But that would save civilization

Trust r-types to come up with the best anti-dysgenics plan yet, out of an attempt at humour.

You take the bullets out of the gun before you wave it around, rather than covering everyone in Kevlar, logically.

Finally, a rite of passage I could get behind.

The financial and social burdens (approval) to enter matrimony used to put a damper on bad unions so a more technical approach must be considered. If you’re so alpha, why be concerned you won’t pass the fitness tests? The MRAs could be happy no fiendish, evil woman would sperm rape them, no more ghetto, no more alimony, everybody’s happy!

Literally 100% of women would endorse this plan, unless they’re spermjackers.

Seriously, all women would endorse this, unless parasitic. Only the reproducing rapists of men would disagree too. It literally cannot go tits up, my dudes. Think of the savings in the welfare system, for starters. That’s less tax necessary right there. Fewer screaming future criminals born into the world. Imagine the triggering of the Left at having no victim class to lord it over, no dysfunction sociologically. Instead, we nip their future voters in the bud, an existential genocide. They wanted to be replaced, right? CALL THEIR BLUFF. Pay all men a bonus of 10k to get it done upon 18 (and possibly to avoid the draft). Seriously. And get check-ups to ensure it holds. We’d end poverty overnight! The biggest predictor of poverty is premature parenthood! They can fund a future and have better odds of marrying well then too. Everyone wins!

Most Boomers wouldn’t exist if abortion laws weren’t brought in by them, but some years earlier. The hippies would’ve killed themselves. As the hippy mutates in every generation, imagine they just… stop. No oops babies for the manosphere to fake cry about. Everybody wins! It’s like our version of the Spartan selection. All you have to do is prove you’re not a fuck-up. Anyone with an IQ above a hundred can do that, if they choose. Imagine that culture of duty and honour. (fans self) It’s anti-Idiocracy. Galton would approve. All child related welfare would end overnight, including the immigrant breeding competition. The rationale of war widows is long gone. You chose to wed, you chose to bred, you can fund them all by yourselves instead. Therefore, the ‘anti-racists’ should logically support a move that quells anti-immigrant sentiment, by treating them like responsible adults. Spread your seed, pay to breed. Children are the ultimate luxury expense.

However, this would only work if ALL unmarried men had to do it (and already-married men also had to pass the tests of basic stability, mentally and financially). We don’t live in a tribal society anymore, solutions must be sweeping. Since men don’t carry the babies in this species, there’s no issue with medical side effects (and extraction under local is possible). Test all children at birth for paternity, publish the results in a public database and the system is rock-solid, all married men have assurance (or shame). If a married man sires a child adulterously, it’s easy to prove (paternity fail) and he is legally forced to get the snip-snip (a stigma and deterrent) and his wife can sue for the adultery (illegitimate children presenting a legal threat to their pre-established contract, maintaining the Biblical sanctity of the marital union in culture and encouraging women to marry out of this sense of safety). It’s a perfect system where everyone is kept honest. I think even MGTOW could agree to this. The problem genes in the species would die out. Degeneracy would disappear, gradually receding into small pockets over time until it went extinct entirely. It used to be underground and controlled for a reason. Rapists would fail in their strategy of stealing reproduction as a choice from women (so most rape would not happen, contra Freud’s blatantly dishonest assertions) or be easily caught. The moral culture would be gentrified and entitled parents would no longer exist because conception is not an accident. Most mental illness would also vanish. What is the downside? The Pill has already partially accomplished this, e.g. gay guys complain the gay ‘community’ is shrinking because many r-women who’d produce them are functionally infertile – but women aren’t responsible for the main r-strategy, literally called sneaky fucker in evobio literature. It’s the young dumb, and full of cum demo of low IQ men. We all know it.

Do you want to play Russian Roulette with the species?

The Pill damages women’s fertility in the long-term (look at gen X and IVF) and they’re giving it out to minors like smarties, for a long term use its inventor advised against, so this flip is really the only responsible solution. Surgical solutions on women would impair childbearing ability. This way would kill postmodernism forever, while allowing superficial bread and circuses to soothe the unfit (to be parents). It’s heavily patriarchal and gives men all the social power while allowing the cream to, er, rise. And replicate. Men improve as a group, genetically. Stupid women go barren as the viable men don’t want them. Women cannot deceive men as to their intentions. Women are respected as babymakers, but in a way we’d all agree with – protectively, no toxic pill chemical expectations poisoning our womb all because men can’t ice themselves for one afternoon. It isn’t like it’s every month for a week, is it? As Nature/God’s design intended, before the Industrial Revolution screwed us all over as a species with urban IQ shredders. There are also fewer great beauties among women because modelling and marrying with the Pill took them out of the breeding population, this would encourage those women back, with enhanced status to viable men and grant prestige amongst women. Women would get more feminine and beautiful as a sex, because all women have a natural desire to reproduce (conscious or not) and modern men pretend we don’t (to their own demise, sometimes). Easy sex has meant the ugliest women could breed, this reverses that trend. Forever. Natural selection of unfit female genes would thereby be restored, without reversing advances in gynecology. Femcels would actually exist and the baby rabies motive in the most rabid of SJWs would be laid bare for all of society to see. It would be undeniable and the power balance, interesting to see. If you only got it reversed to get married, divorce rates would plummet because the husbands would all be mentally stable, capable of leading strong families.

Again, marriage used to connote this filtration purpose – for MEN. By withholding their paternity for a woman who is worthy, wife material. Think about it.

In reality, looks and IQ correlate. And what man doesn’t want wide hips?

Hoes would need to work in Costco. Imagine it. You say muh female accountability and responsibility sure, but the only way to en-FORCE is to impose it, since women are the passive sex in the species and mirror changes in men with a brief time delay e.g. hyper sexual culture. You cannot affect change in women without first changing all men. It’s biologically impossible. This is genius. Smarter people on average by default. As national IQ rises, so does national GDP and life outcomes of the citizenry. There is no downside unless you’re a spiteful mutant.

As a society, we need to stop acting like women get themselves pregnant. It’s a curious, irrational mental block in the chain of biological causation. It’s such an elegant solution I had to post.

There is literally no downside to that plan. We clearly need a synthetic fitness test to match our synthetic era. Begin with a countersignal, it’s brilliant! It’s hilarious this is horror dystopia to a guy who will clearly never convince a woman to reproduce with him by conscious selection. It culls only r, who hate kids anyway. We’re sparing children abusive, ‘permissive’ parents and it’s 100% Biblical (the connection to God shown by the men, who might do an Onan with their own wife – this avoids that, it gets reversed to get wed – beautiful!). We’d stop seeing atheist couples treat matrimony like a narcissistic party with no fruitfulness (DINKs). Pretty much only conservatives would breed, and seeing as how partisanship is mostly genetic in studies, the Left would be dead. If neocons were smart, they’d come up with this stuff. Appeal to the high time preference by encouraging their genetic suicide tendencies. The political centrists have already Pilled themselves out of existence (a chemical abortifacient, see above – the Pill replicates the miscarriage effect of endometriosis, it’s secretly evil) but men shagging women on it never considered themselves responsible for potential abortion (unlike God). Two absolute facts (common sense) of any high IQ civilization: 1. Men are responsible for their seed, not women. 2. The Pill gave women too much power, I said it. Short of banning it, because you’re all the real pussies here, this evens the odds and feminists couldn’t complain because mens’ body, their choice to breed, since if all men got it by law there’d be no more sneaky fucker strategy, no alphas ripping the rest of you off (see seduction law for how that turned out, America) nor paternity issues with random cads concerning married men – also women couldn’t bitch about side effects, there’d be no need to take it without genuine medical requirement. It spares women suffering, including rape babies! The feminists should be cheering this on! The only valid reason for abortion -barring a fluke fatality risk- would disappear overnight. SHOW ME THE DOWNSIDE HERE, SJWs.

nb Men would have all the power in courtship again but no manwhores could complain because they’re freer than before!

If society wishes to treat fertility like a medical pathology, let’s be reasonable.

The fallacy of poor analogy where a fuck-up of a man (future deadbeat) is synonymous with a rape victim is my only problem with that tweet’s metaphor.
Technically, just enforce the patriarchal law that men have zero rights to a child if they failed to marry the mother. That’s literally why men got married, to have a legal right. If you’re not married to her, that is not your child legally and you have no say.
Conservatives already figured this all out millennia ago. It’s in the Bible.
It tells men to avoid seductive women, fornication and adultery i.e. only sleep with your wife. A man had no legal rights to illegitimate children, because they were so. Most of the West’s ills are due to this socialist oversight. Yes, the woman would have to go it alone, but compared to….? It’s either that or shotgun weddings by definition. Imagine if all deadbeats were forced to marry the mother/s of their babies and support them, to relieve the rest of us for caring for sprogs we didn’t consent to make (a policy of: not my orgasm, not my problem). America’s Idiocracy failing is the moral failing of recognising deadbeats as legitimate fathers. They are not patriarchs, that is a privilege (the woman consents to marry, easy to prove) and not a right or entitlement in any civilised society. It protects a family’s rights to approve of their child’s reproduction choice (as the fruit of their investment and marital contract). You can’t protect anything without deterrents, even an empty house will attract druggies wanting to do smack. Also, prevent second spouses (in a cinderella effect) from taking what is due to the rightful heirs of the first union. This is easily done and actually what a patriarchal culture would practise, over the laddish cult of hedonic cads dodging responsibility for their own fuck-ups, expecting everyone else to pick up the welfare bill while simultaneously feeling entitled to all the privileges of fatherhood. Men honour their commitments.

to avoid obvious questions based on post rarity:

re Robin Hood, I did say Zoomers would be losers. It’s only just begun.
Their data is more valuable than their trade, RH users are morons. All the data feeds into AI algos that pre-empt them and due to fibre optics, win. You’re paying the casino to look at all your cards while playing against you, basically.

re Trumpkin
Calm before.

re me
still not dead, and that’s amazing, considering. There’s a very long, comprehensive list of people I have pissed off. Mostly hiding in my BOL in the country. It’s great. Wifi sucks. Various celebrities are following suit. Isn’t it weird how half of Hollywood has gone quiet and people who used to get photographed constantly dropped off the map?
Hoping there’s no EMP because Chicoms may get pissy if their invasion plan is thwarted. Half of Hong Kong arriving in England would make Boris look just as based as I always claimed he was. As you know, I’m his biggest fan. The perma-vaccine push every four months looks less like ‘crazy conspiracy’ every damn day. Nobody listen to Cassandra! I am very used to it!
We’ll probably be fine. 85%. If somebody kills Trump I’ll be worried.

The usurper won’t last long.

Currently: watching a video of Mads Mikkelsen doing the drop splits. It’s been a rough year.

Marriage relieves stress, biologically

Don’t listen to Hollywood.

This Is the Secret Benefit of Marriage You Didn’t Even Realize

“A new study published in the journal PLOS One has provided evidence that having a spouse by your side can be a real stress reliever in a moment of crisis.”
“Interestingly enough, a 2018 study found that when romantic partners hold hands, their breathing, heart rate, and even brain wave patterns actually sync up, which enables them to relieve both emotional and physical pain. But this new BYU study is unique in that it used a more biological means of measuring stress, as opposed to relying on surveys.”

“The study also builds upon previous research that being married can help lower your blood pressure, body mass index, and cholesterol levels, reduce your risk of heart disease and dementia, and even boost your overall longevity. For more on this, find out why Science Says a Happy Spouse Means a Longer Life.”

happy wife, happy life
women don’t need to be told the reverse

If there were a supplement that provided all these benefits, the MGTOW lot would be jumping for it.

I think people would respect them more if they just admitted they haven’t found the right one, no shame in that.

Study Here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0212703

“A new study that was published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that when romantic partners hold hands, their breathing, heart rate, and even brain wave patterns actually sync up. According to pain researchers, the more those brain waves synchronize, the more the pain that either of them feel subsides.”

Sweet hand-holding study: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/16/1703643115

“The mechanisms that underlie social touch analgesia are largely unknown.* Here, we apply a hyperscanning approach with real-life interaction of dyads to examine the association between brain-to-brain coupling and pain relief. Our findings indicate that hand-holding during pain increases the brain-to-brain coupling network that correlates with the magnitude of the analgesia and the observer’s empathic accuracy. These findings make a unique contribution to our understanding of physiological mechanisms of touch-related analgesia.”

Look at the studies. Seems pretty biological to me. It had to pass Ethics.

The male pain is reduced more, it’s just difficult to tell since female results cluster.

Right end of the red line, compare to left legend. Male reduces to zero.

In real terms, the superior improvement of men should be reported.

*Unknown = pair bonding, idiots.

An important nb:

Why is all the religious stuff healthy?

Prayer, fasting, marriage, fidelity, community.

Activates the almonds.

Social evolution et al.

So it’s especially unhealthy that marriage rates have dropped among the working-class.

Why aren’t there rent controls on the cost of weddings? Just a basic wedding.

Not those poncy ice sculptures of a swan, screw those.

Human history was polyandry

Most women got their top choice. If a woman has her pick of the men, that’s polyandry.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool

So, sure, genetically polygamy has a long history… most men would hate that system though.

But eggs (and the carrier) are expensive, sperm is worthless.

SEXUAL SELECTION IS EUGENIC.

That is not a bad thing. Selecting out the weak are the ones whose offspring wouldn’t have survived long anyway. Humanity would’ve died out if they didn’t choose the healthy and civilized.

By low IQ alone, a sizable number of men should be rejected.

Insufficient men existed genetically for so-called hypergamy, a marriage detail of the 20th century where rich men preferred beauty in women (regardless of background, given the finite supply in their own class, they had to marry down) which has NOT continued into this one (aka not how evolution works). The social phenomena of hypergamy is why male sexual selection fails, it’s dysgenic, they fuck down and over generations, ruin their bloodline because they don’t have any decent standards (dating studies reinforce this). They prefer a pair of marginally nicer tits over quality descendants (see IQ/class studies, regression to the mean) who actually continue to breed (so their investment was not wasted).

To this day, white women are least likely to miscegenate, and yet men, knowing the ruin that follows, are somehow more open (sexually desperate) to the prospect. This is why women are the prudent, selecting sex, the peahens assessing the tail feathers. It’s the only system that works intergenerationally.

Monogamy is still the best course in my opinion (or look at the Third Worlds with too many men and not enough war falling into sewer-exploding chaos), the way humans have evolved in civilization (not like other primates) and it’s definitely the best course for men.

You know, mathematically.

Men save time picking a good woman, impressing a vast sample size of ONE and then mate guarding. Their instincts arise from ancestors’ success with this. Parental attachment becomes secure and that leads to stable child development e.g. later menarche, and then improves odds of grandchildren, etc… etc.

[Being a sterile manwhore means nothing in evolution.]

This isn’t about man feelings, thank you. It’s as impersonal as genetics.

From here on out, no normie filter.

You have been warned.

Much is written by foolish men on the longer technical male fertility window, omitting quality studies, but what they fail to notice is how the vast majority of men would’ve been dead by middle age (mid-30s) thanks to rites of passage, crime, war and disease. The best quality men had to be rewarded for surviving somehow.

They bring up wolf packs (one, monogamous alpha pair) and lion prides (most males are dead) without the slightest glimmer of self-awareness.

EVOLUTION IS A HIERARCHY, IDJITS.

The cuck thing intrigued women because it seemed like quality men were getting their act together by refusing to support the weak ones any longer, letting the entitled leeches of society e.g. deadbeats, shrivel up without the taxpayer teat. It’s more a promise. Why did women vote for Trump? ACTION.

Hillary wanted to import weak, cowardly men to flood their already swelling domestic angry ranks of would-be rapists and murderers.

Women didn’t vote for her. Shocker.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/12/17/americas-stop-hitting-yourself/

“If I hated American men and wanted their legacy to die out, I’d convince them women are like the Jewish Lilith and never to marry or have kids (both of which extend male lifespan and joy).”

Anyone who falls for it deserves to die out.

Women didn’t talk about #killallmen because, well, we kill most of them by genetic suicide anyway. What’s there to say?

Why was this such a huge hit? Listen.

He didn’t think she was good enough, so she rejects him. Now he’s alone.

She wanted to invest, he didn’t. Now he can’t find equivalent offers.

What was she supposed to do, sit around and pine while her ovaries dried up? He had at least three years! That’s three decades in ovary time! Shit or get off the pot, man.

It’s like passing up on a Ferrari because it’s the wrong colour. Men are not passive.

[Also why fronting and negging do not work. Sir, there is a LINE. Please move over so the next guy can talk. You see this in clubs.]

Men get confused since women have options – it’s like offering BBQ to a vegan or a Prius to a Trump supporter, we don’t want those options.

We’d rather have NOTHING.

What’s worse for men – there’s no such thing as “alpha” or there is, and you aren’t one?

So why don’t women talk about it?

We do, you don’t hear it.

At no point did Jesus say “and thus every man is entitled to a waifu” but a lot of men heard it.

The perfect woman of proverbs 31 wears purple silks to make her husband look good but they point to the vain line in another section about pearl braids their husband can’t afford. The problem there isn’t jewelry and fashion, it’s keeping up with the Joneses instead of being a good wife. If you can be a good wife first, roll on the pearls.

Even under so-called polygyny, the women get to choose to marry – the best man, rejecting N-1 of males.

Again, basic maths.

However, this was in there:

I’m sure they forgot.

To be friendzoned, you must actually be friends.

Most people are acquaintances.

Hey guys, I am very smart for saying this but – water is wet?

Why are misogynists so common and misandrists so rare?

To this day, I haven’t seen a misandrist go on a murder spree.

Thousands of years and counting. They have cause, look at crime stats.

What are they doing in revenge? You don’t see a future together? Funny, so does she.

Imagine if women sent an influx of vag pics to Milo. It looks like an audition.

Why do we ‘slut shame’? Fine, I’ll humour you. They don’t choose good men, allow bad behaviour that inconveniences everyone and add shit to the gene pool. Nobody wants shit in their pool.

You let the men think they run everything while killing off the ones who disrespect you.

And that’s why you are here.

The top segment of men support this, by the way, roll on Patriarchy, time of oddly fatal male labour? Abortion only for rape babies? Lots and lots of ground war? Why did Marx point out class war as crushing men? Men are their own worst enemy.

Try to deny it to yourself with each passing year. Women win, just accept it and maybe you can share in it.

Why do “male feminists” turn out to be secretly misogynist the whole time?
Why do they have a reputation for rejection?

This is why weaker men wanted to prevent women from deciding for themselves who to marry.

Evolution is brutal and cannot abide weakness. Mother Nature.

Your ancestors were the least misogynistic of the bunch, it’s selective breeding like domesticating dogs. And you think, to keep women in line and producing for society, being the exception will help you? Ask Elliot how that went. Product of hypergamy Elliot. Angry, mongrel Elliot, who blamed women instead of his father who didn’t want a white son. Cannon fodder in saner times. Not heir material. Why did he preferentially stab Asian males?

Misogynists hate women – but they hate men even more. Most psychopaths are misogynists, most psychopaths are men, most homicide victims are….. ?

Did ya guess? It’s men. If only there were a clever way for nature to resolve this problem. To produce a… civilization?

They don’t become crazy because they’re bachelors, they are bachelors because they are crazy.

If women are crazy, why want them?

As mentioned here and elsewhere, misogyny is a known trait of the inferior male.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/link-inferiority-the-opposite-of-genius/

Good men don’t despise femininity. Rich people don’t hate the banks.

If you had to choose a man to invest in, would you choose a protector or abuser?

Good men use the death penalty to remove the scum from the gene pool, women use passivity with not a drop of blood spilled and each generation progressively more peaceful. Until the weak men imported more dregs out of spite. What do they salivate over? Men being killed in terror attacks, no valor and women being raped, no choice.

That is the omega.

Omega females want pretty women to have ugly, stupid or mud babies. You can’t be out-competed by a better bloodline that doesn’t exist. Again, spite is evil. Wrath is a deadly sin.

That picture needs two fewer dogs and two more children. Ban pets and the white birth rate would skyrocket.

Remember, Muslims hate dogs? Pattern recognition is a skill.

Why in times of war do women say of men in praise “he was a good man, he didn’t deserve to die”, what does that imply?

Real men aren’t selfish

Patriarchy doesn’t smell like money, honey.

Keywords:

CHARACTER, honesty, reliability, intelligence, nobility, selflessness, respect, resilient.

Most good men in the history of mankind were far from “rich” and it’s easier to be charitable with a lot to spare. Jesus mentioned the hypocrisy.

Why do Americans insist a man’s worth is secondary to his net worth? How shallow are you to ignore character?

Well, maybe that explains your divorce rate better.

If the economy went down, the con artists who struck it rich would be worth…. what, exactly?

Look at the soul. The inherent quality of men.

Female power in the occult

https://www.clairenakti.com/articles/what-is-the-real-essence-of-beauty


Reminds me of Taoism.
Taoism doesn’t actually have sexual practices (however some have twisted it to try and claim they do) for that reason. It is the spiritual overcoming the physical. To “de-base” yourself again completely extinguishes the work already built on. Monasteries and nunneries were rooted in this idea.

The wise men don’t want to be drained (and by strangers) and be thrown off with bad karma (like a creative block or stumped feeling, apathy or obstacle event). Action —> Result. You choose one, you choose the other.
Historically a promiscuous man is considered weak in all religions (except Satanism, you’ll note*) because the male path of enlightenment involves impulse control, that’s the male power. Think of a military general. A promiscuous woman gives up something that is (because of her chosen condition) worth nothing, quite a disgusting notion to people who believe in sanctity, and promiscuous men also don’t value their energies as special either, so their own influence disappears from themselves like morning dew (and they typically blame women for ‘tempting them’, projecting the problem is typical). This leads to a permanent dissolving of willpower (death of will) eventually, they call it “player burnout” online but it’s really like tapping your own veins and draining your blood then wondering why you’re weak. Idiots with scant self-awareness had little influence to spare in the first place, and so drain themselves into a curious blend of melancholy, apathy and furious self-pity faster than other, hardier men. Celibate men were respected in saner times because they had power (of the self) and this produced a laser-like focus and it’s no coincidence so many geniuses did their best work while surrendering sexually to no women.

How much bland art was clearly made by a degenerate who slept with the subjects?

How much great art was made by homosexual men, who couldn’t possibly be tempted by a woman? (or married hetero men for other reasons).

How does the art of each make you feel? Typically, the first makes people feel unclean but the latter a strange purity.

Women seen as inspiration on a collective level strengthens a man.

To surrender sexually to an improper woman or to be an improper man individually is draining (like the trail of bad luck following degeneracy that can even be seen in statistics like suicide risk). At best, the man tries to take on a female role (Lord Byron hoovering up muse figures, Wilde the same with men) and this is repellent to those who believe that men should be masculine (most men, back then) and stand firm in their principles. This is the ultimate cause of those principles and as you can see, it isn’t a double standard at all. If women aren’t meant to sleep around, that implies directly men aren’t meant to either, otherwise they’d have to become homosexual. Patriarchies protect men from wasting themselves by masturbating inside various women (it’s a loveless union) although when it overdoes this or for unclear reasons lost over time, the subjects assume it’s keeping them away from the “fun” (a child’s assumption) because they don’t understand the risk or threat to themselves. It goes beyond themselves individually too; to family name, personal social reputation, family estate and fortune, future marriage prospects, shaming their friends with bad company and associations and so on. At minimum, it lumbers others with awkwardness, selfishly. A man’s responsibilities in society forbid dalliance with the underworld elements. It always resurfaces somewhat with the degenerate, sin sticks to them, however they might appear unscathed to shallow people. If everyone ate from the cookie jar, the tragedy of the commons would pretty much provide what we consider a Third World society. It would be unruly and the individuals selfish, feral and uncivilized. We’re well on that course because, since women can’t rein the men in (and some are Satanic, hating men and encouraging their destruction**) then who is supposed to play father to men who shunned that powerful leadership role of their own sex? Men are too PC with one another and standards died as a result. It’s a youth cult that makes them wish they were Peter Pans, never changing or learning or taking on duties, stuck in a hedonic purgatory, like being dutiful is shameful and up is down. The manchild doesn’t rebel so this shift was planned. Where is the honour in such people? Natural slaves.

They don’t have dignity to value themselves beyond a performing phallus, integrity to choose their hobbies and friends wisely, they don’t know the value of hard work (bitching on twitter is not work) nor the satisfaction of being useful to your kin and the relief that duty brings the salt of the earth character.

They assume everyone is jealous of them (projection) because they cannot comprehend how lower impulses can disappear entirely when you realize their illusory nature (best known in Buddhism but Jesus embodies it too).

Most modern men would surrender to Satan in the desert after one hour for a glass of cold water and a shiny car.

No wonder women don’t respect that and ignore it for distractions like career, hoping it’ll go away and they’ll police their own standards in their sex eventually. Like, stop wearing your trousers round your ankles, for one. That’s an easy one. Women by definition cannot play father to a man and guide him like this, playing mother is enabling (and sexually repulsive) and the smarter ones don’t want to encourage it unless they hate men.

Corruption is the rotten apple spoiling the barrel. When it comes to rampant hypersexualization in society, consider the source. Do you think various pajama boys would get away with it, if they didn’t get the biological kick of orgasms as a reward (from porn or a woman in person)? What you reward, you encourage. We encourage indolence, insolence and weakness (this was the intentional product of the ‘Sexual Revolution’ in destroying Western Men). A man loyal to more than one nation is a traitor, what is a man loyal to more than one woman?

…Useless to either, at best. A burden, like an overgrown child.

Like the self-proclaimed family man avoiding his wife and children for a ‘mistress’. I’m sure that doesn’t mess them up at all….

Male power involves as much discernment as the female, for different reasons, throughout all religions. Chastity benefits men in their personal life more than women although it is a virtue for both (power for the male, discernment for the female). Lust is a deadly sin especially for men although modernity has encouraged you to forget this and disturbingly, treat it as the ultimate virtue of a man (to lose himself). They never expressly say what form Satan assumed in the desert to tempt Jesus, I assume female (although the energy of all Devil figures is very destructive and not at all nurturing). I think the #MeToo stuff is triggering the weaker men because it exposes their loss of control which they had believed was cunning concealed from women. Logically, they claim they want tougher punishments on all criminals, including hanging and I’m sure they’d change their tune if it involved their mother/sister/daughter. To personally identify with various types of rapist (including those who target men or boys) shows how weak the modern character is. Everyone gets tempted by things from time to time. So what?

It’s a test, you’re supposed to be strong. These are the defective ‘beautiful ones’ who believe gym gains and sickly cologne make up for their defective and subhuman nature. Metrosexuals don’t survive various societal corrections. Their first impulse on seeing beauty is corruption and degeneracy, much like the rapists they empathize with (instead of their victims like a man with a conscience would).

If you transported them back to the 50s they sexually fantasize about, where the streets were apparently full of young, thin and femininely dressed women, they’d be Ted Bundy. “But they looked really sexy!” level of retarded entitlement. They actually think tease is an insult (women are supposed to look like it) and temptation is an excuse for crime.

Your lust is your business. Picture a fat person blaming cake. Just because you’re triggered doesn’t give you any rights or privileges to get what you want. If so, every time I walk past a jewelry shop and they don’t shower me in diamonds, they must be taunting me. I want it, they’ve got it, what’s the problem? Why can’t I always get what I want? (Women want more from life than men so this is a very good example, nesting instinct means men would still come out with less). It’s just an excuse for anger, popping off like an irritable toddler, it’s the sexual equivalent of road rage. (Ragequitting from women, expressed in hatred of becoming a husband, is actually funny to women – they’re complaining they’d make a bad husband who’d make a bad choice of wife). Mantrums are embarrassing, they’re announcing, proudly how unfit they are. It’s like misogynistic Trigglypuff. They act like women are chasing after them down the street with a veil and false pregnancy positive.

If it’s so bad, get castrated. Honestly, if being horny provokes so much suffering or you are so self-destructive as to hand a rope to a misandrist in fucking one. Chemical castration seems to be a popular option nowadays. They assume women and their hormonal profile don’t feel temptation (HA) and by the time they come to the truth that the problem is them (and not all men) they want to switch back because men get away with more weakness (boys will be boys, weak men turn a blind eye to one another). Eventually they’ll get swept up in a war, probably civil war.

nb *Because Satanism isn’t a religion, it’s anti-religion, it intends to destroy men by encouraging their weakness and worst impulses. Rationalizations are the best way to accomplish this, stupid men are very gullible to any idea that makes them feel strong or impressive, because this way they can delude themselves and appear to have their cake and eat it.

**Remember when the SJWs openly screeched that Trump supporters wouldn’t sleep with them? It’s the witch with the poison apple, come on. It’s the only way they can corrupt and influence men, wasting their energy that could be put toward MAGA and other greatness.

Explaining shit like that.

There’s wasting time, then there’s a Margaret Thatcher colouring book.

Why do they think female rapists exist and the Bible says to avoid seductive women? Whether you think you want them or not, they’re sexual predators. Of course they’ll ruin your life if you let them, that’s what predators do! Stop encouraging them.

This post also clarifies this section of the Bible.

God made femininity and not to have something to shame or corrupt.

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

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

Lindybeige:

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

“Easy! Tell ’em it’s manly.”

[2]

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

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

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

Progress!

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

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

It’s very simple logic e.g.

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

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

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

And you can always say no.

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

No. Grow up. Learn to politely say no.

3 Socialists. Lazy goddamned socialists.

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

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

(it’s projection, said so)

And y u never mention race or class?

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

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

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

You know, like a real man.

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

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

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

It sounds like this

Person A: you’re getting fat.

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

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

6 Another tell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idiots. They got what they wanted and still moan.

Same guys who complain birth rate – as bachelors.

First comes love, then comes _____….. 

Those “men” are quite simply, simple.

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

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

they brag about being really bad in bed with violent metaphor

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

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

Fertility rate is connected to GDP.

Do you see why Trump is so important?

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

Ishtar energy and sexual ruin

Roughly speaking, something to bear in mind.

As for married couples, I’ve noticed a process.

Madonna/Whore comes from the male inability to reconcile the woman he loves with the woman he fucks. They view the wife like a replacement mother and feel disgust or rejection of their desire projected onto the wife, especially if she’s dutiful – they see her fussing over the business of the home and childcare. They disgracefully think lust and love are meant to be separate and always kept separate (this stupid false belief literally causes men health problems inc. impotence and it’s also why they marry sluts). It’s like they think they’re corrupting her with their conjugal rights. It becomes a serious turn-off, like she’s tainted or impure for desiring him (repulsed by her lust) or it isn’t “safe” to sexually express – with their SPOUSE. Husbands CANNOT repress their sexuality and basically rob their wives of that cherishing experience. It ruins marriages, sex is the glue that holds marriage together and while ebbs and flows are normal, either depriving the other, while bad, isn’t as bad as seeking it outside the union (always adultery). That’s a divorce category because it ruins the union, spoils the trust, the connection itself is divorced between the parties. No splitting or the woman senses this and retreats, in passive femininity and trust (how women solve problems), assuming he needs his own space, he’ll come back soon and then he feels abandoned when actually, she’s waiting for him to be the Man first. Because he is. A wife is the most sexual woman. It’s the total experience including fertility, modern men fear the completion of the cycle is the “wrong” thing but actually it’s postmodern sterile sex that’s incomplete* sexuality (and likely causes most of the psychiatric issues associated with promiscuity). Men experience the fulfillment of their sexuality when they become a father, this is why their hormones change for about a year after the wife gives birth!**

Husbands also stop flirting with their wife in modern times, a fact I am certain is a divorce risk… like, no? Why would you think that’s a good idea? The Bible says if you don’t get everything at home you’ll be tempted outside it. Flirt with your damn wife, women are verbal creatures! Women need that verbal affirmation, or society will replace it. Missionary work, crash dieting, various passive-aggressive unconscious punishments that take her energy outside the union and onto worldly things (so not cheating but damn close and it seriously raises the odds she’d escalate to that).

Women get (passive) the verbal (flirting) then men get the physical (sex).

It’s a very simple process and I have to keep explaining this to people. This is old common knowledge. Usually there’s nothing actually “wrong” in the initial stages of marital “problems”, they just don’t flirt! It doesn’t occur to them!!

It isn’t something you do for courting or that kids do.

It’s verbal glue.

You have fewer arguments. Seriously. This is so simple so a therapist (if they know) will NEVER EVER tell you because it’s FREE. Free puts them out of a job.

A husband who wants his wife to be less sexual shouldn’t have married her, frankly. And he can’t expect her to degrade herself, (stares at America) sexuality isn’t doing everything, that’s a sign of a problem where the lust is covering it. There isn’t any shame in marital sex, American Christians need this hammered into their skulls. It isn’t dirty if you’re married. Sex is marriage glue. Repeat this until you know it in your bones.

*Imagine you kept eating and eating and eating food but were never satisfied and actually got more frustrated. Congratulations, sexually, that’s hook-up culture. Nobody says this because they don’t want to offend the single or infertile but sorry, that’s evolution. It’s like saying we need air to breathe, it could offend people with breathing problems but so what? Doesn’t change the fact.

Ancient times measured sexual encounters as satisfactory based on whether or not they were “fruitful”. They knew. Those were incredibly patriarchal societies, well, this is the kernel of truth behind all patriarchy.

You don’t see the father of five wishing he had two.

It’s also why broody men in our culture are shamed as patriarchal.

**And miscarriage or infertility can provoke divorce. In biological terms, you fall in love for two years to conceive and then the parental bond is the heightened connection, the sight of proven fertility, parental oxytocin from interactions. I wonder if childless marriages (by choice) are also a divorce risk, I’d assume so since it replicates infertility.

Random but I wonder if a Roe v Wade repeal would include the Pill abortifacient? Biologically, it must. It’s a chronic Morning After pill, another chemical abortion. Both are given to minors, more grounds.

“Muh Bible” misogynists

This isn’t the meme you want but it’s the meme you deserve.

Source:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:6-8&version=WE
Narcissists and atheists always lie (about the Bible).

So I screencapped, provided a link and enough context either side that the meaning is plain.

U mad?

For more real Christian quotes (from the Bible) to trigger liars:
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/12/27/differences-without-power-dynamics/

Viking welfare system including child support

http://www.academia.edu/161539/A_Medieval_Welfare_State_Welfare_Provision_in_a_Twelfth-Century_Icelandic_Law_Code

If Vikings think providing is the manly thing to do, what’s a modern soyboy’s excuse?
They also had divorce and actually, a very very lawful society. Turns out you can’t conquer other peoples if you fight unfairly with your own kin.

Call it chivalry if you want but fathers who invest in their kin group have better fitness.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/rk-and-trivers-parental-investment-theory/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/r-types-polyandric-and-k-types-monoandric/

And women don’t cheat because they’re ovulating, idiots.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/female-fertility-doesnt-encourage-cheating/

We don’t have a naturalistic fallacy excuse either!

You can’t have a patriarchy without fathers who take responsibility.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/02/14/interpersonal-deprivation-from-single-fathers/

Extra credit:

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/link-feminism-as-the-death-of-self-respect/

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/women-notice-how-you-treat-the-rest-of-us/

Indian mutiny or excuse to rape?

Freedom fighting isn’t a cover for raping a bunch of white women but okay, history. OK.

Click to access Sepoy_Women.pdf

It’s difficult to find discussions of this.

As Jenny Sharpe has shown, other accounts invoked the ultimately unrepresentable rape of British women through hints and innuendoes

If you want to liberate your race, why murder white babies and rape the mothers or their daughters?

This was the rape gang scandal of its time and inspired paintings.

There are some acts of atrocity so abominable that they will not even bear narration…
We cannot print these narratives—they are too foul for publication. We should have
to speak of families murdered in cold blood—and murder was mercy!—of the violation
of English ladies in the presence of their husbands, of their parents, of their children—and
then, but not till then, of their assassination

Who talks about this?

In similar terms of unrepresentability, the Englishwoman’s Review reported in August
1857 that “the details of the sufferings and barbarities endured by English women and
children almost surpass imagination

Back when men were men and protected their women.

Unless you wanna claim you can install the greatest Empire ever and not be a Patriarchy.

Which I don’t think anyone is going to claim.

The Englishwoman’s Review (and Drawing Room Journal of Social Progress,
Literature and Art) was published from 1857 to 1859 and was, according to Margaret
Bentham, a “proto-feminist” journal that sought “to address the women of England
from the women’s point of view”.[31] Although it identified the lack of occupation for
middle class women as a pressing social problem, the Englishwomen’s Review refused
“to prate of women’s rights”, and rather redefined “rights” and “occupation” in more
feminized terms as “usefulness and kindness”.[32] In its extensive coverage of the conflict
in India, the Englishwomen’s Review focused on the fate of British women. As Vron
Ware explains,
the paper adopted the tone of the aggrieved victim, giving full encouragement to the
brave men who survived to avenge their sex. Accounts of dead children, of rooms filled
with blood, matted hair, mangled toys, rotting clothes, would all have had a particular
impact in the pages of a woman’s paper which aimed to reinforce the conventional
female role in the domestic sphere.[

The men were scared to cover this.

In its coverage of female victims in the ‘mutiny’ and its calls to avenge their suffering,
articles in the Englishwoman’s Review closely resembled those that appeared in more
mainstream newspapers with largely male readers such as the Times and the Illustrated
London News. But, at the same time, another newspaper that was addressed to female
readers interpreted events in India in markedly different ways. Although the Lady’s
Newspaper and Pictorial Times reflected the same domestic concerns as the Englishwoman’s
Review, its interpretation of events in India was very different. Unlike the
Englishwoman’s Review, the extensive coverage of the ‘mutiny’ in the Lady’s Newspaper
included several vehement protests against ‘the war cry “For the Ladies and the
Babies!” ’[34]

Those are the SJWs. Nowadays they’d work in Rotherham.

But its coverage of the Indian uprising came to eclipse all other
stories in 1857 because “every other matter is just now of secondary importance. The
magnitude of the atrocities and the immensity of the stake have united to secure the
public mind, and it is satisfied only with what has reference to the great rebellion”.[36]

This used to be common knowledge, do your schools mention this? Haha no. Don’t be silly. All Indians were Gandhi and their holy men never rape little girls, they just sleep in the same room alone to “test” themselves.

In August, the Lady’s Newspaper pleaded that:
If there is a political necessity for wholesale butchery, let it not be done in the name of
woman; if the women and the children of our country have been the victims of the
heathen, it is not so we would have them avenged; if we cannot raise these barbarians
to our own light, let us not sink into their darkness; if we sicken with horror at their
atrocities, let us not follow in their blood-stained footsteps.[37]

Victorian “If you kill your enemies, they win”.

Honour doesn’t win you wars but it’s a good start.

In the context of masculine discourses of honour, heroism, and revenge,
the prestige of the British army and its success in reestablishing British rule were
inextricably linked to its ability either to protect or to avenge British women.

If you can’t defend your women and children you are not a man and deserve neither.

It’s very simple.

That’s their traditional purpose of living!

Anyway, read around.

Indians were not dorky sidekicks in a shitty sitcom.

That’s like thinking all gay men are toe-tapping effete sweethearts.

http://blog.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-746985-1-1.html

In 1857, British rule in India was challenged when Indian sepoy troops of the British Indian Army began a year-long insurrection against the British. To the British, the most shocking aspect of the events in India was the massacre of white women and children by Indian men. There was extensive coverage in the press and illustrated journals, which stimulated calls for revenge..

In newspaper accounts, parliamentary debates and visual images, the severity of the conflict came to be embodied by the fate of British women and the defilement of their bodies and their homes.

Historically, we’ll be the same.

Paton’s famous painting In Memoriam was dedicated by the artist to the Christian heroism of “British Ladies in India during the Mutiny of 1857.” In 1858, the first version of the painting, which depicted Indian sepoy troops bursting through the door, was exhibited at the Royal Academy of Art in London.

Ideologically, the Rebellion dramatically increased racial antagonisms between Britons and Indians. On the British side, this was in large part due to the savage attack on British women and children, who were allegedly being raped and murdered by fanatic soldiers in alarming numbers. The British had to have a heroic fight against depraved sepoys intent on rape and murder of innocent and helpless English women and children.

The depth of public reaction to the murders was due in large part to the lurid nature of the published accounts. Though papers frequently argued that the ‘vile tortures’ practised upon British women and children should “be remembered, not told,” all of them did in fact ‘tell’ of rape and torture in graphic detail.

but not the babies
Indians had the original fetish for baby rape, it’s the tribal rumour thing. I wouldn’t be shocked if the African HIV thing originally came from India. They cover wounds in cow shit and drink from the corpse strewn Ganges. I saw a photo taken of what looked like a dog playing with a football, just out of a tourist area. No, head of a child.

None of them care. It’s savagery of the first order.

To assume everyone has a conscience is very white privilege.

Letters and telegraphs flooded the papers with accounts of women being raped in front of their children before being killed, of matted blood, gory remains of children’s limbs, and of the suffocation of living children among their dead mothers when the victims were thrown into a well.

Such graphic tales of rape and murder inflamed public sentiments calling for vengeance on a massive scale. The Illustrated London News voiced its indignation in tandem with most other national, provincial, and local papers when it claimed that “every British heart, from the highest to the humblest of the land, glows with honest wrath, and demands justice, prompt and unsparing, on the bloodyminded instruments of the Rebellion.”

Nowadays?

Strangers (swarthy strangers) on the internet encourage you not to care, because women and children supposedly “deserve it” for things voted in before their birth. Well, if we do end up running a black flag over a monarch’s dead body, the men who refused to defend this country will “deserve” to lose their head.

You had one job.