Video: It isn’t sexism, it’s evolution

If you hate being a man so much, get a sex change (if you think it’s so easy). [1]

Lindybeige:

“How do you get a man to do a dangerous job?”

“Easy! Tell ’em it’s manly.”

[2]

I’ll spend the rest of my life recovering from that secondhand burn.

1 It’s like the guys who say being a single mother or housewife is easy…. then be the parent at home. You can do that but you won’t because you know you’re lying. Or become a nanny if kids are so easy to take care of “properly” and women exploit the system for easy money. Anything with a lot of time and money you’d be jumping to do and you don’t.

2 Patriarchy manipulates more men than Satan. March off to war and abandon your family for the glories of trenchfoot because Churchill’s banker friends wanted to make more money off your bullet-ridden corpse! Even now “manly” is how America sells its servitude – even to women!

Progress!

The people who’d oppose the title are essentially schizo on evolution, they’re tradlarping: “I’m redpill and there are sex differences but if women don’t act exactly like a man and do their ‘fair share’ [3] they hate men….  [4] except when they outdo men at ‘male things’, those bitches.” They’re borderline cases. They’re hopeless.

They think being traditional is easier than being modern. [5] I’ll wait here while the real trad people laugh at that.

It’s very simple logic e.g.

If women are helpless in a fight (inc. a rapist), they can’t be drafted.

Fact, policy consequence. There’s a specific context and application.

Wanting a taller, stronger male to lift furniture is not sexist, it’s prudence.

And you can always say no.

These guys act like any time a woman asks something they must acquiesce.

No. Grow up. Learn to politely say no.

3 Socialists. Lazy goddamned socialists.

4 A person who hated men wouldn’t care if you knew that fact so…. what? What is this as a train of thought? Projection?

Actual misandrists go on marches and stuff, they’re very open about it. Disagreeing with a man or refusing to put up with his effeminate impossible bullshit is not sexism. It isn’t about your sex, it’s your shitty personality, and if you’re going to blame your entire sex for this, who really hates men?

(it’s projection, said so)

And y u never mention race or class?

Classically, and presently, bigger struggles within the male world.
Ah, but picking on women has no consequences, they’re just cowards.

Nagging turns a woman’s nether regions into the Sahara.
Crying about things is what babies do. Women are not sexually attracted to it.

5 Fake K-types are just too lazy to embrace r-selection so they wanna leech off the juiciest steak of self-sufficient people by throwing around words like Community and Masculinity. Instead of having a family of their own and earning their own keep.

You know, like a real man.

As soon as it gets a little bit difficult, they’ll run away.

That’s why no woman wants them too. They’re dead weights.

Women are the picky sex in this species and any man who complains about this is just further advertising why she was correct.

It sounds like this

Person A: you’re getting fat.

Person B: I can’t believe you just said that! [6] I’m down to fifty Oreos a day!

And if they thought that was actually a good point. They didn’t really listen and understand the interaction.

6 Another tell.

Women deal with problems by talking, a man who cannot listen is worthless.
We don’t mind dealing with normal men with indoor voices, the guy who won’t listen, all bitchy with rationalizations? That’s low IQ and everyone hates dealing with them, it isn’t that they’re men, it’s that they’re annoyingly stupid.

At least other men don’t have to put up with the sexual side of the low IQ men – but women do, and it’s the worst part of them. It’s more obnoxious than all the other parts put together.

Men don’t believe this unless they rarely see it e.g. walking up to a woman and trying to force a conversation when her man is standing right there. We fume too, on the inside. The modern lack of manners hurts men more. Because the stupid ones have no leash.

Women assume any man walking up to them is too stupid to actually hold a conversation, otherwise they’d meet you a normal way (not the ghetto trash method). The worst are when the woman understands his point better than he does i.e. she correctly anticipates a come-on and says she isn’t interested to spare his blushes then he misinterprets this kindness and tries to gaslight her into thinking it wasn’t that (nobody is fooled) and she must be vain (when he walked up to her based on looks).

If no one ever “gets you” become a goth, you’re not complicated, you’re dumb.

India and China must go to war because they killed their women. Don’t do it, America. The lazy guys were genetic dead-ends anyway, don’t listen to them. They want other mens’ lines to die out too with utter chaos and ruin so “if they can’t have it, no one else can”.

It’s sexism to expect women to act like men or vice versa, yes there are exceptions but generally.

Monogamous men disempower bad women because they can’t use their one biochemical psyops weapon – orgasms. SJWs fear good husbands.

So who does Patriarchy fear? The fornicators. They’re weakened physically and compromised in society.

What kind of “Revolution” happened in the 60s? Why? It weakened the men.  They wanted to party and have it all than found a family.

The men who complain about being “manipulated” by women are always sluts, aren’t they? It’s like the gambler who goes to casinos and wonders what happened. It’s almost like people with weak impulse control suffer consequences for it – and society is damaged too.

If they want equality of outcome, well, both sinners should be punished.

Idiots. They got what they wanted and still moan.

Same guys who complain birth rate – as bachelors.

First comes love, then comes _____….. 

Those “men” are quite simply, simple.

The answer was bitchy videos on Youtube about “Western” fertility, obviously. And of course they always fucked (they’re scared of the word “fucked”*) women on the Pill, obviously. [7] “Spermjacking” isn’t really a thing, you donate sperm, that’s a choice. Society is not responsible for where you stick it.

*banged, smashed, screwed, the tells of a Peter Pan manchild

Patriarchy basically opposes the cult of individualism and the delusion that the damage of hedonism is contained to the person doing it. No, the wastrel abuses their family with their hedonism. They’re a bad son/brother/father/husband.

7 If they knew ANYTHING about the subject, they’d know it’s the economy. Men can’t afford to marry and support a housewife, financially.

Fertility rate is connected to GDP.

Do you see why Trump is so important?

Homework: so when I complain about national debt oppressing us, how many future children do you think it’s murdering?

Possible motive and secret history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais#Occult_involvement
And that P family link.

“As no demon manifested after three tries, the Marshal grew frustrated with the lack of results. Prelati responded that the demon Barron was angry and required the offering of parts of a child. De Rais provided these remnants in a glass vessel at a future evocation. All of this was to no avail, and the occult experiments left him bitter and with his wealth severely depleted.”

It is a mistake that Americans only look at modern murderers.
It has all the hallmarks – French, rich, using courtly manners (fame, glib charm) to use kids in occult rituals.

“[The boy] was pampered and dressed in better clothes than he had ever known. The evening began with a large meal and heavy drinking, particularly hippocras, which acted as a stimulant. The boy was then taken to an upper room to which only Gilles and his immediate circle were admitted. There he was confronted with the true nature of his situation. The shock thus produced on the boy was an initial source of pleasure for Gilles.”

Why hasn’t there been a film?
This gets very dark, though.
Yet it’s on wikipedia.

Deliberate choice somewhere.

“Poitou further testified that Rais sometimes abused the victims (whether boys or girls) before wounding them and at other times after the victim had been slashed in the throat or decapitated. According to Poitou, Rais disdained the victim’s sexual organs, and took “infinitely more pleasure in debauching himself in this manner … than in using their natural orifice, in the normal manner.”

If that isn’t a sexual sadist.

Yet the DSM refuses to include it (because psychiatric prisons don’t grant easy parole – they may be sick but they aren’t thick).

“very often when the children were dying he sat on their stomachs and took pleasure in seeing them die and laughed”

He doesn’t say where he learned this, implying it was… in the family.
People like that confess what made them like that.
Then confessing would logically spare his relatives from being suspected.

“After Rais admitted to the charges on 21 October,[39] the court canceled a plan to torture him into confessing.”

Shame. Nobody is as frightened of pain as a sadist.

“said to be so lurid that the judges ordered the worst portions to be stricken from the record.”

Thanks, from future historians.

It allows creeps to continue doing this stuff (enables) because nobody believes (appeal to incredulity) it ever happened in history… because where’s the official court record?

“The number of murders is generally placed between 80 and 200; a few have conjectured numbers upwards of 600. The victims ranged in age from six to eighteen and included both sexes, but were predominantly boys.”

One man, really? With power yes, but only one partaking?

Bathory is famous for hardly any, if you look into it.

Considering his MO of preference with boys, who wanted the girls?

For those wondering, boys were easier to get hold of, more gullible (taught men wouldn’t target them that way based on incredulity and a just world fallacy) and less likely to be missed when missing and presumed to have run away. Yes, it’s sexist. Classism is another thing they predate on, e.g. a famous person distracting the other from their gut with that fame or a hungry man offering a poor girl food.

“Writers such as secret-societies specialist Jean-Pierre Bayard, in his book Plaidoyer pour Gilles de Rais, contend he was a victim of the Inquisition.”

French book, eh?

He could have been innocent and conspired against by a cult, he could have been covering for a cult.

Here’s where it gets interesting, I knew this name from books and this is what’s been scratching at my brain hoping I’d remember.

In 1992, Freemason Jean-Yves Goëau-Brissonnière, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of France, organized a self-proclaimed “court” consisting of former French ministers, parliament members and UNESCO experts to re-examine the source material and evidence available at the medieval trial. A team of lawyers, writers and politicians led by Gilbert Prouteau and presided over by Judge Henri Juramy found him not guilty, although none of the initiators was a medieval historian by profession. In addition, none of them sought professional advice from certified medievalists”

I knew it. A French person first told me about him and how, in France, he’s a semi-mythic figure.

“The hearing, which concluded Gilles de Rais was not guilty of the crimes, was partially turned into a fictionalized biography called Gilles de Rais ou la Gueule du loup, narrated by the writer Gilbert Prouteau. “The case for Gilles de Rais’s innocence is very strong”, Prouteau said. “No child’s corpse was ever found at his castle at Tiffauges and he appears to have confessed to escape excommunication … The accusations appear to be false charges made up by powerful rival lords to benefit from the confiscation of his lands.”[65]

Well, did those lords kill the missing kids/teens then? Begging the Q.

The ol’ jealousy plea, typical of liars.

However, the journalist Gilbert Philippe from the newspaper Ouest-France said that Prouteau was being “facetious and provocative”.[66] He also claimed that Prouteau thought the retrial was basically “an absolute joke”. Historians continue to believe him guilty of the crimes, mainly differing as to his motivation.”

Who writes history again?

I wonder if any famous creeps have a painting of him in their mansion? That would seal it.
Now I’m starting to wonder if his ally Joan of Arc was actually a witch, as was considered at the time. Big if true.

Remember, those who read history, that the French used to use their own ancestor’s fallen soldier skeletons abandoned in fields as fertilizer, literally dig up the bones and grind them down and sell them to make food people eat. French people are weird, English paranoia is just. It isn’t just frogs’ legs.

I remember this Frenchman telling me how, in his research, he found it “odd” that Versailles was founded on a hunting …lodge.

In modern terms, it’s like buying an island. I would look at Versailles’s structure and ownership to look for clues but that would take years.

And why are Mason’s lodges called lodges? It’s a specific hunting term.

The Sun King is chock full of symbolism alone, there are whole books.

It’s like how Caesar might’ve survived if he’d kept it in his toga. The most famous bisexual nobody ever brings up in that context.

Victory lap

Don’t you find it strange the Twentieth Century was so technologically advanced?

Imagine my shock. Three months prior, almost exactly.

Sauce: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/mme/

I am shooketh, folks. Q r real.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/should-we-trust-q/

May I direct you to:
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/alien_contact.htm
including many things
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/exopolitica/esp_exopolitics_Q_0.htm

Yes, indeed, many. A. Thing.

Update: Logical correction: What calls itself ET is a question of existence and labelling, which is separate entirely from the question of the reliability of their testimony so stop bashing us with that Bible Churchians, your faith is too easy to shake.

To save the atheists time

Fridge horror: all experiments die.

It isn’t nice being in the petri.