Comic: shit rapists say

Sorry, is this shitposty enough? They really don’t deserve better.

Ironically, these are the same guys to bitch about prison rape (prison full of people exactly like themselves). Because women/children/rarely men have no rights when it conflicts with their lust and sense of entitlement, but God forbid someone wolf whistle snowflake in prison, he demands social justice!

If anything, the Devil supports free choice – free of conscience.

It makes you wonder, were the Devil like a person, how much he hates humanity?

Why else try to trick these scumbags into deserving heaped punishment?

That would logically explain why a Godhead was fine with it.

It’s just bringing out more of what’s already there, the blackness of their evil heart. Blaming the Devil is like an American blaming McDonald’s. Dude, just don’t go!

When I’m standing in a bakery and really hungry, I can’t steal the food no matter how much my body’s instincts scream at me. Crimes have a mens rea. Guilty mind, intent, it isn’t spiritual or physical. People miss that fact because they distract from it. These perverts try to play “Real Victim Here” when, if being themselves were such a torment, they’d commit suicide (logically). They have the lowest risk of suicide of many pathological groups, because they compulsively lie (obviously) and inhumanely enjoy their sexual predation like a lion biting into a juicy gazelle. This is difficult for good people to wrap their head around. They enjoy ruin, including their eventual own (idiots self sabotage). They dig their own grave, call it “insanity” (they’re not) or sin, the result remains.

It isn’t an excuse. If anything, far from meriting compassion like a full human being, they merit lead and a shallow grave because we put all other predators down except for the most deadly – human on human predators with provably subhuman brains. Or hell, if we’re going to think Joker style about this, give them to the necrophile rapists, that’d be a plot twist. They don’t believe in dignity, after all. They don’t think they have a soul so it’s just a clump of cells left behind, whether worms or technical humans enjoy it shouldn’t matter.

Man has caused most of his problems by ignoring or preventing natural law. Most law is in the punishments and they fit the crimes. By keeping various people around and worse, encouraging them (you can’t rehab someone if it’s what they are) then they increase the world’s suffering according to utilitarianism and the “helpers” become enablers also responsible for the crimes committed (part of pathological altruism in a clinical context).

When therapists and lawyers are held personally (partially) responsible for the criminals they helped free to re-offend, that’s justice.

If they released a non-human predator, we wouldn’t get so soft. Violent criminals are not children. Infantilizing them is enabling horrors.

They didn’t know? some cuck will claim. Really? It was their job to know, they took the job, they took the money, they looked at the facts. Case closed. They claimed a lie, in court, that criminal X was safe. At minimum perjury and medical negligence to society. They lied to a jury and a judge. To get more money. Isn’t that… aiding and abetting? Bribery?

Sexual selection does not include rape in humans, hence the “selection” part. Even birds choose their mates, bird brain is an insult (unfair but still). Rapists like Genghis Khan are not, in fact, successful in the Darwinian sense. He was an r-type. Fitness is qualitative (K-select attribute), not quantitative (N descendants) and over sufficient generations the material of one rapist would be diluted out or dead (inherited high time preference trait is recklessness), which is far less of a genetic “gain” to count than the murders (of men! creepy fans of his) that allowed him to continue his rampage for so long (including deaths of his kin in his own army). Khan was the ultimate deadbeat abuser. What’s to admire? That isn’t civilized, it’s a savage. Savages are unfit and if you read Darwin this comes through clearly. He discusses sexual selection in the context of society’s formation and fitness and the struggle for life and peace and what we consider the long, painful process of civilization (e.g. sanitation, humans prefer one another not smeared in shit). Rapist genes are useless (incompetent individuals who, by definition, need to steal/parasite from others) and in fact harmful to a group (hence there’s such a thing as incestuous rape, they aren’t even “good” for close kin). Inferior genes do exist (selfishness is a hallmark of the unfit) and a desperate man is no man at all. Unfit genes are culled and this is good, this is what evolution is all about. Whether it’s the vain guy who wants to focus on his career and the gym or the rapist who gives women “the creeps” so they don’t want even more vulnerable kids with it, those genes don’t serve any human society, current or future, they should be allowed to go gently into that good night. Rapists only desire to reproduce for three reasons: 1. control of the victim/mother including financial leeching, 2. vanity/children as status symbol (like welfare queens) despite abuse of the child (they see it as an object that should be grateful they let it live, God complex feeds into this point) and 3. all the benefit of children who will probably try to love them and feel like taking care of them when they’re old and none of the investment (deadbeats should be abandoned in turn, they come back to the kids classically when they ‘need’ a kidney). Such dependence and parasitism (and on the innocent too) is low and disgusting. Loyalty is a two-way street. Loyalty evolved (reciprocity, pair bonds) to merit compassion, they are owed nothing but society’s shaming. [Shame works on the narcissist better than anyone else.]

(Note: Deadbeat mothers should also be abandoned, the logic applies to all of the predatory leeches).

Children owe their parents in as much as they acted like parents. It’s a job. 

Yet you’ll see them try to twist “honour thy mother and thy father” despite being atheists.

https://www.biblehub.com/2_corinthians/6-14.htm There is no fellowship. There is no obligation to a cheat in any game with rules.

Those are roles. You don’t magically become a parent at conception or birth, like modern simpletons claim, it’s really an IOU on years of upbringing. It’s a contract more than a title.

Deadbeats are like an employer who expects you to work but refuses to pay you. That has a name.

You know what is evolution, though? Natural selection. As in, murdering rapists and pedophiles to prevent the genes worming into future court cases, it’s good for the fitness of the group/tribe. They never “get” to that part. The Victorian society was so incredibly prosperous in the latter period directly BECAUSE it kept hanging for various crimes in the early period. A genetic cull preludes prosperity (dating back to the K/T extinction event allowing humans to best dinosaurs and later, the Ice Age giving Europeans* a massive edge at a unique latitude, an event Inuits missed with later migration Northbound), it’s a fact of history that some death allows worthier life to flourish whether the cause is a proportionate penal code with its act together, war with a vast drafting policy or fatal disease that picks on and exploits various human flaws e.g. promiscuity, by EVOLUTION. It’s the same with American prosperity, they hanged a bunch of criminals, were tough on crime (just?) for many decades and then magically, there was a long time where crime rates were pitiful, as if the problem stopped breeding. [Think rabbit farms but rabbits with rabies.] These are not human problems, it’s mathematical. There are forces that allow flourishing (fitness is the result) and those that regress society by depressing the flourishing forces (worst of all punishing those instead). Society is not obligated to keep those groups who endeavor to destroy it on an individual level. The Bible clearly doesn’t include punishment of violent crime as killing of 10 commandment fame because sometimes only death (let God sort them out alludes to killing, America) can prevent more death and trauma i.e. not killing your enemy means war eternally. It’s a binary choice of bad now or worse later.

Abortion of future criminals (I trust you can look up the stats) has prevented far more cruel murders. Would it be better to prevent conception or earlier in the chain of events, fornication? Of course but the fact remains, there are calculations. Human life does have a price – and a cost.

Keeping one human alive can incur a greater cost to humanity than any self-congratulation (sin of pride and playing God) at “sparing” their life (like you have the power or the wisdom to know what’s right). Such do-gooders are the most un-Christian people you’ll ever meet.

Suffering is not a wishy-washy thing. It’s quantifiable. 

If we slot them into r/K (as an extreme, tbf) then you’d be hard-pressed to miss how r-types have a high fertility rate (consensual reproduction or not) simply to compensate for their extraordinarily high death rate (this is true across species). To accept the sexual fact of the matter (ignoring the proof on parental investment requirements for fitness) then ignore the fatality side of the literal life/death equation goes to show these psychopaths are low IQ.

Most of them are many, many SD below the likes of Bundy**, who was probably killing for a cult (look at his background). Rape-murder is a cliche case because it’s the epitome of misogynistic rage (think Jack the Ripper) and the epitome of unfit (no baby if they’re dead and it prevents other members of society from survival too, like genetic civil war).

Basically, rapists are enacting a kind of civil war on the genetics of the society dumb enough to host them, whether it be with murders, causing infertility (trauma can or various STDs they pass) or their inferior weakling genetics eventually leading to the death of the better genome they forcibly combined with. They’re the lamprey on the good genes (measured in fitness) of their victims. Pictured:

Society is the victim, especially at a group level (genetics, gene pool). Society is the biggest consensual structure going. This is why the legal system is mostly imposing its values via punishments. When losers have nothing, society has everything. Justice does not mean everyone gets a cookie.

If they dehumanize their rape victims, society owes them no humanization (let alone privileged treatment) themselves. Sexual impulses led to the modern creation of cheap satisfaction toys and there’s always their hands. There is no excuse. Evolutionary arguments would actually call for their hanging or castration because Social Darwinism. For the good of the collective genome.

If nobody wants something, it’s defective.

*A Troublesome Inheritance goes into it.

**Do not suffer a male witch to live either.

For the point about selfishness, in the clearest context we call it cowardice.

Selfish people don’t just stop one day. It escalates like psychopathy, rape and murder.

Considering this –

Homework, think about this: is killing a rapist (child or other) worse than rape?

Society will be buzzing about that question after the next decade’s events.

Link: Bestiality orgies

We’re worse than the Romans, perhaps.

The dark truth about bestiality parties

In a major newspaper. This is where “if it feels good, do it” leads.

“consenting adults” is a lesser form, trying to appeal to a kind of legalism

We don’t let ‘consenting’ adults do plenty of things. Certain things you aren’t in the right mind to consent to.

Hardly anyone is mature enough at 18 these days to know what is actually good for them.

Appealing to minors, like the sex section of teenage magazines, is outright grooming.

“One woman describes how her first time was in front of her husband and eight other members of their BDSM group.”

I remember a commentor on Vox Day’s site suggesting that these pain/pleasure circuitry malfunctions, as well as being indicative of other mental illness (it’s always the BDSMers, isn’t it?) would fit many of the ancient criteria for demonic possession, demons being best known for their sexual sadism.

Personally, I don’t trust people who have to pervert any of the necessary pleasures for life.

This isn’t like handcuffs BDSM, the nice PR version, like lipstick lesbianism.
It never is. Escalation is common with addicts.

I was re-reading this link and well, it fits.

https://www.theorganicprepper.com/end-of-an-empire/

The immature fixation on sexuality as a polyfiller for the spiritual emptiness is too true.

All these Hollywood types high on their own fake PR have no idea what they’re dealing with when they host the PC term for orgies: sex “parties”.

50s parties involved a table of treats and dancing to a radio.

This will come back to haunt them, I guarantee it.

‘Born-Again’ Christians are the worst cucks

christiancucks

Worse than a slut pretending to be a virgin (ho>housewife) or a manwhore trying to go right and call others degenerates (nope, never scrubs clean, those STDs), is one trying to act pure afterwards and lecture everyone else. I just wanted to point out how infuriating this reasoning is.

We brought this evil upon ourselves.

This shit is the exact reason Christians have a terrible reputation.
I want Jesus to come back purely to give all these people a slap. The one thing.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/?s=moral+authority

Wearing a cross doesn’t make you God. Your individual opinion is still degenerate postmodern shit.

This #lifegoals isn’t even taking the name in vain (we all do this but tbh that isn’t the True Name), or even the Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable, this is taking the entire thing, the whole religion and its people and history, and then mocking it for personal power with public parody.

It’s identity politics. It doesn’t matter what you identify as.
It’s the behaviour.
If you act like a Christian, you’re Christian.
If you do not, you are not.

You earn it, much like respect, which is tantamount.

Where is the sorrow, where is the regret? Gleeful sinners.

They’re Satanists, happy sinners are Satanic. Wolves in sheep’s clothing.

http://biblereasons.com/fornication/

And they think they’re entitled to some goody-two-shoes wife, that another, better man would otherwise be assigned socially?

ugh why no please stop god kill me now rdj tony stark

[Since the sexes are born roughly equivalent in numbers]

R-type or K-type. You can’t be both. This is like that ambivert nonsense.
Like trans-moralism. They want to DO bad but be SEEN as good. Notice however bad a person is, they always want a good reputation? This is sexual deceptiveness, deliberate Dark Triad bullshit. These people are broken but deserve no sympathy. They chose it. They choose to use whichever sex like objects, knowing that ruins people (calling themselves red-pill, they know promiscuity is ruinous to civilized society). A game plan this whole time to use and abuse women like whores and then baby machines. It’s sick. Where’s the respect for your fellow wo/man? Self-respect, at least, in sinning against your body? Some people are lost and you can’t nor should you fix them. When the regular excuses run dry, they seek enabling by playing regret. Narcissists show contrition thinking they can fool anyone. It’s all an act, they’re the sexual Ted Bundys of the world pretending to be injured little birds, to have learnt the ‘hard way’ the things they knew and were told from childhood. No, most people don’t deserve a second chance and we aren’t God, so women aren’t obliged to give them out. You chose wrong. No second chance to make a good first impression, no second chances at life. This is called consequences. Good men used to protect us from the liars. They’ll just drag you down into their depravity. This is the ultimate deviant behaviour, Playing Good Christian Man. While in their hearts, evil.

The type to excuse cheating with an appeal to Darwin. Evil, despicable people. No loyalty. Sluts deserve other sluts. But no, they want access, including sexual access, to everyone. This involves playing the easy group first then turn-coating and cucking in the high standards group.

Putting a man in a dress doesn’t make him a woman. These guys would agree.

Putting a sinner in a church don’t make him good.

It’s the same BS feminist reasoning.

They think they can Have It All like SATC scum? This doesn’t happen, and a manwhore has a high divorce risk too. Nothing to do with the woman. You can’t be a player and settle down, they’re mutually exclusive lifestyles and mindsets. Your brain is literally wired differently. The studies show they’re dissatisfied whichever wife they do get because they’ve been spoiled sexually. Spoiled. Like an apple. Rotten.

We were warned about these fakers.

http://biblereasons.com/fake-christians/

Hell will be worse for these people than atheists. They are just Sunday Christians and they don’t care about Christ.”

The self-aware r-types, thinking they can get their end away and act all innocent afterward.

It is a sin.

At least morally and intellectually wrong but no, they deny this and pick up Sexual Revolution rhetoric like the fattest of feminazis. Quite the magic trick.

They act dumb on the subject of sin and dare cry Degenerate?!

Classic r-type triangulation, let’s you and him fight, allowing me to sneak off unharmed and commit adultery.

They seriously think they’re smarter than the Divine?

are you kidding me rn seriously wtf da vincis demons

Satan wasn’t that proud. Damn it and them.

I don’t even know what to say about this but personally I think the worst degeneracy is coming from ostensible self-proclaiming Christians. We need to self-police.

No Noooooo are you kidding me wtf are you testing me satan

If we can’t keep the flock in order, the rest of the West is fucked.

are you kidding you have got to be quinn glee

They claim to know God, but they deny him by what they do. They are detestable, disobedient, and unfit to do anything good.

Good. Tree. Fruit. Metaphor.

inb4 Bible myths;
Christians can’t hate.
God is ONLY about Love.
God ALWAYS forgives.
Jesus loves sinners.
Give Satan a chance.

biblehub.com/romans/12-9.htm

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.

They’re unfit to marry in with us. Culturally and socially they’re ruined, they just want to predate sexually on the one group that previously rejected them by acting remorseful. You know who does that? Psychopaths do that.

I would get off my horse today but it’s Mighty High.

Mill’s Liberty and do you have a right to ruin my life, indirectly?

I doubt those quibbling the scholar epithet (tongue-in-cheek, as you can plainly see) will claim to have noticed posts like this…

omg really wtf go away no audrey

I was reading around to a trounce a feminist at a cocktail party and this happens to be bizarrely applicable 150 years hence. I don’t usually read philosophy, most of being modernist trash. This selection is worth reading.

http://www.bartleby.com/130/4.html

each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights;”

Such as the right to have a non-cheating spouse.
There is more respect for a girlfriend/boyfriend arrangement than a marriage nowadays.

“and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing at all costs to those who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law.”

Violating the spirit, not the rule. Common with narcissists. Technically, I did nothing wrong, they’ll say, because I did nothing illegal.
Good people will disapprove of bad people and this has never, nor shall ever, make us bad in turn. To be discriminating is a compliment. Judgement is a core component of thought.

“As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.”

Natural consequences are not oppression – common sense.
The problem being that modern man doesn’t stand the consequences. Deadbeat dads, rapists getting off on technicalities, being rude but toeing the line to antisocial, these things used to be dealt with, as they should. By allowing them to continue, we encourage others implicitly and the problems get worse. For example, without rap culture, men and women would be far less rude to one another in this century. Rappers talk about respect because they can’t get it. The entitlement mindset originates from these people, who think they can treat everyone like dirt because reputation is a white thing. Cat-calling is a black thing. Wolf-whistling isn’t insulting, it’s like applause. Anyone being rude to women in the street is acting black, whether they admit it or not.

I do not mean that the feelings with which a person is regarded by others, ought not to be in any way affected by his self-regarding qualities or deficiencies. This is neither possible nor desirable. If he is eminent in any of the qualities which conduce to his own good, he is, so far, a proper object of admiration. He is so much the nearer to the ideal perfection of human nature. If he is grossly deficient in those qualities, a sentiment the opposite of admiration will follow. There is a degree of folly, and a degree of what may be called (though the phrase is not unobjectionable) lowness or depravation of taste, which, though it cannot justify doing harm to the person who manifests it, renders him necessarily and properly a subject of distaste, or, in extreme cases, even of contempt: a person could not have the opposite qualities in due strength without entertaining these feelings.”

The manosphere’s PR problem that killed it.
PUA too.
Why’s it always the same people? They are deficient, pick a trait.
Degenerates and deviants are deficient people.

“Though doing no wrong to any one, a person may so act as to compel us to judge him, and feel to him, as a fool, or as a being of an inferior order: and since this judgment and feeling are a fact which he would prefer to avoid, it is doing him a service to warn him of it beforehand, as of any other disagreeable consequence to which he exposes himself.”

IRL detour since you seem to like the gossip. It was aimed at me so it’s legit to bring up. Skip ahead to the next quote if you like, but this childish BS is the reason I don’t defend them from misogyny claims anymore.
Their first tactic upon being warned (so they can’t play naive later) is to project. Not SJW but bird brains nonetheless, they always project. They keep calling me a man, hilariously, because of the quality content I produce (they believe no woman can ever be smarter than them, screw statistics), and their White Knight instincts would kick in otherwise, and …what was it? The most shared one was the baseless caricature of a fat ugly woman in her 30s living in Moscow because I praised Putin once, can you make a random guess what the person levying it looked like?

evil smirk cheeky cavill

Not this, that’s for fucking sure.

Single. 30s. Fat. Ugly. Does nothing but sit behind a keyboard and bleat about the flaws in others. Instead of hiding from it like he would and expected, I trumpeted it, because it isn’t true. It serves to make the speaker look like a liar. I love how ugly people call beautiful people ugly (not that he’d know for certain but perhaps he sensed from my prose). We laugh it off, it’s confusing. You wouldn’t dare look in our direction in public and we both know it. Looks are a curse, a distraction from being taken seriously on any topic. We also have to put up with these losers negging us on the reg. It never works. Ever. Negging is an implicit admission that 1. they think we’re superior and 2. they’re insecure just by looking at us. Why would that work? I’ve never seen a proof. I think they’re ruining one another’s chances to scupper the competition because a lot of them turn into super-sweet charades of themselves around us. Ignore the data that beautiful people have higher IQs, we expect it. We’ve been accustomed to bitchy rumours since childhood (oh a random guy online says I’m stupid, I guess the psychometrics must’ve been wrong, puh-lease).
It isn’t true so it doesn’t hurt. They fail to understand this because the insults lobbed at them are generally entirely accurate, it’s the veracity that stings. Names don’t hurt, unless it’s descriptive, unless it hits home. They so spoiled by social media they think they can speak to people however they like (including cultural betters like upper class Europeans, Know your place, plebians) without being matched back, as if freedom of speech singularly applies to those Starting It. Their assumptions are wrong. Polite is not nice. We treat as we find. A doormat is disrespected by 3rd parties for weakness, women especially must verbally defend themselves moreso than men because we cannot do so physically. They understand none of this, however painstakingly you explain.

ItjOKBM

Another kept trying to call me rude because he randomly tried to start a BDSM roleplay/sexting session around how he’d spank me. My relatives would kill him for that, or at least beat him to a bloody pulp, but over the internet he figured he was safe from any reproach or call-out. I’m a lady, and he knew that, and knew I’d never be comfortable with those sort of things. Ever. Even from a husband I’d suspect there’s something wrong with them, repressed rage. Clinically disturbed people enjoy the sadistic discomfort of others and their social harm often presents as insidious boundary-pushing like this. Without permission, any of this, I want to assert, I randomly get pages of explicit material ordering me to do various things, that I would happily report to the police as harassment, when it was a clear fetish he was getting off on and this was about the third or fourth time he’d mentioned it. Previously, I’d made it clear I didn’t care for those topics, personal ones, and assumed it had registered after an apology. I ignored the attempt and took the High Road, the highest possible road although I came to regret it, hoping it was a drunken mistake but knowing better, and we haven’t spoken since, good riddance to bad rubbish. I didn’t reply, you can’t get more feminine than that. You’d think these people would stop trying to cause social harm at this point. Didn’t stop him from setting his friends on me like a 13yo schoolgirl and they’re persisting in randomly trying to start drama up again, to try and use my reaction against me (while decrying it when Anita does it). Yeah, I’m the problem here, right? You keep coming back to my material, I remind comments who emptily complain on their behalf. I’d initially met both parties with sweetness and sympathy (my regular politesse) I soon found they didn’t deserve, so I withdrew it quietly, and this American-spat nonsense is their way of trying to get my attention again and in a twisted way, back on speaking terms. It won’t work because I’m more intelligent, yet that’s hardly saying anything. Once you’ve ruined your reputation as worthy of politeness, it’s gone, like virginity.
Back to liberty. That was too wordy, sorry.

It would be well, indeed, if this good office were much more freely rendered than the common notions of politeness at present permit, and if one person could honestly point out to another that he thinks him in fault, without being considered unmannerly or presuming.”

In Europe, you aren’t. Not among the old vanguard. New Money is easily offended. Their position is new and must be defended by offense. The upper class, moneyed or by blood, are wonderfully un-PC, note the Queen’s recent comments on rudeness of the Chinese only this week. It’s in our culture to express the truth. Nice and nasty. Nasty truth is a public sport, see Blackadder.
To a woman on an official visit, Prince Philip said “I would get arrested if I unzipped that dress!”.
Real genuine English people are like this. We don’t pull punches.
SWPL and other Americans think we should be push-overs because they believe Hollywood and they’re sanctimonious tosspots i.e. I heard “You have a Queen, you should be polite!” from a tourist who grabbed me.

Where do you get this? Americans don’t get to use the word rude to us, okay? Odds are you infringed on a dozen rules of etiquette before we said something, you deserve it. Take ya medicine.
You guys have the Puritanical speech culture, not us. Our monarch is famous for swearing in private. Bess is brutal.
We dragged Cromwell’s corpse through a street to gamble, swear like sailors and celebrate Christmas.

“We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoid it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a right to choose the society most acceptable to us. We have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates.”

One rotten apple spoils the barrel.

“We may give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his improvement. In these various modes a person may suffer very severe penalties at the hands of others, for faults which directly concern only himself; but he suffers these penalties only in so far as they are the natural, and, as it were, the spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves, not because they are purposely inflicted on him for the sake of punishment. A person who shows rashness, obstinacy, self-conceit—who cannot live within moderate means—who cannot restrain himself from hurtful indulgences—who pursues animal pleasures at the expense of those of feeling and intellect—must expect to be lowered in the opinion of others, and to have a less share of their favourable sentiments; but of this he has no right to complain, unless he has merited their favour by special excellence in his social relations, and has thus established a title to their good offices, which is not affected by his demerits towards himself.”

One of my favourite parts. “He has no right to complain.” The proof of wrong is in the mirror.
They won’t respect themselves, they shouldn’t expect respect. This simple and the way people are raised with common sense.
People who self-abuse (food, sex, rest, things required for life taken to extremes) or are self-destructive in behaviour get no sympathy from the silent majority. First time, certainly, fifteenth? Get out of here. They always say the same thing, that we’re deliberately hurting them and making it worse. No, we’re cutting off the enabling teat, the milk of human kindness. Tough love.

Remember when oppression was used in the correct context? Ostracism and shame work because they crave popularity, being feeble individually.

Encroachment on their rights; infliction on them of any loss or damage not justified by his own rights; falsehood or duplicity in dealing with them; unfair or ungenerous use of advantages over them; even selfish abstinence from defending them against injury—these are fit objects of moral reprobation, and, in grave cases, of moral retribution and punishment.

And not only these acts, but the dispositions which lead to them, are properly immoral, and fit subjects of disapprobation which may rise to abhorrence.

A reputation isn’t unjust if your actions earned it.
He did X, is not a slight, it’s a fact.
Therefore he is Y type of person, has some grounds to it.
Z, we must avoid his rot, may be fair too, if a danger is presented and the warnings are clear.
People have a right to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Cruelty of disposition; malice and ill-nature; that most anti-social and odious of all passions, envy; dissimulation and insincerity, irascibility on insufficient cause, and resentment disproportioned to the provocation; the love of domineering over others; the desire to engross more than one’s share of advantages; the pride which derives gratification from the abasement of others; the egotism which thinks self and its concerns more important than everything else, and decides all doubtful questions in its own favour;—these are moral vices, and constitute a bad and odious moral character:”

Real deviants. Who harm their social group.
Devaluation is something they get off on, little known fact.
It’s like a list of flaws commonly found in adjacent parts of the internet. The anger outs them. Like their SJW enemies, they cannot take a joke. The narcissism of small differences.

If he displeases us, we may express our distaste, and we may stand aloof from a person as well as from a thing that displeases us; but we shall not therefore feel called on to make his life uncomfortable. We shall reflect that he already bears, or will bear, the whole penalty of his error; if he spoils his life by mismanagement, we shall not, for that reason, desire to spoil it still further: instead of wishing to punish him, we shall rather endeavour to alleviate his punishment, by showing him how he may avoid or cure the evils his conduct tends to bring upon him.

This only works after the first time, or first few times, to be liberal. If they ignored the proscriptions passed down in childhood, why would they listen as a selfish, closed-minded adult? Better to mock them and how they deserved it, for correction. Gentle but effective.
Even excessively liberal judges give stiffer sentences to repeat offenders.

He may be to us an object of pity, perhaps of dislike, but not of anger or resentment; we shall not treat him like an enemy of society: the worst we shall think ourselves justified in doing is leaving him to himself, if we do not interfere benevolently by showing interest or concern for him. It is far otherwise if he has infringed the rules necessary for the protection of his fellow-creatures, individually or collectively. The evil consequences of his acts do not then fall on himself, but on others; and society, as the protector of all its members, must retaliate on him; must inflict pain on him for the express purpose of punishment, and must take care that it be sufficiently severe.”

No clemency.

Degeneracy is a character defect. A core fissure of flaws. It cannot be scrubbed out, they’ll keep sucking the marrow from the good until the leech is detached from its host, and this leaves nothing of aid for the other good people. As we see in compassion fatigue, goodness, compassion and charity are a finite resource. They are natural nomads because nobody will put up with them, frequently abandoned by their family, most of their friends, or they have a psychopath’s rotation that last about two years because they too, have it up to here. If only people came with dust covers and reviews. If evidenced, Peeple would’ve been a fine idea. It would reintroduce the social considerations of a high trust society where word gets round.

“The distinction here pointed out between the part of a person’s life which concerns only himself, and that which concerns others, many persons will refuse to admit. How (it may be asked) can any part of the conduct of a member of society be a matter of indifference to the other members? No person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself, without mischief reaching at least to his near connexions, and often far beyond them. If he injures his property, he does harm to those who directly or indirectly derived support from it, and usually diminishes, by a greater or less amount, the general resources of the community. If he deteriorates his bodily or mental faculties, he not only brings evil upon all who depended on him for any portion of their happiness, but disqualifies himself for rendering the services which he owes to his fellow-creatures generally; perhaps becomes a burden on their affection or benevolence; and if such conduct were very frequent, hardly any offence that is committed would detract more from the general sum of good.

Finally, if by his vices or follies a person does no direct harm to others, he is nevertheless (it may be said) injurious by his example; and ought to be compelled to control himself, for the sake of those whom the sight or knowledge of his conduct might corrupt or mislead. And even (it will be added) if the consequences of misconduct could be confined to the vicious or thoughtless individual, ought society to abandon to their own guidance those who are manifestly unfit for it? If protection against themselves is confessedly due to children and persons under age, is not society equally bound to afford it to persons of mature years who are equally incapable of self-government?

Act like a child, claim paucity of agency or naivety, have the restriction in freedoms OF a child.

“I fully admit that the mischief which a person does to himself may seriously affect, both through their sympathies and their interests, those nearly connected with him, and in a minor degree, society at large. When, by conduct of this sort, a person is led to violate a distinct and assignable obligation to any other person or persons, the case is taken out of the self-regarding class, and becomes amenable to moral disapprobation in the proper sense of the term. If, for example, a man, through intemperance or extravagance, becomes unable to pay his debts, or, having undertaken the moral responsibility of a family, becomes from the same cause incapable of supporting or educating them, he is deservedly reprobated, and might be justly punished; but it is for the breach of duty to his family or creditors, not for the extravagance.”

Don’t tell the MGTOW/MRA that fathers are responsible for their families too. In fact, as men, the gender roles posits more responsibility than women could ever require.
You see why I go on about fake moral authority? If you can’t mind your own business, your hypocritical advice is unwarranted and unwelcome. You are fit to have an opinion but not to dispense it. Would you take diet advice from the obese? Why take advice on morality from a pervert, one who perverts the rules of decency – and for fun?
These people dispense pretty words on doing what you like without attention to duty. In a society, you have duties. Deal with it.

“In like manner, when a person disables himself, by conduct purely self-regarding, from the performance of some definite duty incumbent on him to the public, he is guilty of a social offence.”

Few vices are entirely private.
You used to be able to fine cheating spouses and their lovers. You want the cream? Pay for the pussy. They expect to have the benefits of the husband (cooking, cleaning, rutting) without the duties, see a pattern in the entitlement?
The problem with society isn’t stupid people. It’s that we, the rest of us have to live with them and make allowances for them like children, then we are expected to show sympathy to hedons. Ancient hedons were more like modern stoics actually, they had clear limits and rarely indulged, except when they did, they weren’t guilty about it. That’s the reason. Not that vice or indulgence is innately a good. The ancients, however tawdry their society, never went to this extreme of dopamine-drowned stupidity.

If society lets any considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences. Armed not only with all the powers of education, but with the ascendancy which the authority of a received opinion always exercises over the minds who are least fitted to judge for themselves; and aided by the natural penaltieswhich cannot be prevented from falling on those who incur the distaste or the contempt of those who know them; let not society pretend that it needs, besides all this, the power to issue commands and enforce obedience in the personal concerns of individuals,”

Nanny State.

“in which, on all principles of justice and policy, the decision ought to rest with those who are to abide the consequences. Nor is there anything which tends more to discredit and frustrate the better means of influencing conduct, than a resort to the worse. If there be among those whom it is attempted to coerce into prudence or temperance, any of the material of which vigorous and independent characters are made, they will infallibly rebel against the yoke. No such person will ever feel that others have a right to control him in his concerns, such as they have to prevent him from injuring them in theirs; and it easily comes to be considered a mark of spirit and courage to fly in the face of such usurped authority,”

Too many edgy people using insults without a place.
The Right isn’t exempt from false pride.

“and do with ostentation the exact opposite of what it enjoins; as in the fashion of grossness which succeeded, in the time of Charles II, to the fanatical moral intolerance of the Puritans.”

Reverse psychology.
Stupid people do it constantly, thinking they’re so clever.
They want me to be good, so I’ll be bad, I’ll show them being bad is good! They can’t trick me into doing what’s bad for my self-interest!

High time preference personified.

We have a saying you Yanks might like.

“Leave ’em to it.”
It means we let them go and get themselves into trouble, but we won’t rescue them.
We won’t lift a finger. We absolve ourselves of responsibility for them.
I think one of our cultural misfires is self-help. It makes people determined to misbehave. You can’t self-help unless you’re a therapist.

“With respect to what is said of the necessity of protecting society from the bad example set to others by the vicious or the self-indulgent; it is true that bad example may have a pernicious effect, especially the example of doing wrong to others with impunity to the wrong-doer. But we are now speaking of conduct which, while it does no wrong to others, is supposed to do great harm to the agent himself: and I do not see how those who believe this, can think otherwise than that the example, on the whole, must be more salutary than hurtful, since, if it displays the misconduct, it displays also the painful or degrading consequences which, if the conduct is justly censured, must be supposed to be in all or most cases attendant on it.

They out themselves, as with liars who make things up about their imagined enemies.
If you’re in the right, you won’t need to lie.

These people used to keep it to the underground. It was never out, in the open and public. They could never brag and the media derided them (they love salacious gossip like the Americans now). Those who aren’t ashamed of past misconduct are as bad as the Kardashians, they twist it into a point of pride. Again.

facepalm leslie howard

As if they’re whiter than white, more good than the people who’ve been good this whole time.

“There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings…But there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it.”

“These teach that things are right because they are right; because we feel them to be so. They tell us to search in our own minds and hearts for laws of conduct binding on ourselves and on all others.”

Ironically, those ‘philosophers’ slag off women for being emotional, irrational and having no ability to argue.
Projection Parade. The lust lies.
Here’s the SJW pseudologic:

“The Secretary, however, says, “I claim, as a citizen, a right to legislate whenever my social rights are invaded by the social act of another.””
“So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them: for, the moment an opinion which I consider noxious passes any one’s lips, it invades all the “social rights” attributed to me by the Alliance. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other’s moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard.”

Nope, you are 100% fully responsible adult. Responsible for oneself. Nobody else is more responsible for you, than you.

For those who signal all they like about degeneracy;

“It also appears so to me, but I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilized.”

Sorry America.

“So long as the sufferers by the bad law do not invoke assistance from other communities, I cannot admit that persons entirely unconnected with them ought to step in and require that a condition of things with which all who are directly interested appear to be satisfied, should be put an end to because it is a scandal to persons some thousands of miles distant, who have no part or concern in it. Let them send missionaries, if they please, to preach against it; and let them, by any fair means (of which silencing the teachers is not one,) oppose the progress of similar doctrines among their own people.

If civilization has got the better of barbarism when barbarism had the world to itself, it is too much to profess to be afraid lest barbarism, after having been fairly got under, should revive and conquer civilization.

A civilization that can thus succumb to its vanquished enemy, must first have become so degenerate, that neither its appointed priests and teachers, nor anybody else, has the capacity, or will take the trouble, to stand up for it.

If this be so, the sooner such a civilization receives notice to quit, the better. It can only go on from bad to worse, until destroyed and regenerated (like the Western Empire) by energetic barbarians.”

The Black Pill.

If you admire or fear your inferiors, they win.

Elsewhere he wrote about suppression of opinion, and noted there are three beliefs: false, half-true and entirely true.

“First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.”

Ironically, I got that one from wikipedia.
Similar text wall, same chapter as top, here: http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/four.html

Choices connotes consequence.
If you consent to a choice, you consent to the risk of bad consequence, and you must accept it as gladly as you would have done the good, to take your lumps because welcome to adulthood, everyone does.
R-types have one thing in common. They want to be celebrated for existing.
Even their opinions, in their grandiose mind, are worth a living. Hang market demand.
However, a logician would correctly assert that one should place like opinions in a book and charge for that instead. The readers would get a higher quality for a cheaper price, a physical product, the author more money, yet the frauds on places like Youtube never do this because people wouldn’t read their books. Why? People want their free opinion to laugh at them. You don’t pay the village idiot to be a clown because he isn’t trying, it isn’t work for him.

I sourced these third party quotes.

millnaturalconsequences millnaturalconsequences2

As well as this, a little later is the jape.

Spencer’s hedonism committed him to the view that life is worthless in the absence of pleasure or happiness.” pp.104 Hayek on Liberty, Third Ed.
I have never seen a better definition of hedonism or the r-mindset. Kudos, Sir.

They want freedom – from consequences.

laughing lol haha liar liar

That’s a good one.

When the time comes, don’t save the Leftists

This sounds obvious, but the natural reaction of a conservative is to help, we’re designed for high-trust societies. This won’t always be obvious either. The enemy looks like you too. The Fifth Column invited the invaders to destroy you. When those invaders turn on them, suddenly it’ll have been a tragic accident.
Save us conservatives! We’re all in this together! Ignore our personal lives up until this point,and the way we tried to outgroup you, suddenly patriotism is everything and if you don’t save us, you’re betraying your country!

They haven’t been loyal to us and never will be, however you treat them. If you spare them, they’ll congratulate themselves for tricking you, they think we’re stupid. In an economic downturn (to put it mildly), kindness to the outgroup can get you killed.
Conservatives are self-reliant. They don’t need your help in the first place.

Who are you? Where were you?

They will dress up in our clothes, claim to be ‘mostly’ on our side now (self-aware r-types trying to evade punishment), say they’ve ‘seen the light’. Hallelujah, right?

…Except they still want free shit. What this whole thing is about, theft. This time direct from taxpaying conservatives bc the State has collapsed, food from the Church drives when they were heathens, whatever…
They want the Alt Right to be their new sugar daddy, and we’re already seeing some try and fail to move us into this position (cough Roosh V cough).

Your response should be so what?

So what if you’re one of us now? That doesn’t entitle you to anything.

Great that you’re claiming to agree with us rhetorically, conveniently too late to be of any use, there’s no real risk anymore because we’re firmly established, but none of us owe you jack.
The Guilt-driven Gravy Train is over.
Nothing. Nada. Zero. K-types stand on their own. The best revenge is omission, to set them free: to succeed or fail on their own. Only K-types will succeed because they deserve to.
We’ll never owe you anything after everything you’ve taken from us.

They’ll try to use their new identity against us, like the trannies wanting taxpayer surgery and little girl’s bathroom access. Without perks, watch how quickly their new belief system crumbles.

We are not the cheerleaders, this is not a whiner’s club. We are the doers. Your vocal support is, in fact, insulting, when you fail to back it up with actions. They honestly think we’re this stupid, we won’t notice they’re still on their arse, expecting their majestic presence is sufficient contribution, like ghetto trash on welfare. The words out of a parasite’s mouth are meaningless.
Whether the right pay for it directly (then) or indirectly (via Gubmint, as now) doesn’t matter.
You’ve already been paying for these people as long as you’ve lived. They are the reason food prices are so high, VAT and housing shortages. We’ve been paying for the dead weights this whole time, it isn’t new.

Years we’ve lost against their people, decades of potential we can never get back.

therightstuff.biz/2016/05/10/retribution/

Remember all the times you were having an argument where the absolute arrogance, smugness, and self-righteousness of your opponent made you want to grab them by the lapels, get in their face, and tell them to get down off their high horse just long enough to actually listen to what you have to say. Remember all the times you self-censored about something completely obvious because you didn’t want to be called a racist, sexist, or homophobe.

Basically read this. It’s beautiful.

cool mocking shades yes peace

But remember most of all that the problem isn’t the minorities, the foreigners, or even the Jews.

Convenient tokens of excuse to avoid looking at the flaws within our own societies without them.

The problem is the traitors among our own people who for the sake of social approval have turned a blind eye to the real-world effects of their destructive policies. If we’re going to survive as a people, the traitors have to be purged without mercy. Anyone who holds leftist beliefs needs to have the same fear of expressing them as we’ve held for so long. Using the word “homophobe” should be as dangerous to them as saying “different races have different average IQs” has been to us.

Bring back slander and criminal punishments for repeat offenders (where they had no proof for their public assertions). What you say in public must have consequences again and it’s either this or duelling. Ks value their reputation, or PC speech police wouldn’t have worked this well. Calling everyone who disagrees with you various slanders is the opposite of liberal.
Hate speech law needs to be struck off, it doesn’t work as a law in any logical sense.

Only we can’t stop there, because we know from our own experience that eventually, if fear isn’t backed up by sufficient real-world force, it turns into retributive rage. Our day of reckoning is coming, and we need to prepare for it by being as physically fit, well-trained, and unified as possible.

aka doing shit
not kvetching like the rs in K’s clothing

We need to gather physical assets and financial wealth, and recycle them amongst ourselves just like the Jews do. And we need to stay vigilant against the inevitable Leftist attempts to sabotage our rebuilding efforts.

Self-aware r-types. Fake Ks. ‘On-paper’ Ks. Paper tigers of the nominal right.

SJW entryism will try it eventually, if it hasn’t already.

The Jews are successful because of their ingroup pref behaviours. Firstly, you must know who the true ingroup is... Couldn’t we all convert to Judaism, ostensibly? Like Pastafarians? Christians could rebrand as another new religion and/or claim Israel is a white ethnostate, and they deserve a place there, because it’s the Judeo-Christian God, after all. There are many ways this could get very funny.

The right online succeed because we aren’t mere signallers. We aren’t the fat tumblrina crying online about injustice, we aren’t the SJWs on twitter acting as if twitter is relevant and we aren’t making super-serious attention-whore videos pining about inequality.
We get shit done. The memes are a joke we can afford, to lure in new recruits, because the signalling is ironic. It’s a countersignal to beat the Left at its own game as a side piece to the true masterpiece, and woe betide any sneaky r-type thinking they can get away with just doing that hobbyist cathartic BS. You’re either standing with us or against us. Standing on the other team’s side and bleating how you’re ‘really’ with us won’t wash. And they wonder why they aren’t allowed a seat at the grown-up table. Wow, you use the word degenerate like ‘the’. So edgy, we’re super impressed. But we happen to know all your friends are degenerate, and you keep playing White Knight to them and excusing your own deviances, pretending your personal life is spotless and innocent contrary to public record, so….

I love this suit and everything about this demeanour

We have nothing to learn from you. We aren’t armchair philosophers.

We care if you walk the walk.
Act virtuous, not virtue signalling speeches moaning like a little tumblr basic bitch with the sexes/races/whatever reversed.
Nothing else matters.

Link: The ‘Alpha’ is Omega

http://uncabob.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-manosphere-is-basically-full-of-shit.html
“When the game community talks “Alpha” they are really describing “Omega” and when they say “Beta” they are really describing “Zeta.” …
However, it is entirely false to confuse the Alpha with Omega traits. One must keep in mind that human beings naturally exhibit pair-bonding and Alphas still pair bond while Omegas do not. [DS: CANNOT]. Most high partner count people I know, such as my two friends I mentioned above, are Omegas, not Alphas. They are sexual deviants with numerous sexual partners but their social ranking is low and that is why they need to continually game more than one woman at a time. They can only fool a woman into believing they are Alpha for a short amount of time and they have little ability to actually keep a woman of high mating value. Another reason they continually need to have more than one chick on the go is to protect their own emotional vulnerability. Of course, this behaviour also provides the Omega male with social proofing, which helps them get more chicks, but this is a different kind of social proofing than that which the Alpha male gets.
Each time an Omega “scores” another man gets screwed over. Except for virgins, pretty much all women are romantically involved with someone at the time they decide to discard the old for the new. This is not conducive behavior for gaining social power amongst the other males surrounding the Omega male, and in fact will soon leave him completely powerless and struggling for survival. If an Omega were the town blacksmith and he screwed 100 of the local women, he would soon find a large portion of the town shunning him and taking their business to the next town, if someone didn’t outright kill him first for his cuckolding behavior. There is very, very little survival value for a woman and child to be attached to an Omega male. Without government welfare picking up the slack and creating a “Keynesian Sexual Marketplace,” the natural market would soon see both the Omegas and their lovers removed from the race. [DS: WILL see them removed from the future, whatever they do now]
And herein lies the quandary with “game” as it is put forth in the Manosphere today. We have the Omega class (low value males – lower than Beta) posing as Alphas (high value males), and since Omegas are the scum class rather than socially powerful Alphas who have other males’ cooperation (along with high female attraction), the Omegas are flourishing while Beta males are floundering after being relentlessly propagandized to emulate the weak-willed traits of the Zetas. And, in many ways, Omegas are scum for how they treat other males. There are many who believe that when out pussy-hunting, it is their right to screw other men’s wives and then get a chuckle at their cuckolding of other men. This is deviant behavior, and certainly not “Alpha.””

Deadbeat self-styled ‘players’ and welfare queens are deviants deserving of one another. They often share the same mental illnesses (sex addiction, drug/drink abuse, domestic abuse, and borderline/antisocial/NPD, all three flavours of the same pathology).

I’ve seen some in the manosphere rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of those ‘whores’ getting their comeuppance.

correction ohuhno idiots

Uh… aren’t you a whore, too?

Sleeping around for social attention is worse than doing it for money.
If you also need men/women for your self esteem, and engage in notch-counting, that’s pathetic. Sexual Pokemon, really? Gotta bang em all?

Be careful what you wish for. You want the promiscuous to be outed, shunned socially?

Men won’t be forgiven for their sexual vices either.
In a K-society, reputation is everything.

Men are actually judged harsher for being cads and punished by patriarchal societies more lethally, because the fathers with power wish to protect their innocent women. That’s the way it ought to be too. Women are usually led astray by men, sexually. Men are the sex in active pursuit, the hunt. Men are the source of the sexual problem.

[n.b. These promiscuous people of each sex being about 15% of the population in all studies, nowhere near what they presume while salivating with sadistic delight over the prospect of female pain for the gall to sexually reject them aka omegas].

These discussions never mention the negative consequences for men, and this is unfair to them, they should be informed about what they’re doing, and how the negative repercussions won’t solely strike women when/if collapse comes.

Having it All is impossible, yes. That also applies to men. Namely, you can’t be a slut (r-type) at present and expect to contentedly settle into K-selection monogamy when the SMP collapses. Studies show dissatisfaction. You’ve already damaged your brain’s ability to pair bond. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever. There are brain scans. You’d have to deny the holy power of MRI to allow the cognitive dissonance to believe in the Sexual Revolution’s Big Lie. No, casual sex isn’t good for you. It isn’t good for anyone.

The manosphere ignores anything that makes them feelbad and triggers them with social consequences/responsibility/duty, in this regard, they’re the male equivalent of the feminists they verbally deride while secretly wishing to hate-fuck them. Childish people, childish priorities.

Muh dick is a Third World motivation.

I don’t know a single player who sustained a marriage, let alone a happy one. I can think of a pairing with one moderately good woman, but that bloke was mostly good anyway already and who knows, they could divorce. Players either die alone or die alone with a string of divorces under their belt, warning off The Youth from marriage because they were too impulsive and selfish to make it work themselves. It’s like the welfarites who tell the aspirant never to get a job, because those suck.

The DARVO response of perverts, deviants and sex offenders

http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html

DARVO refers to a reaction perpetrators of wrong doing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. DARVO stands for “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.” The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim — or the whistle blower — into an alleged offender. This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of “falsely accused” and attacks the accuser’s credibility or even blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.

Someone should show Vox Day.