Everybody’s Business is Nobody’s Business by Daniel Defoe


This is amazing.

If she be tolerably handsome, and has any share of cunning, the apprentice or her master’s son is enticed away and ruined by her.  Thus many good families are impoverished and disgraced by these pert sluts, who, taking the advantage of a young man’s simplicity and unruly desires, draw many heedless youths, nay, some of good estates, into their snares; and of this we have but too many instances.

Yes, the poor young men.

Knowing that Defoe wrote the phrase “pert sluts” intentionally gives me life.

It’s like one gigantic rant, I’m serious.

Some more artful shall conceal their condition, and palm themselves off on young fellows for gentlewomen and great fortunes.  How many families have been ruined by these ladies?

That’s a good point, we have too many pert sluts passing themselves off as ladies, and the male equivalents.

when the father or master of the family, preferring the flirting airs of a young prinked up strumpet, to the artless sincerity of a plain, grave, and good wife, has given his desires aloose, and destroyed soul, body, family, and estate.  But they are very favourable if they wheedle nobody into matrimony, but only make a present of a small live creature, no bigger than a bastard, to some of the family, no matter who gets it; when a child is born it must be kept.

Men are dumb.

This is how the r-genes spread.

Adultery is a mortal sin because it reduces the fitness of your legitimate children, that you owe the duty to (and nobody else has to pick up after). The money that goes on the bastard should be invested in your real spawn. You owe no religious, moral duty to the children of a mother you never married (when the oath for the duty is sworn and signed). In purely religious terms, the marital union is the only place of obligation, above anything else.

This acceptance of bastards would explain how aristocracy becomes decadent – the genes come from adultery.

Notice: it’s a class thing, he is equally enraged by the follies of men behaving below their station.

The Romans had a law called Jus Trium Liberorum, by which every man who had been a father of three children, had particular honours and privileges.  This incited the youth to quit a dissolute single life and become fathers of families, to the support and glory of the empire.

The mainstream co-opt of the Alt Right begins


I know I’m late to the party but we needed distance and this is a sound point.

“For those of us familiar with these issues, however, it is obvious that instead of being an attempt to understand the alt-right, it is an attempt to redefine it as what they want it to be.

This is the official beginning of the great co-opting. We knew it was coming.

Basically, they claim that everything the alt-right says it believes they don’t actually believe, but simply say they believe it as a part of a joke to piss off feminists and Black lives activists. Because they think it is funny to piss people off.

This is not the exact opposite of what’s actually happening, but it is close enough.

At the same time, they say “well, some of them maybe believe it, but they don’t really care that much.”

Contradiction is the sin of the liar.

shrug lol toldyaso fuck you bateman

I think they’re covering their arses for a lawsuit for peddling some of the ideas.
It won’t work.

And why do usual outcasts think they have a right to lecture the core thede?
Like, why are Americans ‘advising’ Europeans? We made you.
Why are we taking non-White opinions on White issues? Are some of us that desperate for approval?
How would an abnormal sexuality have a valid opinion on the regular?
I don’t mean abnormal in a bad way, that would be reading too much in, but the statistical sense.
Why are we even consulting the minorities on majority issues?

They want to take our Narrative and control it – for shekels.

Nope, you can’t do both.

You have your issues, we have ours.
That is the entire point of identity politics.
These people, along with the Whores of Patreon, want to water us down and make us irrelevant. In pretending to appease us first, the instinctive reaction will be to change ourselves to appease them. It’s like the SJWs, everything has a core message: control. Stop what you’re doing, evil people.

They aren’t out and out calling us evil yet, but in trying to pit us against one another with the tropes of the 88ers for example, they’re testing the waters. Let’s you and your shock troops fight. Are you guys seriously dumb enough to fall for this, let alone think it’s a good thing? They’re using social justice tactics. Know thy enemy by his lies. Anyone who twists the ideologies and does it for profit is naturally suspect. You shouldn’t expect monetary reward for doing the right thing.

Ask yourself: do you really think the Fifth Column or other interested parties wouldn’t try to make us infight, and hence, neutralize the threat the truth presents?

For example, in describing AR, most people would like to focus on the most scientific aspect: HBD. This goes without mention. Isn’t that suspicious? The thing that would turn most logical people’s heads? The science behind the bulk of our opinions? The logos to their pathos?

And yet, they push pathos.


They didn’t care before we began affecting their precious MSM politics.

These people are part of the system. Maybe not a big part, but would we trust a big part?
Trust our platform, they whisper. You don’t need your own, they promise.
Big money in the system, big incentive to keep it – whatever the cost.

We saw off the manosphere and according to their top people, the manosphere is now dead (I don’t believe that). The degenerates of the lot, the PUAs especially, have tried to ingroup with us low time prefs and it failed, in fact, the heat of our burns scorched their degenerate faces off and they’re still mewling and trying to claim we’re ‘irrelevant’ as we go from strength to strength. We rightly (chuckle) refused to take any manosphere manwhore refugees. Who are you, to tell us what to do? was the dominant theme of the backlash to their usurper attempts.
We’re racking up a serious body count and deserve to be taken seriously.
In the meantime, we mustn’t lose or forget ourselves. Do not be tempted by false promises of status and power. What we’ve been doing is working.

Link: The manipulation tactics of Trump, Sanders etc.


Yes stupidity is contagious

Probably going to get a derisive snort or two for posting this, but it’s important for analysis.

I get the impression that Trump wants power at any cost, and will say literally anything to get it. It makes his actions IN the White House impossible to predict, how can you decide in favour or against an unknown?


Beware the betrayal of the overly polite


The Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics in Beijing (AMACL) just released their findings that those who are“excessively polite” are considerably more likely to betray peers or comrades than those who are not effusively polite. The researchers at AMACL engaged in an in-depth study of Diplomacy, a strategy-oriented game in which players simulate pre-WWI Europe.

…As it turned out, there emerged rock-solid examples of betrayal that AMACL observed in their report. Perhaps most shockingly, the scientists discovered one of the most predictable signs of imminent backstabbing is sudden changes in conversational tone. Conversations would morph from average or uneventful to contain “patently evident positive sentiment, structured discourse and overt politeness”.

remember this when we're beyond all hope

We always knew.


1. They Lack Empathy

2. They Lie All the Time

3. They Humiliate You in Front of People

4. They Crave Attention but Don’t Give Any

5. They Always Place the Blame on You

6. They Isolate You

7. They Blackmail You

8. They Never Show Remorse

Despite all of the bad things they do – and the frequency with which they hurt you – emotional psychopaths rarely show remorse. The words “I’m sorry” aren’t in their vocabulary, no matter the situation. In fact, they’re more likely to try and convince you that the problems in your relationship are your fault.

called gaslighting

9. They Have a Sadistic Sense of Humor

Everyone has a different sense of humor, but emotional psychopaths are on their own level. They find humor in things that most people find unlawful or disgusting. While it may only seem strange at first, it evolves over time and becomes creepy and disturbing.

10. They are Extremely Charming at Times

And they wonder why they’re single.

Paper: The Vacuity of Postmodern Methodology (2005)

Click to access SHATVO-2.pdf

Abstract: Many of the philosophical doctrines purveyed by postmodernists have been roundly refuted, yet people continue to be taken in by the dishonest devices used in proselytizing for postmodernism. I exhibit, name and analyse five favourite rhetorical manoeuvres: Troll’s Truisms, Motte and Bailey Doctrines, Equivocating Fulcra, the Postmodernist Fox-trot and Rankly Relativising Fields. Anyone familiar with postmodernist writing will recognise their pervasive hold on the dialectic of postmodernism, and come to judge that dialectic as it ought to be judged.

Sorry for the intermittent disappearances, I’ve been doing damage control around Europe and have to pull up drafts. Since the Cologne thing, things have been getting hectic. I wish I could post pictures of Paris. March is really the best time for it while avoiding many tourists. There are many conventions and political things going on that need my attention, what with the referendum upcoming, so this might hold true for a few months…

Link: Don’t debate the dishonest


Mock them instead.

They can start their own damn blog to go off on one.

As for types of humour, you can mix and match.


Idiots will think you’re insane and leave you alone. That’s why my comments are quiet.

Video: Kleptogamy aka the Sneaky Fucker Strategy

I would call this the Bruce Jenner strategy. Cuttlefish spring to mind, donning female pattern colours.
Trannies and gay (really bisexual) men get to spend a lot of solo time with sexually available women. Like men in theatre, cheer-leading or ballet.

This whole series, called Wild Sex, covers evolutionary biology and while moderately tame by redpill standards, it’s hard to deny most of it. I highly recommend it.

Also relevant:

This subtly answers a common manosphere question;

Q: Why are modern women androgynous?
A: Feminist-dominant society punishes them otherwise, wanting to keep the standard required from men low or neutralize the superior competition with similarity (pressure from women) AND in a free sexual marketplace, they get less unwanted attention from aggressive, rude males wanting only one thing (pressure from men). 

Maybe that’s why the question goes unanswered, the manosphere doesn’t want to believe it’s half the problem.

Did I mention I recommend it?

Seduction, lies, rape by fraud and the Bank Standard

I was re-reading a post of mine on the old laws which protected marriage.

Reading about seduction law again, I wondered what type of legal standard would be fair.(This would apply to both parties by the way, and would only cover verbal deception for clarity, so a woman, for example, lying about her N count too).
The feminists will bring in rape-by-fraud, I disagree with the use of the word ‘rape’ which I believe throws a lot of people off and disrespects real rape victims, but this isn’t a new concept as the manosphere appears to naively believe (honestly guys look it up, crack a spine once in a while). This concept of misrepresentation has existed for most of time, in seduction laws. That Patriarchy you all think you love protects its daughters (the most common direction of victim).

I was contemplating the legal form of deception, and how this crosses over into other criminal law.
The standards are/will become a reasonable Burden of Proof, although you wouldn’t know it from the pick-up artists’ lachrymose response. Where else are these standards upheld? Why did the feminists choose “by fraud”?

It comes down to misrepresentation, and I believe I have come up with a reasonable thought experiment, a test for unfair deception.

Apply it to a bank. I call it the Bank Standard. 
If you said the same or similar things with the key terms switched out, to a bank manager, would it constitute fraud?
This avoids all the issues I can think of, that scared men complained about.

Fake compliment? Doesn’t matter.
Fake claim to a hobby? Nobody cares.
Fake laugh? Whatever.
Fake claim to favourites she shared? Nah.
Fake name? Fraud.
Fake age? Fraud.
Fake health report? (i.e. STDs, already illegal, including where you claim you’re clean from ignorance) Fraud.
I will marry you if you ___? (and they proceed to Welsh on it) Fraud. So much fraud. [marriage is ‘freely entered’, i.e. never conditional on either party]
Fake job or income figure? Fraud.
Fake religion? Fraud.
Fake hair colour? So?
Fake tan? Pfft.
Fake Rolex? Meh.

Note, none of the fraud conclusion examples are required of a man. That’s an excuse. You don’t need to give out certain information e.g. religion, income or age. You can refuse to answer. Most men don’t give fake information, because they have a little thing called a conscience. Or they know eventually it’ll be discovered and they don’t want to be a nomad for the sake of a few mediocre lays.

Why are the Fraud examples so bad? They materially affect judgement when provided in a way that the others do not. For example, a Muslim claiming to be Jewish to get a Christian girl into bed, and promising he’ll marry her. (I have seen them try to do this, it’s to explain the circumcision away). Fraud laws prevent people without a conscience preying on the innocent.

This would also, naturally, apply to women. It protects the truthful against abusive liars, preying on trust (marriage and relationships are ALL about the trust).
“I’m not a feminist” > These pictures suggest that was a lie.
“I’ve only slept with 5 men.” > Here is a list over ten.
“I’m 32.” > Closer to 42.

Let’s hold adults to adult standards.

If anybody can think of problems with this thought experiment, please tell me. We can tweak. We can rebuild.

First fake sex rape case (transsexual/transgender rape)

That isn’t what it’s being called, but materially, that’s what it is. Forney predicted it.


A blindfolded woman was raped by another woman pretending to be a man. Five times. She removed the blindfold and understandably lost it.

This might also involve a change of law to help protect male victims (amending the penetration clause, as if women can’t rape too).

Statistically, most trannies are male. So lesbians in particular will be following this story with interest, and that’s why it’s in the Guardian.

Everyone with pets must play favourites some of the time.

UPDATE: conviction: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/15/woman-convicted-of-impersonating-man-to-dupe-friend-into-having-sex