Time of the Evilboys

Jason Y writes:

I dunno, I think we were just boys, age 9-13.

Boys are EVIL, especially at a certain age.

Didn’t you know that?

Boys and girls at that age are equally evil. At least that’s how it was in Korea, my experience in America wasn’t much different either. There are a few that are kind, but a lot of them aren’t. If you get on their bad side, they’ll crucify you. :lol:

I dunno I enjoyed being an evil little boy. I mean we were nice a lot too. We had friends, and we mostly treated them well.

Smear the Queer is just a game. You play it with your friends. It was the same as Kill the Man on the Hoppityhop. One guy gets on the hoppityhop and starts bouncing all around the yard, and he’s automatically the Queer. Everyone yells, “Look he’s a queer! Smear the queer! Smear the queer! Hahahahaahahahaha!” Because, you know, queers have to be destroyed on sight, right?

The other guys jump on him and try to pull him off the hoppityhop, and he tries to throw them off and bounce away to escape. I think you can climb on his back and hit him, I am not even sure. You try to waste the guy on the hoppityhop and dislodge him from the ball. No one ever got hurt. We were 9 or 10 years old we engaged in continuous physical fighting. Boys that age can’t even hurt each other.

We had some designated victims who we relentlessly teased to try to provoke them into attacking us so we could have an excuse to waste them. They performed right on cue. But those designated victims were also our some of our friends. It all depended on the dynamics.

We also had berry wars and dirt clod wars. We would split into two armies, and both sides would arm themselves with dirt clods or berries. And then it would be a war. You would throw berries or clods at the other side and try to hit them. The berries were really hard, and they could hurt like Hell if they hit you.

Quite a few times, these wars would get seriously out of hand and people would get mad. I remember one time we went up to see our cousins, and we ended up in this huge evil berry war, and the last thing I remember before driving off to the plane was them chasing after us at the airport screaming that they were going to kill us. Other times at home it was similar. The berry war would just disintegrate into a great big huge real fight, guys screaming at each other, calling names, trying to hit each other, running home.

There was this kid named RSJ, and he was called Dickie. His real name was Richard. He was on crutches for some birth defect. Nothing wrong with that, but he was mean as a snake for some reason. His older brother tormented him mercilessly, and even his own mother joined him and just creamed him emotionally. They spoke to him in the most mocking, humiliating, degrading tones, just ridiculed him with voices full of derision and contempt.

I am not sure what the dynamics were, but his family was mean and cruel as Hell to him, and then he was vicious little shit himself. I guess both processes were driving each other somehow, but I am not sure who started it.

Well, we called him Dogdoo Dickie and he hated that name so much! He saw red if you called him that! So of course we called him that constantly and we tormented him mercilessly like mosquitoes on your skin. We would provoke him to get him to react and try to fight us. After we provoked him, he would come chasing after us with his crutches flying. He would try to hit you with his crutches! We would run away from him trying to avoid getting hit by his crutches and yelling names at him and laughing. He would come after us with his crutches swinging with the meanest, evillest look on his face. He was nasty!

Mostly we just got along though. Except for some designated victims who everyone bullied or other people bullied depending on the dynamics, all the rest of us got along and had all sorts of fun.

We did kill animals though. We started out killing insects like all boys. We would take magnifying glasses and set insects on fire on the sidewalk. We had garden pests, and instead of just killing them, we would slowly torture them to death. Like tomato worms. We hated those things, and when we caught them we would put them in this little “bullring” and they would be the “bull.” We would have “bullfights” with them. We would take big nails and throw them at the tomato worms yelling, “Picadors! Picadors!” and we would try to spear the tomato worms with the nails.

Also we had pillbugs, and they were serious pests. We soon tired of killing them in the ordinary way so we started devising all these new experimental ways of industrial pillbug murder. It was Pillbug Holocaust and we were like Nazis. We tried every method under sun to murder those bugs in all these new and experimental ways. We even did “surgery” on them where we would take them apart and examine their insides like scientists. We were Mengele!

My parents found out about our Pillbug Concentration Camps, and my father was really disturbed. He said it was evil and ordered us to stop. I guess he thought we were on the road to being serial killers.

We also killed snails in experimental ways. Salt is great. You pour salt on the snail, and it kills it in what looks like a horrible way. We also conducted biology experiments on snails where we would paint them with paint, release them and try to find them later to see how far they traveled.

We also killed fish, and I have to admit that was pretty damn evil. We fished at this place called The Smelt Place which was maybe 200 yards away from the beach. Well, you could go there and catch maybe 100 smelt in a day. It got boring after a while, just endlessly catching these moronic fish who were obviously too stupid to not get caught.

After a while, we would reel in a smelt and then cast the line with the smelt still on it onto some nearby rocks on the rocky shoreline. When we did this we would yell, “Acapulco cliff divers!” The smelt would land on the rocks and we would reel it in over the rocks. Pretty awful torture for the smelt, and the smelt would get killed pretty quickly. Then one time TM caught a smelt, kept it alive somehow and tied it to a rope on the back of his bike and dragged it on the way home for a bit until it died. That was hilarious!

Some of our girl cousins came to live with us for one year. Their family was falling apart badly, mother was dying, diabolical divorce underway, and father was an evil actual Nazi from Germany who we hated. Anyway, we took those girls and shuttled them around to our relatives on the mother’s side to keep them out of the father’s hands because we hated him so much. Those girls were like 5, 7 and maybe 9 and they were just evil. They were driven crazy by all the family dynamics. They lived with us for a while when I was 10, and there were boys versus girls fighting all the time. It was a kick! My little brother went to kindergarten with one of my girl cousins.

The first day he came home and there had apparently been some Black kids in the class somehow, don’t ask me how. My brother came home disgusted and said, “Black people sure are stupid! They’re dumb and loud!” 5 year old race realist! He had been exposed to little serious racism at home because my father was a liberal. I remember one time someone said nigger at the dinner table and my Dad flipped and turned the whole dinner into Antiracist Inquisition. We were not allowed to use that word around him.

We were also evil little thieves. I personally did not steal too much. Mostly we stole from the workmen who were working on new houses in the back. We would sneak back there at night and rip off nails, chisels, all sorts of construction materials like that. I have to admit thievery was pretty damn fun. I didn’t steal much other than from the workmen. I think my father found out we were thieving from the workmen, and once again he got disturbed and maybe thought we were going to turn into criminals. I think he ordered us to take the stuff back. We lied and told him we returned everything, but really we never did, and even worse, we kept stealing more stuff.

The backyard was undeveloped, just bare ground, and we built these huge forts all over the yard. Then we had highways going all over the yard connecting one fort to the other. And we would drive trucks over these highways. We would fill the trucks up with the stolen construction materials and trade them with each other. I think a certain type of nail become “money” at some point and could be used to purchase things. There was a low spot in the yard where water collected from rain, and we called it Mud River. We built all these bridges over Mud River so you could walk across it on boards, but it was always this sort of mysterious place with evil and frightening overtones. Mud River was sort of like Hell or Land of Evil.

We had all these army men, and we used to mess around with them sometimes. We took some of the army men and made them into POW’s and kept them in a “prisoner of war camp.” Then we took objects and totally mutilated these poor army men, wounded  them all over their bodies, cut off arms and legs, decapitated them, and took red paint and painted blood all over them. It was ghoulish and brutal!

We did this because the POW camp was evil and it was place where POW’s were tortured to death, not kept in safety. After we killed these poor guys, we called them “the Spooks,” I guess because they were dead now. Then we buried them down under some dirt and leaves, apparently because they were dead and needed to be buried. But we kept digging them up so we could torture them some more even after death.

At one point we found some dogshit, and we smeared dogshit all over them just to make them even more evil. Then we reburied them. I suppose they symbolized Evil or Terror somehow. We were actually very scared of the Spooks because after we were done mutilating them and covering them with blood and dogshit, honestly they were pretty frightening looking.

I honestly really enjoyed being an aggressive, violent, diabolical and evil little boy. It was a barrel of ticks!

All the other boys were exactly the same as I was, and we all ended up ok. None of us turned into serial killers or even victimizing criminals, and we all stayed out of jail for the most part. A lot of us got arrested, but most of us no more than a handful of times, but we only served a few days here and there. Typical crimes were burglary, breaking and entering, possession of a deadly weapon, drug use, drug possession, possession of drugs for sale, resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, disturbing the peace, drunk driving, etc.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Kill Your Children Well

According to Stewart, in those parts of Hawaii to which the influence of the missionaries had not penetrated, two-thirds of the infants born were murdered by their parents within the age of two years. In Tahiti, three women questioned by Mr. Williams acknowledged that they had killed twenty-one of their children between them. Another at the point of death confessed to him in an anguish of remorse that she had destroyed sixteen of her children.

Frazer, James George. 1922. The Belief in Immortality and the Worship of the Dead, Vol. 2 (of 3): The Belief Among the Polynesians, Chapter III: The Belief in Immortality among the Samoans, § 1. The Samoan Islands, Footnote 24. McMillan and Co.

Wow!

This is the typical life among those noble savages some folks on this blog cheer on. Hunter-gatherers had no birth control, so children came all the time. There’s just not enough food around for every woman to have 12-27 kids. It’s not going to work. And honestly, it’s better to kill one child who has barely seen life than to let the whole group die of starvation. The greater good and the lesser of two evils and all that.

Among the Ache of Paraguay, 100% of Ache children witness their mothers murdering one or more of their brothers or sisters, often before age four. You wonder what sort of effect that would have on someone.

Essentialists or Determinists, which include some psychoanalytic types, would say that certain things that a human experiences in life have inevitable damaging effects on the psyche. So if a child witnesses his mother murdering his toddler sibling, this will have an inevitable scarring effect on the psyche no matter what. Similarly, if a child is molested by an adult before some set age (which feminist crazies keep pushing upwards), there will be serious and inevitable damaging effects on the psyche of that child no matter what. Some things are just inherently damaging psychologically 100% of the time.

Culturalists would take another approach and say that the psychological effects of certain experiences depend on the culture.

So while seeing one’s toddler sibling being murdered by your own mother is no doubt rather traumatizing, if you grow up in a culture where all children witness these scenes, it simply because one or the norms of growing up in that society, children simply accept it as normal behavior and there is little if any psychological damage.

Similarly, there are hunter-gatherer cultures where almost all of the children are molested by adults before age 12. Generally there is no physical damage. Culturalists would say that if you grow up in a culture where all the kids get molested by adults, you simply accept that as normal behavior and the acts cause little if any harm.

Where do you stand, with the Determinists or with the Culturalists? Are some experiences inherently damaging to the psyche or is it all culture-dependent based on what your culture defines as normal behavior?

2 Comments

Filed under Americas, Anthropology, Cultural, Culture, Latin America, Pacific, Paraguay, Polynesia, Psychology, Psychopathology, Regional, South America

Amazon Is Evil

I have been hating Amazon.com for a very long time now, and for some very good reasons. Be assured that they deserve every microgram of my hatred. They earned it well.

Anyway, I always knew that Amazon sucked. It’s a prime example of just how shitty your typical dot.com capitalist enterprise is. There’s nothing hip or groovy about tech or net capitalists. Actually the sad truth is that most of them are much worse capitalists than typical brick and mortar businesses which at least tend to have very well done and arranged stores, excellent customer service, a fair returns policy and products that are not blatant ripoffs or scams. Further, most brick and mortar joints are not actual criminal enterprises.

The sad truth is that tech and net businesses tend to have shit products, zero return policy, either zero or horrific customer service, and catastrophically arranged stores that look like they were put together by little children. As if that were not enough, a lot of them (dating sites for example) are simply out and out organized crime.

The number of dot.com businesses that are actually criminal enterprises is simply stunning. The fault of this lies 100% with the Tech Scum themselves, as almost all of them are “Libertarians.” Being Libertards, their motto is “Don’t regulate the Internet!” So the Net is utterly unregulated. What happens when an industry goes totally unregulated? Wa-la! The criminals swarm in like termites! Duh!

So next time you get fleeced by some dot.com crook, thank the nearest Tech Scum Libertard hipster! Aren’t techy hipsters cool? They’re helping criminals loot your bank account! Is that groovy and hip and tats and piercings or what?!

Anyway, Amazon has always sucked, mostly because their store is complete and utter shit, and they can’t be bothered to even fix the damn thing so it functions at all because, you know, if they had a functioning and working store, then they wouldn’t be able to sell to you so cheap! Nothing illustrates the depravity and sleaze of that mindset better than Amazon.

Welcome to Future Shit, where store owners won’t even bother to arrange their stores for you and you won’t be able to find anything! But hey, having a non-functioning store will be so hipster and groovy and techy and future because you will get your products really cheap dude! That is if you can find them!

So anyway, I have always known that Amazon blows, to put it mildly. But it’s actually much worse than that.

It turns out that Amazon is much worse than shitty.

They are actually stone evil.

Welcome to the Workplace of the Future, brought to you by your nearest groovy hipster, where cubicle farms resemble the factories of the 1890’s! Back to the Future!

Really, Amazon is to business as Roosh is to PUA. Roosh is Amazon. Amazon is Roosh. They’re both sociopathic. They both suck. They’re both evil. They are both widely loved by fools who worship psychopaths as the rock stars of the new millennium.

They’re the Future.

Roosh is the Future of Dating.

And…

Amazon is the Future of Business.

I don’t have much more to say except maybe pray you don’t live long enough to see much of this World O’Shit. I’ll be checking out in 30 years if I’m lucky, and I’ll see you all later then. I won’t be missing this damn planet for one second, thank you very much!

4 Comments

Filed under Political Science, Economics, Crime, Gender Studies, Scum, Capitalists, Labor, Man World, Organized Crime, Capitalism, Libertarianism

Are Arabs Usually in a State of War?

RL: Most people in the region have been living in peacetime most of the time since independence.

Swank: Seems to detail a different picture here…

There has not been a war fought on Moroccan territory. Morocco has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Algeria fought a civil war from 1991-2000.  That is 10 years out of 53.

There has not been a war fought on Tunisian territory. Tunisia has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Libya fought a 4 day border war with Egypt in 1977. There was an on and off war in Chad for 8 years between 1978-1987. There has been civil war since the overthrow of Ghaddafi. That is 12 years of war out of 63 years. Libya has been at peace 93% of the time since Independence.

Egypt was involved in several wars with Israel, but they didn’t last long. The total adds up to maybe 2 years at most. That’s 2 years of war out of 93 years.

Indeed, Palestine has been embroiled war almost all the time since 1947.

Jordan has only fought some wars with Israel. Maybe 2 years of war out of the last 66 years.

Syria fought several wars with Israel, but the combined total only lasted two years. They fought a war with the Muslim Brotherhood that went on perhaps 1 year. There has been a civil war since 2012. That is 6 years of war out of 64 years.

Saudi Arabia has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. However, there was an internal civil war that lasted a few years recently, but it was a very low level war. Saudi Arabia was briefly targeted in the Gulf War but that was only for a year. That’s 3 years out of 95.

Oman has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Oman has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Bahrain has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Bahrain has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

UAE has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. UAE has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Qatar has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Qatar has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Kuwait has been at war only with Iraq and that was only for a few weeks. That is 1 month out of 95 years.

Yemen did fight a civil war that lasted maybe 8 years. This resulted in a split in the country. There has been an internal war against Al Qaeda for maybe 4 years now. That’s 12 years out of 54.

Iraq fought a brief war with the British in 1941, but it only lasted one month. There was civil war in Mosul in 1959, but it lasted no more than a week. Iraq fought a number of wars with Israel, but those amounted to no more than 2 years. The Iran-Iraq War lasted 8 years. The Gulf War was over in less than a year and was by an internal civil war on 6 months. Iraq has been at war since the Iraq War in 2003, 11 years. Since 1932, Iraq has been at war for 22 years. That is 22 out of 83.

Lebanon fought a few wars against Israel, adding up to no more than 2 years. There was a brief civil war in 1958 lasting no more than one month. There was a major civil war in Lebanon for 15 years, from 1975-1990. Hezbollah fought a 1 month war with Israel in 2006. There was a brief civil war in 2007 with the Lebanese army fought a 4 month civil war against Fatah-al-Islam. In 2008, Hezbollah fought a 1 week war with the government. The Syrian Civil War has spilled over into Lebanon for the last year. Lebanon has been at war for 19 out of 70 years.

Conclusion: Most countries in the Arab World have been at peace most of the time since Independence.

1 Comment

Filed under Africa, African, Algeria, Arabs, Egypt, History, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Modern, North Africa, Palestine, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, War, Yemen

Never Cry in Front of a Woman You Sleep With

Over in Reddit/relationships, a woman posted about how her husband just lost a very good job. He wandered around for a couple of days and didn’t tell her. Then on the third day, he broke down and cried in front of her, completely losing it. Apparently she let him cry on her shoulder. She posted that she felt utter disgust and contempt for him seeing him cry like that. She made the post saying, “Why do I feel this way?” (once again, women have no idea why they do things) and, “Is it ok for me to feel this way?” The commenters, mostly other women, piled on her, saying, “You’re in this for the long haul,” or “This is your marriage – you took a vow,” or “This is the time when he needs you most and you are not there.”

The thread got cross-posted to Redpill and the guys had a field day with it. The profoundly depressing truth was, “Never cry in front of your girlfriend or wife or in front of any woman for that matter.” They also said that men are allowed to cry only a few times – when a loved one dies, when your dog dies and when your wife has a baby. And that’s it.

However, the Redpillers had nothing against men crying in principle. They said if you need to cry, go find some of your male friends that it’s ok to cry in front of and cry in front of them over some drinks. Another man said that when it all gets to be too much, he rents a soundproof room across town. He goes there and drinks, yells, screams, laughs, shouts, cries, you name it. He gets it all out of his system and goes back to society feeling better. The Redpillers were all supportive of this.

A few of the men said, “You know what? This sucks. We should be able to feel and cry more.” The response was, “Well maybe so, but this is the world women have set up for us, so you have to deal it.”

Another pointed that women are always saying that men need to cry more. This is a classic case of women being self-contradictory. I had a girlfriend once who said, “You’re not much of a man,” and then later she jumped all over me because I said I never cried. As you can see, she is totally contradicting herself, but she can’t see it. Women do this all the time.

Some averred that there may be some women who really do want their men to cry more often, but they said it’s almost impossible to tell if your woman is one of them.

I also have some personal experiences in this area.

Last year a woman I know well told me, “Men should cry more! Men don’t cry enough!” Then she told me how her husband of many decades had cried once (over a death).

I happened to know this fellow and I assure you that he cried more than once because I was good friends with one of his sons. He wasn’t a crybaby at all, but he did break down sometimes, often due to family crises such as wild fights and wars with his kids (his relationships with his sons were full of heavy duty conflict). Sometimes he would start crying, his voice would start breaking, and then he would catch himself.

I pointed out to this woman how I knew for a fact that her husband had cried more than once because I knew her sons. She then became quite insistent that he had only cried once in decades of marriage, and worse, she seemed quite proud of the fact that he had only cried once. See the contradiction here? This woman just completely contradicted herself.

Here is the contradiction:

  1. Idealized view of men “Men need to cry more! They don’t cry enough!”
  2. Real view of men “My husband only cried once in decades of marriage!” in prideful tone.

Let’s make this easier. Look at the contradiction below:

“Men need to cry more! They don’t cry enough!”

versus

“I am so proud of my husband because he is so manly that he only cried once in decades of marriage!”

That doesn’t make any sort of sense. What does she really believe about men crying? Who knows? How the Hell can you tell? Maybe she’s ok with it, maybe she’s not. Now her son told her husband had cried and started to cry in front her on multiple occasions and she was fine with it, but if we didn’t know that we would have to go by her personal statements which make no sense at all.

In the thread, two men told about how they broke down and cried in front of their women. One lost it in front of his wife; the other in front of his girlfriend. In both cases, the women never treated the man the same ever again, and the women left both men soon afterwards.

It is starting to look like:

Cry in front of your wife or girlfriend -> Your marriage or relationship is over.

Two other men said that they had cried in front of female friends once, and those female friends never treated them the same again.

Other Redpillers averred that when women say, “Men need to cry more! Men don’t cry enough!” that’s actually a shit test, the “worst shit test of them all,” as they put it. In other words, on some level (that most women are probably not even aware of) when women say that, it is nothing but a shit test to weed out the Alphas from the Betas. In other words, if you agree with her, “Yes! Men should cry more! I cry a lot myself!” the woman might sympathize deeply with you (notice the contradiction), but she also learns that you are a Beta, and she tosses you on the reject pile! And if you answer, “Hell no! I never cry! Men don’t cry!” she might get angry at you (notice the contradiction), but you also passed at least one of her “Alpha shit tests.”

Feel free to comment on men crying, women’s opinion of it or anything along those lines.

3 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Women

Men Know What Sadness Is

Personally, I went through a phase maybe 25-30 years ago where I was fighting back tears and felt sad all the time. I may have been depressed, I am not sure. I was working teaching school at the time, so I was functioning, but I felt this overwhelming sadness much of the time, and if you looked at me, you might see my eyes were wet, though I was never actually crying. The people who treated me worst of all during this phase were all women. Hispanic and Black women were the worst of all, because both of these types of women demand extreme masculinity from men. In contrast, most men were pretty good to me. Perhaps some were bad; I do not recall. A lot of men were actually quite sympathetic and it was not uncommon for a man, often middle aged, to “mirror” my sadness and become sad himself. It’s pretty much ok to look sad in ManWorld. You can’t look depressed and of course you can’t cry, but a lot of men look pretty sad, especially as they get older. It dawned on my recently that men (usually at least middle aged) are ok with male sadness because older men have figured out that life is pretty damn sad a lot of the time. In one sentence, men know that life is sad.

I must say though that it’s pretty pitiful of women that men were actually more sympathetic of a sad man than women were, and women treated me much worse than men did. Whatever happened to nurturing and empathy and all that female crap?

3 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Women

Diversity Makes You Taller and Smarter

Here.

Well at least there is something good about diversity. Not sure how this works, but in animals, you usually want a lot of genetic diversity in a species. Species that have low genetic diversity are often endangered species and the low diversity is considered to be something that can make the species extinct. In any species of animal, the more genetic diversity, in general the less likely it is to go extinct.

2 Comments

Filed under Animals, Anthropology, Biology, Genetics, Intelligence, Psychology, Science

Why Feminists and the MRA’s Are Both Wrong

Something finally dawned on me. I was talking to a feminist the other day (you really don’t need to know who that was), and I mentioned MRA’s, or Men’s Rights Activists. She saw red and became absolutely furious at the very mention of the phrase. Apparently MRA’s are simply evil, or wrong, or assholes, or something. Anyway, she made it clear that MRA’s suck. This is the attitude of almost all feminists: that MRA’s are evil, it is a misogynistic, wicked movement, etc.

However, the more time I have spent around MRA’s, the more I noticed that they are just like feminists. MRA’s are the other side of the feminist mirror. Turn a feminist around, make her into the exact same thing as a feminist except her direct opposite, and wa-lah! You have an MRA. Now, I happen to think feminists suck. As a man, I have good reason to think that, as feminists are pretty much the enemies of the men. Now this feminist may well believe that MRA’s are the enemies of the women. And sad to say, that is exactly how some of them come off.

So,

Feminists are the enemies of the men,

yet

MRA’s are the enemies of the women.

See what I mean? You are just turning the mirror around. It’s the same person. Turn an MRA around, and you have a feminut. Turn a feminist around, and you have an MRA kook. Get it? They’re the same damn people! One type is just the mirror and completely opposite image of the other side’s kookery.

Personally, I think if women ought to fight for their equal rights, then feminism is justified (at least the equal rights type).

But why must only females fight for their rights? Don’t males have a right to fight for their equal rights too? Well of course they do. Then MRA’s are justified at least as a movement that fights for equal rights for men.

Now feminists will counter this with an interesting argument that bears listening to (not all feminist arguments are crazy): Feminists simply argue that women have to fight for their rights because they are oppressed or slaves, while males are on top and already have all the rights they need, so they don’t need to fight for their rights, and indeed, Men’s Rights just means giving oppressors or slaveowners more rights. Obviously only slaves need liberation. Surely slave owners do not need liberation too! We took that argument out in 1865.

However, this argument is problematic because with the coming of Female Rule (an Oppressive Matriarchy that openly assaults men), it is becoming increasingly obvious that men are definitely in need of equal rights as women take away more and more of our rights and oppress us more and more, which has honestly been the result of feminism political power in the West.

So probably in the West women and men are both systematically oppressed either by society or law, and both are in need of equal rights, so both feminism and MRM are justified on an equity basis.

But then I observed something else. This feminist absolutely hates misogynists and misogyny. There is literally nothing worse than a man who hates women. That is just pure, sheer evil. Now misogynists are pretty nasty creatures, let’s face it. It’s an ugly philosophy, and women have a right to dislike their haters. But this feminist also completely rejects the argument that men who have lots of bad experiences with women have a right to be misogynists. Fair enough.

And yet…and yet…

I have brought up women who hate men to this feminist before, and she has always tried to justify them. “Well, she had a lot of bad experiences with men,” or “Yes, Simone Beauvoir was a man-hater, but Sartre was her husband and he didn’t treat her very well.”

In other words, feminists justify women who hate men on the basis that men treated them badly but then refuse to justify men who hate women on the basis that women treated them badly.

Rational? Of course not.

Now MRA’s are the same way. MRA’s are always railing against misandry and women who are man-haters, and for good reason. These are some pretty damn nasty creatures. On the other hand, one major theme of the MRM is that misogyny in men is completely justified.

Ok, now how can these views possibly make sense? How can this feminist possibly believe that women being man-haters due to bad treatment by men is understandable and even laudable, while men being woman-haters due to bad treatment by women is the ultimate in evil? This cannot be reasonable. Or can it?

In a proper moral philosophy, either:

1. Women who hate men due to bad treatment by men and men who hate women due to bad treatment by women are both acceptable,

or

2. Women who hate men due to bad treatment by women and men who hate women due to bad treatment by women are both unacceptable.

Either they’re both ok, as we figure damaged people are understandably haters, or they are both no good, as we figure that no matter what you go through, you don’t turn into a bigot.

Right?

But what you can’t have is a universe where one is ok and the other is not (the worlds of the feminists and the MRA’s).

However!

Such a universe,

where misandrists are understandable and even laudable and misogynists are Satanic,

or

misogynists are understandable and even rational while misandrists are wicked,

can only be true under one condition:

And that condition is that the other side is Evil.

Now let us examine what feminists and MRA’s are really saying.

When a feminist says female misandry is understandable and even a good thing, while male misogyny is wrong and despicable, what she is saying is this:

Female misandry is acceptable because Men are Evil. Male misogyny is wrong because Women are Good. Surely it is correct to laud those who hate Evil and despise those who hate Good, correct?

And of course, on the other hand, when an MRA says male misogyny is understandable and even logical while female misandry is deplorable and disgusting, what he is saying this is:

Male misogyny is acceptable because Women are Evil. Female misandry is wrong because Men are Good. Once again, we are back at Square One of Moral Philosophy, that those who hate evil are proper and even heroic while those who hate Good are wrong and even malevolent.

Once again, we see the same person switching genders and reversing the mirror, no?

Do you follow me here?

16 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Law, Masculinism, Philosophy, Politics, Social Problems, Sociology

“We Don’t Fight Enough”

I was just over at Reddit and I read how a husband said his wife was complaining that her marriage was lousy because “we don’t fight enough.” Yeah. “We don’t fight enough.” How crazy is that? The Redpillers then jumped in to say that yep, if you agree with everything she says, pretty soon your woman will start hating you or at least find you unattractive.

So this is what women want out relationships. Lots of fights. Make sure there are lots of fights. Can’t have too many fights you know. Gotta keep things stirred up. We can’t be getting all peaceful and shit.

What the Hell? “We don’t fight enough” In what possible world does that even make sense?

What’s really got me terrified is I am wondering how many women think this way – “We don’t fight enough.”

I am reminded of one particularly unpleasant memory of a girlfriend. She told me she hated fighting and if it was up to her, she would never fight ever if she could help it. If could have a relationship with minimal to no fighting, that would be her dream.

Now comes the inevitable female self-contradiction. I mean how can you have females without having self-contradiction, right? Self-contradiction is one of the primary essences of the female nature.

You guessed it.

This idiotic woman actually went out and picked fights with me on a regular basis. She insulted my masculinity. She told me I wasn’t much of a man. She threatened to deliberately cuckold in front of my face with a Black man of all people. When I tripped in the living room, she laughed at me, cackling like a witch.

And this idiot female never wanted to fight, ever.

Except when she was picking fights for no reason.

“We don’t fight enough.” Wtf. You see why men think women are insane?

4 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Psychology, Ridiculousness, Romantic Relationships, Women

Some Powerful Violations of Red Pill

According to Red Pill philosophy, everything is down to masculinity. It took me a while to figure this out, but this is how I see it:

Alphas: The most masculine of all.

Betas, etc.: Much less masculine.

Omegas: The least masculine of all by far.

If you study Red Pill philosophy it is all about masculinity, masculinity, masculinity! “Don’t be Beta” just means don’t be a pussy, a faggot, a bitch, a wimp. Everything is down to how masculine you are.

Now it took me a long time to figure out the sad truth that so many place such an extreme value on masculinity, though virtually none of them will admit it, even those who elevate it to the most extreme level. This is because the nature of women is to blind themselves to what they are doing and why they are doing it.

The problem is that there are multiple violations of Red Pill philosophy that elevates hypermasculinity above all other values.

First of all, exhibit A: David Bowie.

Let’s get real now, certain at the height of his fame in the 1970’s, David Bowie wasn’t exactly the height of masculinity. In fact, if you see pictures of him from that era, he is an out and out androgyne, and an extreme one at that. He is a complete violation of the Red Pill command to be ubermasculine.

The problem is that Bowie was sexy as Hell back in the day and maybe even afterwards. You can chalk it up to being famous, but I think it goes way beyond that. Iggy Pop lived with him for a while in Berlin, and Iggy said he never saw a man who got as much pussy as Bowie. “From heiresses to waitresses, he got them all,” Iggy said.

If you go look at Bowie’s videos on Youtube, you see many women and girls of all ages swooning over him and say how bad they want to fuck him. There is no way on Earth that you can chalk all that up to fame. There are also many men on there swooning over him too and saying how badly they want him. So he’s heavily desired by both sexes. But if what women really want is hypermasculinity, David Bowie completely violates this theorem. And Bowie is Alpha as fuck; let’s get real here. Some women have said, “Well, Bowie is sexy.”

Total red pill violation: But this makes no sense either, as Red Pill says sexy = Alpha = ultramasculine. Bowie is an outrageous violation of Red Pill.

I can give you some other examples too.

DN, one of my best friends, who was a complete sissyboy, somehow got masculinized on the way to manhood. This is actually what happens to almost all heterosexual sissyboys. Research has been done on sissyboys. It turns out that 75% of sissyboys turn out gay, but another 25% of them turn out heterosexual. But on followup, researchers found that the 25% of who were straight had “masculinized” somewhere along the road and could no longer be said to be sissies.

Anyway, even though he masculinized, people continued to call him gay everywhere he went. I have no idea why dipshits did this because he wasn’t even 1% effeminate, and the only gay behavior is effeminacy. He simply wasn’t a macho guy. He also had a very soft voice and he was very pretty. He was also pretty sensitive. Most straight people are so retarded that they think that every man who isn’t macho is automatically gay. Actually, most men who are simply not macho (but not effeminate in any way) are completely heterosexual. Most straight people are also so retarded that they think all soft men, or men with soft voices, are gay. Actually the overwhelming majority of soft men and soft voiced men are completely heterosexual. Many straight people are also so retarded that they think that any men who is pretty or has a feminine face is gay. Now I have no idea why some men have pretty faces. But how on Earth does having a pretty face make you gay? Is it some sort of mysterious process?

Anyway, I was friends with him and I never for one second thought he was gay because faggots don’t hang out with me, period. Or if they do make friends with me, they start flirting with me and trying to fuck me the instant they meet me and they never stop until you end the friendship. So if a guy is my friend and he didn’t try to fuck me on first meeting, of course I assume he’s not gay. Why in Hell would a gay man hang out with me anyway? What on Earth for?

Well, during this entire phase that he was a young adult and the whole world was insisting that he was gay, he was fucking a small army of women. I have no idea who many women and girls this guy fucked, but I’ve hardly seen one man screw so many females in so short a time. He was simply incredible. A guy who the whole world insists is a faggot is fucking half the females in town. Makes no sense.

Total red pill violation: Red pill says Alpha = ultramasculine and DN  was basically an androgyne or at least a very soft guy. He wasn’t effeminate at all, but he wasn’t all that masculine either. DN is an utter refutation of Red Pill.

Another friend of mine was named DJ. DJ was almost worse than DN in that DN was not a wimp, but DJ was pretty damn wimpy. Once again, many people insisted he was gay, and they would never believe you if you said he wasn’t. He had a very soft voice, was extremely pretty and was quite sensitive. He was also a great big wimp. Nevertheless, I was amazed at how damn well he did with women and girls. And they were often quite good-looking too.

Total red pill violation: Red pill says all wimps are Betas if not Omegas, and it also says that success with women = masculine. The less masculine you, the less well you do with women. DJ is a total violation of Red Pill.

I could give you some more examples but you get the picture. When I was in Hollywood, I met a couple of men who were frankly just total faggots. They were both extremely good looking, and of course they both came onto me very hard the instant they met me (that’s the “gay test”).

One I met in a nightclub. DJ and I had free tickets to record company promo show where all the drinks were free. There were two couples at a table, and DJ and I sat down. The queer immediately leaned across the table and asked, “Can I buy you a drink?” to me in a very effeminate voice. His gorgeous blond girlfriend giggled. Apparently she found his homosexuality hilarious. You will find this is the case with a lot of gorgeous women hooked up with faggoty guys. They think it is cute and very funny whenever their boyfriends try to screw guys and they can’t stop giggling at it. Anyway, this very good-looking young blond-haired man had a total knockout blond with him. Go figure.

Another one was at my work. He wasn’t effeminate as much as he was an extreme wimp. Of course, the vast majority of wimpy men are completely heterosexual. I meet a wimpy guy and I think “straight” immediately. However, some gay men are not so much effeminate as they are wimpy. But the difference is that the wimpy gay men often take wimpiness to the most wild extreme. The first time you meet them, you almost fall out of your chair thinking, “Jesus Christ! This is the wimpiest man I have ever met!” They are extremely passive, display extreme aversion to aggression and violence, are incredibly picky and finicky, and often have such tiny wimpy voices that you almost can’t even hear them.

This guy’s name was Arthur. When he first met me, he acted like he had seen a Greek God and he stopped frozen in his tracks and said, “Hi there,” in this stunned and ultrawimpy voice. I immediately got extremely suspicious of him. After a while, I started to really hate him because he wouldn’t leave me the Hell alone. He was sort terrified of me because I was a quite menacing (during this era, people often told me how frightening I looked) looking punk rocker who wore leather, spikes and a snarl all the time, but that didn’t stop him. Maybe he liked it rough?

He was also my married bosses’ best friend (!?), so I couldn’t exactly tell him to go to Hell. I went to a New Years Party at my bosses’ house though, and there was Arthur, with the most beautiful blonde you have ever seen. Once again, this knockout was giggling away, apparently because she found his fagginess to be amusing.

Total red pill violation: Both of these men violate Red Pill in the most extreme way. They were not only not masculine, but they were out and out gay in a very faggoty, effeminate way. Red pill says only Alphas get the girls, and Alphas are masculine as Hell. These guys were so unmasculine they were out and out effeminate and girlish. And each of them had one of the most beautiful blonds I have ever seen. If they were effeminate and straight it would be one thing. But these guys are seriously queer and apparently they were both actively fucking men, possibly with their girlfriends’ knowledge.

I could give you some more examples, but I think you get the picture. The main point here is that the Red Pill formulation of Alpha = extreme masculinity seems to be wrong. Sure there is a lot to it, but some Alphas are not very masculine at all, others are wimps and there are out and out girly faggots with the most beautiful women you have ever seen.

I think that Alpha = masculine, Beta = less masculine, and Omega = least masculine simply doesn’t explain the whole picture.

Clearly there is more to being sexy than masculinity, and some unmasculine, androgynous and even out and out faggoty men can do outrageously well with women.

I would point out that all of these men were extremely good-looking. They all had very pretty faces, and I believe all of them were also blond. According to one theory, what women most value is looks. They simply want a good-looking man. Masculinity takes a back seat to looks. The best looking 20% of men are called “Chad.” So maybe if you are not ultramasculine, you still might do all right as long as you are Chad. This also shows that some women could care less about masculinity or are even perfectly happy with quite unmasculine men so the Red Pill formulation that female sexuality is all about masculinity has to be rewritten. It’s clearly not true in many cases.

8 Comments

Filed under Celebrities, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex