wants to go to Dartmouth University, but he is worried that it is full of a bunch of sluts as so many colleges are these days. He is a traditional and conservative guy, and he’s looking for a nice girl who shares his morals. He worries he won’t find one at your typical Slut U.

Here is his comment below. He made similar comments at eight other university boards.

Traditional man inquires about various Slut U’s to determine the % of sluts at any given university. Slut majority U’s are out of the question, but if the dirty whores are only a minority, he could abide by their loose morals and let it slide.

I don’t share this fellow’s degree of rectory, but I have nothing against people with high morals who wish to save themselves for marriage or whatever and then harbor conservative sexual morals after marriage. There’s nothing evil about celibacy, virginity or chastity. One of the worst things that the Cultural Revolution of the 60′s did was to make chastity into a sin. Since when is chastity a sin or a sign of failure as a human being anyway? Sluts and players perch on the top of the moral pyramid while the chaste and true wallow in Hellish boiling mud below. Give me a break, talk about inversions. We have truly turned morality upside down and made morals of sins and sinners of the good.

And it’s true that the way I lived my life, while I am proud of it, isn’t exactly optimal for society. In fact, a lot of society’s problems are due to too many people living like I did and not enough people showing some degree of moral probity.

Needless to say, the gender feminists and male feminists piled all over the poor sod. Male feminists are otherwise known as “pussies,” and a prominent male feminist, a big fat dorky pussy looking guy, runs the blog Manboobz, from which he mocks the Manosphere. The general reaction was that a decent boy’s desire not to attend some variety of Slut U is an example of sexism and misogyny. But everything is misogyny to a feminist. There are more misogynists than there are grains of sand on a beach according to feminists.

One of the commenters in the piece, ShiOres, starts the attack on me here.

Sorry for the derail, but does anyone here know the blog of self-confessed “liberal” racist race-realist Robert Lindsay? Some time ago he also wrote about sluts and the double-standard which was super-misogynist (the particular irony is, that he always claims to be different than “those women-hating MRAs”) but gives a nice outline of all the hypocritical thinking.

Proceed at own risk

She calls me a racist, as all these liberal/Left loons do, then she calls me a super misogynist, as all feminists do. I am neither a racist nor a misogynist, but I have my own definitions about those terms other than Identity Politics daffynitions. It’s true I do not like most MRA’s because their off the charts misogyny simply makes me sick.

You can follow the thread down a ways to see all of the silly comments that are directed at me. You can’t win with these bitches. Seriously.

You might also want to check out the piece of mine they linked to that set them all into mass PMS: Double Standards for Men and Women?  It provoked some pretty wild discussion when it was first posted.

Roosh on the End Game of Feminism

From here.

The end game of feminism is to make it impossible for a female to do any wrong, absolving her from all responsibility for her actions, no matter how reprehensible. The fact that a human being has a vagina will soon mean that she can not make a bad decision about anything. Punishing or criticizing a woman for her life choices will be abolished.

Name one thing right now that a feminist would criticize their gender for doing. I’ll save you the mental effort: there’s nothing. There is absolutely nothing that a girl can do that would get hate from feminists.

I have criticized Roosh before, but nevertheless, a lot of what he says is simply true. I also think he is a fine writer. He certainly deserves to be read whether you agree with him or not.

The piece goes on to list a whole range of female mistakes and failures and how feminists would explain it all away as not the women’s fault. He then lists a whole range of similar instances where the man is always at fault no matter what he does.

Anything other than equity feminism is nightmare fro men and should not by supported by any thinking male.

Gender feminism is frankly an out and out disaster and it was from Day One. Feminism has always been awful. From Day One, it’s been more about hating men than getting equal rights for women.

Simone Beauvoir’s The Second Sex is a catastrophe, full of man-hatred from start to finish. I dated a woman who loved that book, and she bristled with man-hatred. Feminists always make excuses for women who hate men. They excuse Beauvoir, saying that Sartre didn’t treat her very well. So? So she had a right to declare war on all of us?

Go over to American Renaissance and see all the Whites there who have had terrible experiences with Blacks. Therefore, they have a right to be racists? No way. A lot women have treated me pretty badly (and a lot have treated me well), therefore, I should turn into a misogynist due to those who treated me badly? I am not going to fall for that one.

Feminists, even the non-man-haters, will always make excuses for man-hating feminist women. They will even defend idiotic women who turn lesbian because they hate men so much (in fact, this is the cause of a great deal of lesbianism). Men are evil, so what do you expect? Of course women turn lesbian because they hate us so much. Of course women turn into man-haters, what do you expect?

Well, do any of these feminists sympathize with misogynists?

How about sympathizing with serial killers? Well, he had an evil mother who mistreated him horribly. Of course he turned into a murdering rapist who slaughtered beautiful women? What do you expect? How else was he supposed to act considering his upbringing. Actually, he showed a lot of self-control. Look what women did to him in his life. We women should feel lucky he only killed 10 lying whores and not fifty of us!

Well of course men beat up women. Look at how women act. We women drive these poor men to these extreme acts. Why, any normal man who had to put up with that would turn into a woman-pummeler. We should congratulate them for just beating them up and not murdering them.

Furthermore, the feminist attitude about sex is utterly and insanely toxic. It is dangerous to the life and liberty of all males. Feminists have such an insanely expansive view of rape that it makes rapists out of the vast majority of males.

We can look at the Feminist Hell of Sweden to see where this bullshit logically ends.

Sure Sweden has one of the highest rape rates on Earth. Why, because Swedish guys are rape-crazy? Nope, because Swedish feminists have instituted the most insanely expansive definition of rape in history, resulting in a lot of normal sex and non-rape being classified as rape.

Feminists not only want to put us in jail for rape, but they want to jail most of us for sexual assault. Ever grabbed a women’s body? Ever grabbed a woman’s tits or ass, or put your hand up her dress? I’ve been grabbing females that way my whole life. There haven’t been a lot of complaints, and I haven’t been arrested yet. Ask a feminist and she will grumble that I should have been arrested by now.

Truth is, feminists are worse than an annoyance. They’re a menace to us men. They’re dangerous. They are our enemies, and they are out to get us put in jail or prison for nothing. They are out to get us fired from our jobs for fake sexual harassment bullshit, thereby depriving us of a means to earn a living.

Feminists are our deadly enemies, and there can be no peace accords with them.

Oriana Small Reading “Choked Out”

Here.

More extremely disturbing stuff about Khan Tusion, the abusive and ultra-misogynistic real estate developer/porn director from LA. In this video, Oriana Small (aka known as her porn stage name of Ashley Blue) reads from a chapter called Choked Out in her extremely disturbing book Girlvert. The reading took place at a bookstore in San Francisco. In the background, a video of the porno scene described in the chapter plays.

Choked Out describes how Khan Tusion told her he loved to choke women out in his videos and asks her to let him do it. Her then-boyfriend also gets in on the choking out action. At one point, she looks up in his eyes and sees sheer hatred a desire by Khan to stomp her into the pavement forever and ever. This man’s hatred for women is simply visceral. We watch the video as her face gets red and then purple. Finally, she passes out. Small claims she almost died on the set that day.

So really Khan almost murders her, which is something that he obviously fantasizes about doing.

Not that that is outrageously abnormal. I am certain that millions of American males like to fantasize about torturing, raping and even murdering females. My contention has always been that for every one maniac running around killing chicks, there’s 100 or so who only dream of it. They simply have enough controls for a variety of reasons to keep from acting out their fantasies. Reasons for controlling themselves range from wanting to stay out of prison to a feeling that while it’s ok to fantasize about doing such things, it is immoral to actually do them.

In fact, I know some men who told me that they like to fantasize about killing women. One is a horror movie fan. He especially likes movies where beautiful women are murdered because he is a misogynist. He is also a very nice guy and he is also a confirmed pacifist. The movies serve as a pro-social outlet for his antisocial misogynistic feelings.

While antisocial fantasies about hurting and killing women are common, I do not feel that they are optimal. As one who loves women, I must object to this type of thinking. If you love or like women, you don’t fantasize about torturing, raping and murdering them. Sorry. It just doesn’t work that way. If you like to think about these things, you have some serious misogyny going on. There’s no two ways about it.

Choking out women has now become common fare in porn movies, and I would love to see the courts outlaw this bullshit as obscenity even though I am a civil libertarian and a libertine. One actor in particular likes to choke out women. A critic of this behavior, Mike South, has pointed out that this actor formally served in California state prisons. South also notes that the latest thinking is that choking women out during sex may need to TIA’s (Transient Ischemic Attacks). These are mini-stroke or tiny strokes, and it is very bad to have them. It remains to be seen what will happen to these actresses as they move into middle and old age. Will they be at increased risk of strokes. Will there be side effects from these TIA’s.

Choking out women is also highly promoted on PUA blogs. Roosh loves to do this to the women he screws. Many of his fans and other PUA fans have taken up this nonsense. I just can’t see it, sorry. If I choked out a woman, I would feel like a serial killer. But I guess that’s the general idea. In choking out a woman, you get to fantasize for just one moment that you are a murdering rapist. You too can be Ted Bundy! You get to vicariously murder women and you won’t even go to prison! Step right up and get in on the latest depraved thrill!

On other sites, Small recounts her first visit with Khan. She went to his studio and was met by an Asian man in his late 20′s in the parking lot. He seemed so nice and harmless that Small said, “I didn’t even think he had a penis.” Later she found out that this guy had previously been arrested for pistol whipping his girlfriend. After the shoot, the guy’s girlfriend was murdered and the rumor around Porn Valley was that he was the one who did it. Looks deceive!

She went to the shoot with her boyfriend and met Khan for the first time. She described him as a complete slimeball, a man who disgusted her at first sight. Later in the shoot, Khan convinces her to let him piss in her mouth. Her boyfriend gleefully joins in the action. Small seems to be willing to tolerate just about any abuse that men in porn want to dish out in her direction. I don’t know why she tolerates being abused like this. Is she a masochist?

Elsewhere in Girlvert, she describes how she went from shoot to shoot in the porno world and encountered director after director who tried to “break” her. That is, they would try to push her to her limits to the point where she freaked out or broke down crying. She defiantly tolerated all of this abuse and resolved to never let any of it break her. But in the choke-out scene above, she was indeed reduced to a pile of blubbering tears.

I hate to break it to you guys, but these directors who try to so hard to abuse actresses to the point where the break down or burst into tears are a bunch of misogynists. It’s not cool or hip or cutting edge or edgy or avant garde or any of that. It’s just misogyny, as old as the human race.

Although moronic feminists accuse me of misogyny all the time, I plead innocent. I have my own definition of the word. I see what I call misogyny all over the PUA/Manosphere/MRA sites, and I don’t like a bit of it. And I am repulsed by the misogyny described above. But then the feminist definition of the word was always insane and all encompassing, so expansive that it covers vast areas of thought and behavior that no sane person would consider to be misogynistic.

As Jews see anti-Semites under every bed, so the feminist sees a woman-hater in every closet. Both Jews and feminists are insane in these regards and indeed they are mirrors of each other, as Identity Politics and ultranationalism are mirrors of the same narcissistic and paranoid mindset, part of which could be called a Paranoid-Masochistic character. This character is simply the result of extreme egotism.

Paranoia is the other side of the narcissistic mirror. If he’s as great as the egomaniac says he is, obviously the world is full of various enemies out to get you. It’s lonely at the top and all that. In the same way, nationalistic nations fill the minds of their citizens with enemies real and imagined. A great nation needs enemies, after all. Why are we great? Because they envy us so. Why are we failing? Because they done us wrong, the bastards. You see this narcissism in all Identity Politics and all nationalism. If the Left opposes nationalism due to the psychopathology inherent in such a mindset, any sane Left must opposes narcissistic Identity Politics and victimology for the same reason.

Rape Paranoia Article of the Day

Here.

A very, very, very stupid article by a silly, ditzy feminist. This idiotic article is now being reposted all over the Blogosphere by silly, moronic feminists. It’s dumb. I don’t even have to start going into the ways it is dumb because it’s just dumb. First of all, rape paranoia is dumb. Violence paranoia is dumb.

We males have way more to fear from other males in the way of violence than females do (though we don’t have to fear rape so much, it is true). Males are simply dangerous. As a male, I have been on the alert for dangerous males and signs of danger and violence even in males I know well for a long time, most of my life in fact. I am frankly quite a bit scared of males myself. I think everyone, not just females, should be scared of males. I see no reason why females should be more afraid of males than we males are. They should probably be less afraid of us males. After all, we males bear the brunt of male violence against other humans.

There’s really no way to get away from the charge that one is a dangerous man. I’ve been dealing with the “dangerous” charge most of my life, but there’s not a lot of evidence to back it up. I’ve only spent 6 hours in jail. I’ve never been to prison. I’ve never even been charged with a violent crime. I’d say that I’ve never even committed one either, but you wouldn’t believe that.

I’ve committed very little violence against women in my life. I have committed some, but those women all assaulted me or tried to assault me first. They threw water in my face. They slapped my face. They chased me around an airport waiting area swinging on me and kicking at me. So, yeah, they all got hit. You women don’t want to me to hit you? Hey, no problem! Just don’t assault me first baby!

I am quite proud to say that I have never raped a woman or a girl. Of course I have been accused of that too, but it was a lie. She was drunk. I was drunk. We were both drunk. It was as consensual as things get between two drunks. Then again, my definition of rape is different from the feminist daffynition of rape.

The feminist daffynitions of rape are in bold below:

Ever had sex with a woman who said no? Yep, once. You see, there’s yessy no’s and there’s nooey no’s. This was a real yessy no. Yessy no’s mean yes, not no. Only nooey no’s mean no. She was saying, “Noooooooooo,” like she was having an orgasm. I listened, and I decided that was a yessy no, not a nooey no, so I proceeded accordingly. All was well and good after that!

Even had sex with a female who had been drinking or using drugs? LOL, I am trying to think of how many times I did it with a female who was not high or drunk. According to feminuts, if you have sex with a woman who was high or drunk, it’s rape. In that case, I am proud to say I must be one of the biggest rapists out there.

Ever had sex with a female who did not explicitly give you permission to have sex with her? LOL, I am not sure any female has ever in my life said, “Ok, I agree to have sex with you, Bob.” They have said similar things, like asking me flat out, “Bob, let’s have sex.” But mostly I just attack them. That means assault them. That means grope them. That means grab them. That means attack them. Then we just proceed from there and move on to the sex.

Ever groped, grabbed, attacked or assaulted a female? Yep. By attack or assault, I just mean that I got physical with them without asking their permission. I just jump on them. Push them up against a wall and start kissing them. Grab them and start kissing them and feeling them up. According to feminist idiots, that’s called “assaulting” and “attacking.” They also say it’s illegal; they claim it is something called “sexual assault,” and they say you can go to jail or prison for it. That’s funny because I have grabbing females my whole life and I haven’t been arrested yet. To be honest, few of them even complained.

Ever had sex with a woman because she was afraid of you? Who knows? Maybe. Women have been telling me that they are afraid of me for most of my life. But then they go ahead and do it with me anyway. According to feminuts, if you’re a scary guy, it’s always rape. In a nutshell, you never legally get laid. If a woman is afraid of you because you’re scary, and she has sex with you because she’s afraid to say no to you because you’re a scary dude, well, that’s rape. And that’s about the most BS-ey notion of rape yet!

The Basque Independence Movement

Repost from the old site.

Although it is not a popular cause in the US, this blog strongly supports the armed struggle of ETA, the armed Basque nationalist Red front. The Basque cause is very poorly known in the US and probably in most of the rest of the world, hence, here is a bit of a primer.

The Basque people are probably the last remaining group of the original populations that inhabited Europe before the Indo-European (IE) invasion and conquest about 8000 years ago. The best theory indicates that the IE people probably came out of the southern Ukraine near the Black Sea.

Their first stop was Anatolia, and this is why the Hittite languages (ancient languages of Anatolia, or Turkey) are by far the most divergent languages in the IE language family.

In fact, I subscribe to a controversial theory that renames Indo-European as Indo-Hittite due to this deep split. For those who don’t know about the IE language family, IE, or proto-IE (PIE), was the mother tongue of most of the languages of Europe.

European languages in the IE family include English, German, French, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese, Irish, Welsh, Scots Gaelic, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian, Romanian, Moldavian, Albanian, Slovenian, Greek, Serbo-Croatian, Lithuanian and Latvian and some lesser-known ones.

A few tongues in Europe are non-IE, such as Finnish, Hungarian, Turkish, Estonian and Basque. Outside of Europe, we have some other IE languages in some pretty distant places, including Kurdish, Persian, Hindi, Urdu, Pashto, Sanskrit and a variety of languages related to them that are not well known by Westerners.

Apparently a divergent group of PIE left the PIE homeland and moved into the area of India, Iran and Afghanistan thousands of years ago.

Before the IE people spread out over Europe 8000 years ago, Europe was home to a variety of peoples who are very poorly known. Almost nothing is known about their civilizations (such as they existed), who they were, what they did, how they lived, what they ate, much less what languages they spoke.

The original inhabitants of Europe at this time weren’t Cro-Magnons, but they weren’t exactly Manhattan metrosexuals with cell phones either. After the IE people spread out across Europe, they apparently displaced, intermarried with, or wiped out almost all of the indigenous people of Europe.

One group that held out for a while were the Etruscans, residents of Italy. We actually have some retained some scraps of the Etruscan language somehow, but it doesn’t seem obviously related to anything else. The only other group that held out was apparently the Basques.

The theory that the Basques are the last remaining original inhabitants of Europe has long been a popular theory based on the fact that the Basque language is unlike any other language in Europe, or, really, in the world. Formally, Basque is considered to be a language isolate – not related to any other language.

However, I believe, based on very controversial theories, that Basque is related to some languages of the Caucasus (such as Chechen), an obscure group of Siberian tongues known as the Ket Family, an obscure language in far northern Pakistan called Burushaski, and also to the vast Sino-Tibetan family, of which Chinese is the most famous member.

Basque seems to me to be closest to various Caucasian languages. The latest genetic research has shown that the Basques have a blood type frequency that is divergent from all other populations in Europe. Interestingly, the closest people with this blood frequency are in the Caucasus Mountains.

In their mountain hideaways, the rugged Basques fought off many intruders and managed to keep a lot of other conquerors out of their hair with a hands-off attitude. Although the Romans conquered the area, they basically left the Basques pretty much alone as too much hassle, a common attitude of many conquerors that came through the region.

The Basques converted to Christianity along with the rest of Europe, and are known for their passionate, conservative Catholicism. With the consolidation of the Spanish nation, the question of how to deal with the Basques came up. For centuries, most governments in Spain and France preferred to pretty much leave the Basques alone.

During the Spanish Civil War in 1936-39, the Basque Region was a hotbed of Communism, Socialism, Anarchism and all varieties of Leftism. It was a major Republican stronghold. The Spanish Anarchists even “ruled” parts of the Basque country for part of this time, probably the only time in history that any humans have ever lived under anarchist “rule”.

The Basques fought very hard against fascism. Picasso’s famous “Guernica” painting is a painting of the Franco-Nazi air raid on the city of Guernica in the Basque Country, a raid that killed 6,000 people and outraged the world. A Basque Communist female fighter named “La Passionara” became quite famous.

The flood of Nazi guns was too much for the Republicans. The Republicans lost the war and fascism, in the persona of Generalissimo Franco, came to Spain. During World War 2, many Basques fought for the resistance against the Nazis, especially in France. The Basque region was known as a major redoubt and rear base for the French resistance.

When Franco came to power, a new chapter of history opened for the Basque struggle. Franco tried to consolidate Spain as no ruler ever had before. He demanded that all regional minorities adopt a “Spanish” mindset, language and loyalty. He ferociously tried to wipe out all vestiges of the Basque, Catalan and Galician languages and cultures.

Catalans speak a Romance language in between Spanish and French and live along the southern coast of Spain by the French border in and around Barcelona. The Romance family is a subfamily of IE that is derived from Latin. Romance includes Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, Catalan, Sardinian, Corsican, Romansh (an obscure language in Switzerland) and some lesser-known tongues.

Galicians speak a dialect of Portuguese, believe it or not, and live along the rocky northern coast of Spain by the border with Portugal. Many Galicians are fishermen.

The Basque people resisted Franco for a while, but he put many of them in prison and really hurt the Basque movement. In 1959, a faction broke away from the Basque Nationalist Movement, formed the ETA, and took up arms.

They planted several bombs in Spanish cities that year. In 1968 , the ETA officially adopted armed struggle. The insurgency has been going on for 46 years now, though it is not as strong as it used to be.

Hardly any Americans realize the significant level of support for even the armed insurgency in the Basque country of Spain. As of a few years ago, there were regular street protests and even riots, as young nationalists run amok through the streets, smashing stuff and writing graffiti.

I have seen video footage in the past decade of very militant pro-ETA rallies in the Basqueland with large crowds of supporters milling around.

Many folks you would consider to be regular folks – middle-class people who dress well, drive nice cars and have good jobs – are strong supporters of even the armed Basque movement. It’s quite a shock to see dowdy-looking housewife types and middle-aged office workers with potbellies angrily waving banners supporting the ETA bombers.

Yet this is the reality of popular support for Basque nationalism, even the armed wing, in the Basque Country. Although Batasuna, the political wing of the ETA, was banned recently, another party took its place and garnered around 15-20% of the vote. Total support for complete independence in the Basque Country or Euskara, as they call it, is around 35-40%, or possibly higher, in my opinion.

Note: I just spoke to a German Communist friend of mine about the support level for the independence movement in Basqueland. Here is what he said: “Oh, I think almost all Basques support full independence. And even many Spanish migrants in Basqueland don’t really oppose the ETA or the independence movement.”

Note the presence of Spanish migrants who have moved into the Basque Country, mostly to take jobs. They are really the wild card in any poll about levels of independence support in Basqueland.

What is the struggle about, anyway? Well, a significant number of the Basque people (maybe almost 100% – see above) want independence from Spain.

Possibly a lesser number desire independence from France, but the struggle in French Basqueland is another matter and beyond the scope of this post. The Spanish government has always refused to hold a referendum on independence for Euskara, a key Basque demand.

The Czech Republic split from Slovakia, referendums have been held on independence in Scotland and Quebec, and yet Spain bucks the tide in the civilized world. The economy is surely a stickler. The Basque country holds much of Spain’s heavy industry, and how well Spain would fare economically after Basque succession is largely unknown. But it should at least be a subject of discussion, and Spain has put it out of limits.

As long as Spain refuses to provide a Basque referendum on independence, the Basque struggle, including probably the armed front, will go on. That’s all there is to it. Spain can end the insurgency tomorrow by opening peace talks with the ETA (Spain has never done this) and ultimately agreeing to hold a referendum on Basque independence.

An interesting sidelight to the Basque struggle is the role of women and feminism in the conflict. Some of the toughest ETA cadre have been women, often tougher than the men. And ETA male fighters, though nominally Marxist, have long been known to hold surprisingly conservative, Old World type views on the role of women in Basque society, opinions heavily tinged by conservative Catholicism.

Feminism is Mental Illness: Are You a Rape Supporter?

From an insane feminist blog called Eve Bit First, we have a list to determine whether or not you are a rape supporter. If you check even one of these, you’re a rape supporter. If you check lots and lots of them, like I just did, well, you’re practically the reincarnated ghost of Ted Bundy.

All of this is standard radical feminism or gender feminism. Radical and gender feminism came with the Second Wave. Since then, there have been Third and Fourth Waves of feminist bullshit. Supposedly the 3rd and 4th waves differ somewhat from the lunatic 2nd wavers. Whether they would differ with any of the below is not known, but the author of this post, a femcunt psychobitch named Eve’s Daughter, is an explicit 3rd Waver, so I guess we can write off the 3rd Wave, boys! Also, it’s 3rd Waver nuts who invented the idiotic notion of “rape culture” to describe of all things, US culture.

Gender or radical feminism is deeply invested in hostility, rage, anger, etc. towards men. Many to most females who get involved in this stuff have varying degrees of man-hatred. Within the ranks of this group, you will find many women who are extreme man-haters.

The branch of feminism called lesbian feminism is particularly poisonous. That there are women who are lesbians simply because it is their nature is ok. However, many lesbians are lesbians by choice – political lesbians. A political lesbian is a woman who has become a lesbian because she hates men. In other words, she’s a Nazi. She’s a feminazi, a lesbonazi. If you hate men so much that you turned into a lesbian, then you’re a Nazi, plain and simple.

The Left has fallen head over heels in love with these diabolical man-hating Nazi psychos. Lesbonazis and feminazis are not acceptable anywhere. They are just as bad as misogynists, religious bigots, jingoist nationalists or racists. These are all varying types of Nazis. They hate people based on their gender, their religion, their nation of origin or their race.

Feminazism is wrong! Lesbonazism is wrong!

Bottom line is that modern feminism is poison. It’s a form of evil centering around hatred of men. It’s also a form of mental illness. Its arguments don’t even make sense.

One wonders what type of man would actually go along with this insanity. No real man could possibly agree with the insanity that is modern feminism. Only pussies and fags would ever go along with general feminism, and if you study the movement long enough, you realize that that is exactly what a lot of male gender feminists are!

A man is a rape-supporter if…

• He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion. Underage? Yes. Drunk? Certainly. High? Of course. The rest, no, but I had to think about the coercion thing long and hard.
• He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense. Yes, I defend the current legal definition of rape.
• He has accused a rape victim of having “buyer’s remorse” or wanting to get money from the man. No.
• He has blamed a woman for “putting herself in a situation” where she “could be” attacked. I hate to say so, but yes.
• He has procured a prostitute. Yes, several times.
• He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes. Of course.
• He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional. Surely sex is transactional. Women from Old World cultures understand this truism of human nature very well.
• He has gone to a strip club. Sure.
• He is anti-abortion. No way.
• He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available. Of course that is why I support abortion silly!
• He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.” Sure it is.
• He watches pornography in which women are depicted. No homo. If there ain’t no women in it, homeboy ain’t watchin’ it!
• He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present. Hmmm, Had to think about this one long and hard, but yes, I have watched porn like that before. Some of it bothers me a lot though. Some of the rest of it, sure it turns me on even though I have to admit it’s awful. But a lot of women like awful, that’s the thing, see?
• He characterizes the self-sexualizing behavior of some women, such as wearing make-up or high heels, as evidence of women’s desire to “get” a man. Of course that is why women wear stuff like that.
• He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually “hoodwinked,” or sexually harassed. Not really. I don’t like such depictions.
• He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects. Presented as sexual objects? Of course!
• He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification. Not really, but a lot of “sexual harassment” is simply nonsense. All it means is “this beta/omega/zeta guy is acting sexual towards me.” So what! Men have a right to flirt with, try to pick up on and act sexual with whoever they want to!
• He supports sexual “liberation” and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not “inhibit” them. Obviously this is true, but it’s more true in other countries. I believe it is definitely true in places like the Philippines. Those women are clearly inhibited by their society. And of course I support Sexual Liberation, and it’s capitalized, and there’s no quotes, bitch!
• He states or implies that women who do not want to have sex with men are “inhibited,” “prudes,” “stuck-up,” “man-haters,” or psychologically ill. Well, many lesbians are simply lesbians by choice. They have chosen to be lesbians due to their extreme, near-Nazi-like hatred of men. Many lesbians hate men the way Nazis hated Jews. This is not acceptable, and it is sick and wrong that society, and especially the Left, has demanded that we respect and give rights to feminazis and lesbonazis. If I want to refuse to hire a lesbonazi due to her insane hatred of men, that’s my choice. As far as the rest of it goes, I am not so sure. But prudishness and inhibition are going to be correlated with lower rates of heterosexual behavior in the female.
• He argues that certain male behaviors towards women are “cultural” and therefore not legitimate subjects of feminist attention. Male behaviors towards women are indeed cultural, and feminists can work themselves into a tizzy about anything they wish to.
• He ever subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of the men. No, women and men have different interests.
• He promotes religious or philosophical views in which a woman’s physical/psychological/emotional/sexual well-being is subordinated to a man’s. No.
• He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed “emptiness” of female anatomy when describing women. Yes, but not the latter clause. I have never heard of anyone referring to women as being empty. A female is anything but empty kiddo.
• He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.” No, but it’s an odd argument. Who consents to be beaten? Weird.
• He defends the sexualization or sexual abuse of minor females on the grounds of “consent” or “willingness.” Yes, teenage girls have a right to have sex with teenage boys. I would extend that right all the way up to men aged 18-21 or so, but that’s just me. As far as the rest of it goes, the law is the law and sex with little girls is always wrong.
• He promotes the idea that women as a class are happier or more fulfilled if they have children, or that they “should” have children. Not sure about this one, but a lot of women want to have kids, bottom line, and they will just about kill to get one if they don’t have one. So obviously there is some biological imperative going on here.
• He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.” We do, in fact. Believe it or not, women do too. Trust me on that one!
• He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing. There are indeed types that I am attracted to. Unfortunately, there have been cases when there were women after me sexually. I had to tell them that I was not attracted to them. Sorry about that! Not really into demeaning people though.
• He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity. Of course I do!
• He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them. Yes.

Really Gross Fat Dude Bangs the Kind Babe

Repost from the old site.

This is a strange story that a commenter of mine relates to me about being a gross fat disgusting pig still getting lots of pussy, which seems impossible until you realize that women screw power 100 times more than they screw looks.

That lakhs of women will happily fuck some totally gross, disgusting and awful pig of a man without the slightest thought in the world, all the while leaving sleek, well-groomed, neat, tidy and polite guys to jerk off by themselves leads me to chalk up one more negative about females. It is true that I do hate women sometimes, and I really think all men either should or maybe even do, except for the wusses and the brainwashed.

One aspect of being proud of being a Male is being repulsed by the sort of displays of what we see as the insanity and idiocy of the Female in certain areas. It is important to note that we are superior in certain ways from these Female Things, who ought to be taken off their pedestals yesterday.

This sort of mild sexual arrogance leads to one being sort of a fake male chauvinist pig, but that’s ok, as most women don’t mind mild pigs, as it just means you’re a real man anyway, and I bet mild piggishness has an extreme correlation with getting laid. Women say they want wussy feminist guys, but deep down inside, vaginized males cause much revulsion and lack of sex drive in females.

The Feminist Bitch created the Male Wormboy, and now she must deal with her Frankenstein-like creature, much to her eternal frustration. I would say “he” never should have been created in the first place, but women thought they knew what they were doing.

As is so often the case when the ladies get together and dream up some harebrained woman scheme, at some point the guys need to step in and point out the to women how fucked up their whole project was from the very get-go and offer some strict male supervision in the future. As whole continents of women secretly long to be dominated and bossed around, this can work like a charm.

You know if some gross, obese 300 pound chick had a lot of power, most guys would shrug their shoulders and go back to chasing dumb unemployed blonds and sleek Latinas. Just because it works one way does not mean it works the other way too.

Most women are not even that turned on visually, say experiments, but I never believed that. Women always appreciate a good looking guy, even if they refuse to screw him in favor of much worse looking guys. In men, attraction is all about looks, pretty much. In women, it’s not quite You’ve Got to Kidding, but neither is it Bag the Cute Guy either.

Females are just a different species, is the only way to analyze it, but we are capable of cross-species mating and in extreme cases even love and affection.

The Female Species needs to be studied by the closely related Male Species with the same detachment as a biologist would study some wild, elusive foxes running around in the backwoods, which is sort of what Females are anyway as soon as they take off the makeup and the office clothes. They even mourn their dead and help bury them, just like the foxes they are related to.

Further research is ongoing, but a tremendous amount of biological literature on the Female has already been gathered. Bone up on the lit, observe the Female in her natural habitat and attempt to ascertain, test and ultimately prove or disprove hypotheses. They may be closely approached on many occasions, especially if you become close to a particular Female animal.

Fat readers should not feel insulted, but it’s true that I did deliberately try to piss you off here, and if you weigh over 300 pounds, I may have to go to great efforts to love you unconditionally, as will most of the world. If you tip the scales at 300, face it, you’re a pig! Pig pig pig pig pig pig pig! I don’t care about your Goddamned genes, you are totally gross!

Yuck! Shed, shed, shed, or just wallow in your image and call yourself Pigpen, Grateful Dead like. In that case, I may even be able to love you in a perverse way.

I would like to point out in the case of Newt Gingrich, he is FAT! How any women would want to have sex with such a gross, hulking pig with layers and layers of blubber like a cut at the butcher’s, I have no idea, but he was supposedly banging cute secretaries recently. Most people do not realize that Newt is FAT. I want to point out that Newt is REALLY REALLY FAT, and it is really gross! Let folks know.

Scott’s story starts here.

Back in college, I lived in a frat house where about nine guys lived. Most of us were considered dorks (not all), but ironically, the guy who was able to get some-fine-ass girls was this rather large obese guy. He was about 5’10’’ and close to 300 lbs or so, all fat. He wasn’t bad-looking the face, though, I must say, but had a real fat-looking face.

His room was covered with trash, and he was a complete slob half the time in public. When he took of his shirt there were many rolls of fat, and he had surgical scars on back from when he had poles implanted.

Anyways, he was the president of the fraternity, and in his super-senior year he was president of student congress. He fucked this petite VP girl. He was well-known around our small college (approx. 1,800 people), as a result of this. He knew how to yield his power within the realm of legality in order to get laid, but didn’t really have to that much.

Girls were attracted to the status he attained by his leadership. Women are biologically drawn to status as a way for them to increase the likelihood of their offspring’s success. Status and well-knownness (if that’s a word) is basically the same thing as charisma.

I should have figured this out earlier. Ben Franklin and Newt Gingrich, two fatties, are good examples of people who were (and in Newt’s cases is) aware of fact that being in power can get you laid.

Science Tackles PUA/Game Theory

Here.

Mr. Stable = Beta or possibly even Omega males.

Mr. Sexy = Alpha males.

Of course, Alphas are not very stable. Those men are simply not very good partners. They’re just a lot of fun for now, and that’s it.

Betas are stable but not very sexy. This is the guy she finally marries in her 30′s or whenever.

At their most fertile period, these women are less likely to feel close to their mates and more likely to find fault with them than women mated to more sexually desirable men, the research shows.

In other words, when she’s ovulating, she’s bitching at her Beta husband and checking out the local Alphas a lot more.

Possibly to increase the odds of attracting suitable mating partners, these behaviors include a tendency to dress up and to speak in a higher-pitched, more feminine voice.

What every man knows. When she acts feminine, it means she wants to get fucked, more or less. Bitches who almost never act feminine or feminists who reject femininity as oppressive are basically telling the male world that they never want to fuck.

It wasn’t discussed in the article, but men must know that a super feminine woman is telling the world that she’s horny. A feminist who rejects dressing up, acting feminine and speaking in a high pitched or soft voice will be seen by most men as a sexually unavailable woman, a bitch or even a dykey lesbian.

Feminism is a mass movement that tells women to stop giving men the signals that they want to fuck and instead tells them to give off continuous signals of non-interest in or hostility towards sex, bitchiness or even lesbianism. Hence, this is why so many feminists seem sexless, prudish, bitchy or even dykey.

Women mated to the most sexually attractive men, meanwhile, experienced the opposite effect. As these women moved from their least to most fertile period, their closeness scores rose by a point.

When she’s already with an Alpha type, she gets even hornier around her cycle.

The researchers believe the findings shed light on a suite of conflicting behaviors that stem from mating strategies that might have provided an evolutionary benefit to women’s female ancestors of long ago but today probably serve no other purpose than to stir the domestic pot.

In other words, it worked great for Cavewomen, but now it’s not only utterly useless, but it’s actually maladaptive.

“Since our female ancestors couldn’t directly examine a potential partner’s genetic makeup, they had to base their decisions on physical manifestations of the presence of good genes and the absence of genetic mutations, which might include masculine features such as a deep voice, masculine face, dominant behavior and sexy looks,” said Haselton, who is affiliated with UCLA’s Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture.

Deep voice, masculine face, dominant behavior and sexy looks = Alpha.

The strange thing is that some of the biggest players I ever knew did not have deep voices or masculine faces.

Many of them were somewhat androgynous pretty boy types. Yet they went through whole platoons of females. Their androgyny was such that they had pretty strong masculine traits (once you got to know them) but then they had another side, too. Many were not “macho” types at all. In fact, many of them were frequently accused of being gay. So I don’t know where guys like this fit into the theory.

“In the reproductive arena, women probably evolved to desire men who could contribute both quality care and good genes,” Haselton said. “The problem is that there is a limited number of potential mates who are high in both. So many women are forced to make trade-offs.”

Yep. Most stable guys are not that sexy. And most sexy guys are not reliable in any way, shape or form. And the sexy but stable and reliable guys are not so common.

We don’t know if men are picking up on this behavior, but if they are, it must be confusing for them,” Larson said.

Of course they pick up on it, and they all pull their hair out because of this stuff. It’s behaviors like this that make men yell about how “nuts” females are, but as you can see, she is only mining her Cavewoman past for its obsolete motherlode, invisible to both her and everyone else.

As with everything else related to Game/PUA and evolutionary psychology, feminists reject all of this angrily as “lies,” which just goes to show you that strangely enough for folks who claim to be obsessed with females, feminists don’t even understand women at all.

Are Cluster B Personality Disorders on the Increase?

Excellent article by a woman’s site called Shrink4Men.

Now ordinarily I would be very suspicious of any woman offering therapy for men. I flat out refuse any therapy with a woman. I have seen about 3 female therapists, and in general, it was simply a disaster. They just don’t understand men. I talk about sexual stuff a lot in therapy, and female therapists just don’t get it. They usually think I’m a “typical male asshole” or something. Not a whole lot of empathy on their end. They can’t get out of their “Sisterhood” thing enough to do good therapy with me.

Anyway, it’s a good piece on the Cluster B’s. There is evidence that Personality Disorders (Axis 2) are increasing in modern society. They’ve been on the rise for about 80 years or so, with each succeeding generation having a higher rate of them than the preceding one. There are a lot of theories who this is so, and the author outlines them in the piece.

I also have noticed this (mostly crazy women) but I just blamed it on feminism.

Some of the reasons offered are:

1. our advanced industrial society that provides most of our needs,
2. our highly litigious, get mine and screw everyone else for as much as you can take them for lawyered up culture,
3. a pop Zeitgeist full of entitled, high conflict persons celebrating belligerent, unpleasant, assholey, bitchy, selfish, high conflict behaviors,
4. the culture of radical individualism fostered by radical Ayn Rand style, screw everyone, get mine, Libertarian neoliberal economics since 1980,
5. increasing divorce, drug abuse and family instability leading to children having an unstable first six years of life when the personality is formed (instability in ages 0-6 can create Axis 2 problems as the person fails to develop an effective and adaptive personality.)

At any rate, the Cluster B disorders are some of the most abrasive PD’s of them all. These are the “conflict-prone” or “extroverted” disorders characterized by continuous conflict with others in pursuit of blatantly selfish gains, refusal to accept responsibility, lack of insight and profound selfishness.

Cluster B people cause a great deal of damage to society in various ways on the job, in school, and on the streets. They run up high costs in the health care system and often run afoul of the law too. Cluster B disorders commit much more crime and especially violent crime than the rest of the PD’s and vastly more than normals.

They are abrasive, in an aggressive, unstable, mercurial, threatening and intense way. They provoke strong reactions in others and frequently elicit aggressive and even violent defensive reactions in those they constantly attack.

The Cluster B’s are:

Antisocial PD – sociopaths, psychopaths.

Borderline PD – a hurricane or tornado like behavior syndrome, mostly women, awash with suicidal behavior, acting out, self-harm, drug abuse, dangerous behaviors, promiscuity, occupational instability, extreme, regular and violent mood swings, very high anger levels, fluctuating self-esteem that descends to intense lows, over-idealization followed by or combined with total devaluation, emptiness, no insight, constant blaming, manipulation, scheming and threats and often what looks like “multiple personalities.”

Occasionally psychotic, but more often appears “near-psychotic or quasi-psychotic.” Often shows unconscious behavior that is even poorly remembered or not remembered not all, as if one was in a fugue.

Histrionic PD – I don’t know it well. Mostly women. Most of the men who have it are gay or bisexual. Bitchy, over-dramatic, always on stage, “actor” or “actress” like histrionics, putting on shows and displays and generally acting out.

Narcissistic PD – The center of universe, brags, manipulates others, has little to no concern or love for or even interest in anyone else, extremely inflated self esteem followed by incredible lows (“brittle” or “shallow” self-esteem), jerky, assholey or bitchy behavior, is often cruel or sadistic, insults or puts down others, displays haughty or arrogant attitude, blames others, has no insight, takes no responsibility, engages fantasies of extreme accomplishment and grandeur, shows profound jealousy of rivals.

Can lead to violence or criminality in pursuit of selfish ends or revenge against the hated rivals. Has no idea how they come off to others and is stunned or mystified when told how they do. Seems “blind and deaf.”

Master manipulators, often excellent social skills, extremely competitive, associated with high achievement but unstable relationships and even occupational history as they fight with most around them.

The term narcissism is often conflated with Narcissistic PD. I have a psychodynamically oriented therapist now who tells me that I am a narcissist.

What he means is that I am vain, self-centered and conceited and can tend to think I’m better than others, though I try very hard to control that part of it.

The problem is that that only skims the surface of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I’ve known some NPDs, and I am certain that I am noting like these folks.

I am not a high-confict person. I am a low-conflict to zero-conflict person. I go everywhere trying to be as nice as possible to most everyone all the time. If someone tells me they’re a Nazi, I am afraid to act offended because then maybe they won’t like me. So I just smile and try not to act offended. I pretend that they just told they like cherry pie or something.

What I am, in part, is the person described in the first paragraph below – a “vain individual who may overly enjoy his own reflection and is self-centered.” At worst, I am like Paris Hilton below – a “spoiled, silly, self-centered, attention seeking brat,” but even that’s pretty much of a reach for this introvert.

The following quote from the page above shows how the popular term “narcissism” has been ridiculously conflated with the extreme toxicity of the ultra-abrasive, high-conflict NPD type. He also points out that it’s just wrong to call Cluster 2 types mentally ill people who need our sympathy.

Screw that. They have a character problem. They’re people who are pretty much deliberately acting bad, and they need to knock it off. We need to aggressively confront their high-conflict bullshit, and deliver swift consequences on them every time they act up. They are like little kids who need to be “sent to their room” from time to time until they act better.

Here is the quote:

Like I think many, I always associated the term “narcissist” with vain individuals who may overly enjoy their own reflection and are self-centered, etc.

Obviously this just skims the surface in terms of NPDs.

While I can see where “narcissist” was a convenient label to attach to a particular flavor of PD for the purposes of, as Dr. T. previously mentioned, a sort of shorthand for the purposes of mental health professionals, I think the term is misleading in respect of PD’s and should be dropped by the psychoanalytic community.

The reality is that what we might see as narcissist personalities in the media, e.g., Paris Hilton, could just as easily, and likely accurately, be described as spoiled, silly, self-centered, attention seeking brats.

Obviously NPDs are something way beyond this.

When you get right down to it, PD’s seem to be, as evidenced from our almost identical experiences with them, more a personality type rather than individuals with anything I would from my layman’s perspective describe as a mental health issue or disease.

Their minds just work differently than most. If they worked differently in a beneficial way, they wouldn’t be identified as being “mentally ill,” however because they work differently in a negative way, the assumption is that this must not be from their own choice and that they would choose to be “good” if not for that infernal “mental disease” that prevents them from doing so.

Speaking of “infernal”, and calling a spade a spade, I have no doubt that PD’s were well represented in the group of those described as “possessed”, “witches”, “evil”, etc. a few hundred years back.

I have come to think that society and non-PD type people would be better served if PD’s, sociopaths, etc. were removed from the psychoanalytic realm and into the, for lack of a better word and as Dr. T. put it, the “character realm” and understood as being personality types who are best recognized and avoided or dealt with firmly when they use disruptive or dishonest, etc. tactics to achieve their ends rather than than being seen as individuals with a “mental disease” beyond their control who require understanding and forbearance.

Just my layman’s opinion.