Video: not an argument

People miss how beautiful that expression is. However, in specific cases, they should be able to break it down precisely why or they themselves have no reply, no argument, simply an assertion.
You have no requirement to answer a non-question, it’s a habit of socializing that we speak upon the completion of a sentence, it doesn’t require that sentence have merit. The Burden of Proof rests on the initial speaker, still.

Yet it can’t be used to outright deny or dismiss without having a specific reason why.

Meanwhile, the only way to effectively deal with r-types, ignore them, however loudly they scream.

See Best Post.

You only protect your own, but they have made it clear they are against you. Don’t lift a finger.
They say strength is bad until they want you to use it on their behalf.

Hey, if they’re so strong without their weapons, if their arguments have the same calibre as a bullet, go right on ahead and let them stand independently, you oppressive shitlord, and die that way if necessary. It’s what they would’ve wanted.

If evil imports evil, what is there to save?

Yourself, is the answer to that question.

Self-interest is rational. Pathological altruism is insanity.
You help those who would help you, the other side of the golden rule. Darwin’s rules. Sacrifice for people who would sacrifice you is patriotism dialed up to the incredible level of a cartoon character.

I swear most of Molly’s job is talking down the autistic from their pedestal of self-righteous stupidity.
If anyone deserves the Rasputin treatment, it’s a terrorist. Thankfully, your taxes go to pay people with guns already. The Parliament attacker guy? Shot, if memory serves, by a white guy with glasses. In a country that stupidly restricted guns. Even we don’t need you, Gun Bro. If the State can’t do the basic thing of shooting the bad guys for us…

I’ve never, ever heard of a liberal defending a conservative from any attack, ever.
They are not like you. They do not like you. Partially because you would defend them, implicitly stating they’re too weak to do it themselves. If you respect them as adults, leave them be. Let them live (and die) free. You are not their precious State, you have no duty to them, you are not getting paid, that is not your job ~z-snap~. You can’t play hero to two villains. They have engineered this setup on purpose. By importing violent left-wingers, they get the distraction to sneak off (reward of cowardice: survival) and the claim to victory (reward of victory). They literally do not lose.

If they don’t value their own safety, why should you?
America is too diverse to be united. You have the Diverse States of America.

He’s wrong about signalling (thinking) as a sign of tribe. Anyone can signal, its value is nil. How many of those diverse callers would help him, if he needed it? The odds are against, aren’t they? There are plenty of r-types signalling K as the idea spreads to new groups and creeps into mainstream awareness. The other day I heard a random cafe-owner say, “I want to protect this country, I’m like a wolf.” R-types invade by signalling. It’s a social invasion, they’re the fifth column, the barbarians sacking Rome from the inside, a swarm of locusts crying out as they hit you. History has taught us the hard way that ideological unity comes from genetic homogeneity.
The culture war is one of ideas. The weapon is a meme. A tiny little piece of information, a snippet of truth.

Signallers are, more often than not, liars.

They signal whatever ‘virtue’ is powerful, hoping for scraps from that table.

They are the begging dogs of society, asking you to hunt for them. It’s like every time Roosh calls for “someone! do something!” and his little internet boyfriends scurry to rescue the damsel and White Knights whatever he asks for. What are you, his wife? At least “think of the children!” defends the helpless. Adults have no business defending other adults. They rise and fall on their own merit, raised or dashed on their own petard.
K-society says: They do it themselves or it doesn’t get done.
R-society? It’s very espionage, ultra deceptive.
They offer you friendship while holding a knife in their other hand. They extend an olive branch first because it’s less effort, not because they like you or believe in the healing power of metaphor. There is a bargain they author, that you never asked for, and if you don’t like it, the carrot, they’ll ‘offer’ the stick. This is called a con. Con artists rely on confidence and trust. Virtue signallers rely on confidence and trust…

They want control over you, that is their power, to wiggle you like a little puppet.

In a victim culture, they are the biggest victims. In a K-shift, they are magically K-leaning.
Occam says: It’s all a lie.

I warned you, years ago. I knew these interlopers would pop up like fleas.
They don’t mind you dancing the right-wing jig as long as it’s to their exact tune.

Guess which is which.

If your friends are your enemies, you’ll never succeed. How to test?

A k-type invented the expression: actions speak louder than words. Until I see you sacrifice for this tribe, it owes nothing to you. If all you have are words, speak to the birds.

Just because someone is smoke-signalling your tribe doesn’t mean they’re on your side. Indeed, this makes it less likely, a friend doesn’t feel the need to keep reminding you they’re not a foe, not a threat, like they’re anticipating something…


The incongruence should ping to you. What’s in it for you?

In the super-complex theories of strategy, this is called A Trap. It’s a primitive form of distraction by claiming Ally while wearing the coat of your enemy to cuckold him for whatever reason before attacking when factors are on your side and you can turn your coat back and show your true colours. This is the problem with games like chess, where the colours never change sides because they were bribed or got bored. You never get betrayed in chess because the enemy never falters and it’s all very polite and open, two equal lines fairly opposing one another with Queensberry rules. That was 2nd generation warfare, we’re on four. Then again, maybe it’s a commentary on the reality that a leopard can’t change its spots. Who knows? I certainly don’t.
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.”
They don’t fully quote it for some strange reason. The Bible is actually very witty.

Ask – why do they want your trust? Why aren’t they doing literally anything else? What’s their game? 

It’s a great way to buy time when you know you’d lose in a fair fight.

aka cheating

If this was the 15th century, a ship running up your flag is probably pirates.

And they won’t kill you with rum.


Back to terrorism. All the way back, centuries and centuries and centuries, like the ideas.

Self-proclaimed liberals have a lot in common with the mythological ‘moderate Muslim’; that is to say, they will claim to be loving and giving until they have power and numbers to be the opposite of those things.

The ‘American Indian’ only gave with the expectation of receiving more in future.

A liberal is a dictator waiting to happen. Biding their time until everyone else has disarmed and made nice.
They know exactly what they are doing. That is what guys like these do not get. Everyone else is slowly waking up. We make memes.

“So if I’m understanding Stefan’s argument correctly it is: “While you certainly have the right to defend yourself, you have zero obligation to defend anyone else against a threat.” Is that the argument you are taking issue with? If so, what is your counterargument? If there is an obligation to defend others where does it come from?”
They want all conservatives to rush to protect them, like the police. While we are occupied, they survive and screw over the next batch of rueful idiots. The type who, at the Gates of Saint Peter, would claim the moral victory is more important.
The self-styled ‘liberals’ scoff at loyalty to children, nuclear family and country… until it comes to discussions of noblesse oblige (without class???), pensions, the social contract and human rights (without property rights). Then it’s all about universalism, collectivism and helping those who can’t/won’t help themselves. They are morally relative, liberal with logic ….wrong, in bad faith (100% deliberate). What they say is usually ‘not an argument’ because it comes from a hypocrite (no-proof), a deceiver (valid use, not ad hominem) and they argue it from bad faith, really pushing something else entirely under the radar.

They are loyal to their own body, especially the neck. They don’t want to save the pandas, they want to save their own skin.

In common speech here, they’re ‘trying it on’ i.e. they know they’re lying to get what they want and disappear when their half comes due, but they’re hoping you don’t know that.

All their virtue signals are overt pleas to get, without giving. 

Argument and clause. Devil and detail. Plan and plot.

Essentially it’s;
and that, my friends, is why we mock them.
See: Why mockery?

It is also why you shouldn’t trust ambassadors. 300 was right.

That diverse cast of people calling into Molyneux are attempting to appease him while he gains power (they smell a whiff and cannot yet crush him) and then to advise him to his destruction once he has gained it (and after they have gained his trust). That is what high-IQ r-types DO. The toxic friends of the world. The fairweather traitors and degenerate preachers.

Clinically, they have many names. Sociopath tops the list.

Question a normal person: #crickets

Question a sociopath: you are (lie), (lie) and (lie), evil person! Appease me! Account for your sin!

They’ve found a scapegoat to slaughter.

Sociopaths especially detest those who describe their tactics to the masses for protection.

You can’t defame the truth, though, can you?

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.

SJW on expertise, entitlement to opinions and bullying

There is a chasm of difference between a subjective opinion;

I like chocolate ice cream

and a claim to/of (objective) fact;

Chocolate ice cream is better.

Verbally abusing people for disagreeing with you is wrong.
Name-calling is included in this. Ad hominem all the way up to Godwin’s Law is an automatic loss. If you have to call your opponent “a bigot who’s worse than Hitler”, then you lose the argument. That isn’t an argument. That’s an opinion, and defamation, and you’ve broken the rules of engagement in polite society (where debate occurs, not a slanging match on campus).

I actually commented on this because this vindictive little cunt is going around forcing her company on people, so much so the frail and elderly back away in fear, and someone needed to tell her the truth, here it is;


They’re actually trying 3 prongs.

  1. Coward’s method: “I’m entitled/I have a right to my opinion” to force a conversation (they’re meant to be consensual) to begin or end. When what they state is NOT an opinion, but a CLAIM. Response: We have a right to tell you it’s stupid and to Go to Hell.
  2. Appeal to their own authority: I’m an expert because I did XYZ. Addressed in comment, expertise is PROVEN. I’ve seen these people disagree with basic logic, no, you don’t know better than maths.
  3. Appeal to other authority: as if science all says the same thing when these people refuse to take seriously any data that proves them wrong (most of it). These are the I Fucking Love Science retards, when we all know they took liberal arts because they can’t pass Calc 1. Consensus proves precisely FA. We used to believe the Sun revolved around the Earth by consensus and in the very-real study of horoscopes and the expertise of astrologers, if you want a better parallel to climatologists who support AGW.

Keep that K shift going, they’re holding on by their toenails.
Spiteful little tarts verbally abusing old men in public for activism should be treated exactly the same at their Slut Walks. A fascist is someone who hates all dissenting opinions so much they try to ban, otherwise censor, or abuse (physically OR verbally) those who dare to disagree with their precious selves.

Link: 10 signs your mental illness is made up for attention

10 signs your Mental Illness is Made up for Attention

What I love best are all the SJWs trying to argue with this, when it should be the DSM people.

correction ohuhno idiots

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.

Link: The Fake Player or ‘Nice Guy’ Fuckboy

These have always been around.

They’re trying to play both fields, good girls and bad.

The simplest filter is to refuse to sleep with them, hence the infamous Nice Guy meltdown.
If sex is all they want instead of that romantic buildup, they’ll leave.

See how they portray themselves on social media. If they don’t have social media or heavily filter it, run, because nowadays only two types of people don’t have it: serial killers/rapists and people trying to hide who they really are.

Note how quickly they’ve gone through women historically. If they get over women quickly they’re either a plain cheat or a serial monogamist (emotional infidelity, lining up the next before dropping the last, stone cold bastard).

Good girls are likelier to fall for it out of unwillingness to conceive that some men might fake romance to get a higher quality of woman into bed. Aka Casanova strategy.

When the romance reaches a peak, ask clearly “Is there anyone else?” Other than an immediate, clear, slightly-hurt No, there’s someone else. If there’s someone else when you’re in full romance mode, he’s worthless.

See, he doesn’t want you to throw his lie back in his face later on, his social group will shame him more than he feels himself (clue: none). He’s hoping you’ll never ask. However, either party has a right to ask when the connection is building.

Worse than the honest fuckboy who upfront says it’s only about sex.

Thankfully, they rarely pass on their genes, too infatuated with possibility and The Chase to settle on a single woman. What single woman could be Perfect enough to bear his child, after all? He has so many to compare her with!

Leave the boys to it.
Seek the men.

Video: When male feminists drop the mask of sanity


That’s it.

That’s what they’re really like.

Such progress, with the whorephobia and insulting an innocent woman to get at a man.

If you think they would never do this to a woman, you would be wrong.
I have experienced this in real life when I dare disagree with them, a man boy.

There are misogynists in the world, but most of them hide behind the label ‘male feminist’ like a boy hiding behind his Mother’s apron. They blow their top because there are women they can’t control or fool.

I’ve noticed they’re even cowards when doling out threats. Instead of laying claim to it “I want to/will X” they will make it passive and say something like “I hope X happens to you” so cancer is common, also being raped, or “You do X” like suicide to cover for the fact they want to murder you (subtle) or some projected self-loathing like “If you died, nobody would come to the funeral” – they like that one. I laugh at that because ‘if’, like yeah, we could die…. or we could choose not to.

Pointing out this passive-aggression is the source of all their lives’ problems goes over well. I usually make it clear their conceit (disagreeing with me is a capital crime) doesn’t match their averageness. They hate being reminded of their averageness.

My advice for redpill women out there?

There is only one thing you can do. Let them run. Let everyone watch what a disgusting person they are, as they threaten to rape you and torture you (in public) in ways no sane person could come up with on the fly, and maybe film it. For the police. Seriously. They can lash out. If they demand a response, mildly amused mastery in your voice at their “true misogyny” is the way to go. Poker face. It confuses them that you aren’t scared, they erotically get off on your fear.

I’ve seen feminist groups ostracize men on the basis of these performances against me. In disgust. They’re that bad.