Briefly on domestic abuse and self-defense

Domestic abuse is never acceptable.

I repeat for the slow among you-

Domestic abuse is never acceptable.

There is no excuse for it.

Here comes the reasonable objection What about self-defense?

Well, actually fighting back should be the last resort.
I keep seeing repressed rage MRAs salivate over the prospect of hitting a woman because ‘she started it’, or ‘she deserves it’ and they seriously think that’s how the law works and that the law is somehow unjust, while out the other side of their mouth they claim women are inherently weaker as a sex, physically. …Errr, yes, these two facts may be connected, shocker! Women are not physical equals! Which means different legal standards are not sexist, but in fact, based on biological reality. And totally fair. And the MRAs wonder why Paul Elam was exposed as a domestic abuser and deadbeat? Those who virtue signal the loudest on domestic violence often have a history of it. This is a common pattern with men who claim victim. What do you think abusers do, in the legal system? They always gaslight, they always try tu quoque, they always pretend they’re the ‘Real Victim Here’. The sob story is always Mummy Was Mean To Me so All Women Are Evil. Few variations, as if anything justifies abusive behaviour as an adult (and they always go after women because we are the physically weaker sex, a man might actually fight back!). Good parents aren’t supposed to be your friends. They sound like typical entitled narcissists and fall for Just World Fallacy, even applying it to other people’s abuse e.g. “Elam told her she had asked to be raped, and that she had slept with his friend because she was bored with her marriage.” So don’t give them a second of sympathy.

Back to the topic.

Men can inflict disproportionately more force in a fight per blow, they were evolved to kill other men, that’s why they need to hold back in all but life-threatening situations (the same rule does apply to women equally but rarely applies in practice as women rarely have that potential for overpowering). The law on self-defense hinges on disproportionate force for this reason, it’s never necessary. If it were necessary, that would be easily proven as a life-threatening situation and therefore it would have become necessary.

Restrain if you cannot physically leave but in all other situations leave, leave the first time they pull this and preferably report it. This advice on leaving applies to women too. Don’t stick around and reward them with your company or they will keep doing it. This is a standard enshrined in law but based in unchanging biology and case exceptions prove the rule e.g. A female MMA must hold back her physical force too, and those who abuse their boyfriends are also evil as the males, e.g. Ronda Rousey. If men were really the cool-headed and rational sex as they claim to be, they wouldn’t have such dismal control of their ‘temper’ that characterizes small children. There’s no such thing as ‘temper’, in fact. You aren’t being possessed and suddenly lack legal responsibility for your own fists (even psychotics are responsible for answering to their crimes). Neurological studies have shown giving in to violence is a choice when risk is flagged by the limbic system, fight or FLIGHT is engaged, and choosing to be violent once makes the person more violent in the long term by reinforcement looping. People will weak impulse control will often falsely claim their desire to harm or kill others was ‘too strong’ and overpowered them, with no thought to how that applies to their literally overpowering their literal victim. “I’m the Real Victim (TM) Here” bullshit again.

Either women are physically weak and need male protection by evolution

or

they’re equals in a fight and OK to attack, you don’t get to claim both.

Sports alone prove which is truth. We can’t need men and simultaneously not need them for the most basic provision (physical security) and that’s why deadbeats like Elam are such scum – r-types revoke the provisions they owe their offspring, such as physical and financial security, the most masculine and selfless provisions possible. It’s no coincidence they’re necessary for the healthiest children. To address a common myth: The problem with the children of single mothers isn’t the single mother herself – it’s the absence of the securities of a father. In this way, deadbeat fathers are always worse than single mothers, because women are always left holding the baby and the ‘man’ gets to leave physically or financially under specious pretense. I hate to say it, but to prove it, see how well children fare if one parent dies. That’s right – they need the father more.

TLDR: Standing against domestic abuse doesn’t make you a feminist, they don’t even care, it’s another funding exercise for them. It makes you someone who hates those that exploit perceived weakness to treat human beings as a rag doll for their personal failings. It just so happens most domestic abusers are men, and in fact, the figures in this one crime are skewed because the abuser’s best legal defense strategy is to file a counter-claim, this is almost always done. However, looking by injury, it is mostly men. However, such people exploiting others are always scum, as exceptionally strong women are also held to the same standard based on physical merit, making it not technically sexist legally or in theory, but totally fair. You should be against abuse on principle, whatever the sex of the people involved.

The sexes don’t have to be the same physically to get the same legal protections. They just need to be the same species: human.

And if you ever wanted a typical case study of the life and history of a psychopath, Paul Elam fits the bill better than any other American I’ve seen. Multiple divorcee, always blaming others, never learning lessons, accused of abuse by multiple partners, children by many partners, refusing to support said children, drug use, alcoholism, fantasies about violence, trying to provoke people verbally as an excuse for violence, middle-aged white male, persecution complex, entitlement complex, superiority complex, jail time served, anti-justice, will commit perjury in court out of hatred, low-class occupations their entire life, inability to commit to a job employed by others, nomadic and so on. It’s alarming how perfectly he fits the profile.

Consider this;

“the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk [through] life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign”

thatsjustsickewwtfgrossno

Behold, the blatant misogynist in MRA clothing, using SJW victim-signalling with the sexes reversed. #GiveYourMoneyToMRAs They’re all parasites using others’ victimhood as a sanctimonious platform for their own ego and grifting. If they couldn’t make money, they wouldn’t be there.
Actual white trash like this usually has a heart attack from all the clogged hate at his age. The world will be a better place. At least there’ll be plenty of historical evidence why he was trash. You can’t say he’s misquoting himself.

The nature of sacrifice

WWII_Sacrifice

This was used as a harsh incentive back home for rationing. I doubt this would work nowadays, what with obesity and the expectation of super portions.

However, holding aloft the old war dead is no excuse for the effete Modern Man to sneer at Modern Women. You haven’t done your bit either. That’s the point of propaganda, an antidote to laziness.

I know few men who’d even give up bacon for their freedom.

Link: Women are not weak

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/women-are-not-weak.html

There are girls in Jane Austen novels better equipped to take care of themselves than today’s ‘men’. Women are known to have a measurably higher pain threshold, thanks to periods and childbirth.

dean that's enough no more internet laptop shut no no no nuhuh supernatural

Obvious point is obvious — if you go around calling a group weak, nobody thinks it’s about them...

If they were weak, you wouldn’t feel the need to point it out, and you’d probably feel pity for them.

Is “strong, independent” the new “accomplished”?

I’ve been thinking about feminist doctrine and their bleating about being strong and independent. They seem to believe it makes them more attractive to the opposite sex. It doesn’t, as any honest straight man will say, but nonetheless they repeat it like a female meme.

I usually go back to the books on these topics and old etiquette books came up with the idea of “female accomplishment”. It was emphasized in many 19th century romances too. I believe this connection is enough to draw a distorted comparison between the two. Feminism has tried to steal the notion for itself.

Accomplishments were reserved for ladies. They had no professions and came from honourable family lines. Reputation was paramount. Reserve marked a lady as a creature of breeding. An accomplished lady was educated, as a good student, capable of learning, in contrast to the illiterate peasant class. Among these subjects were religion and a focus on virtues, including chastity, loyalty and forbearance. Manners and social grace were included in family teachings, boarding school or finishing school. This included dancing, elocution and grace, especially around men.

Practical skills useful in later life, such as entertaining children, sewing, charity work for churches and perhaps cooking were commonplace. However, a lady’s place wasn’t in the field, or dirty factories, to toil like a peasant. The adult girl model was a lady.

angelina jolie lara croft flower hair pretty stunning beauty good looking feminine

Compare this to feminism’s subtle appropriation of achievement, where the adult girl model is a rude man. Wasted youth, binging, a gutter mouth, speaking out of turn, walking, dressing and generally acting like a man and none of those practical skills or topics. In fact, they take loud pride (a vice) in their own ignorance (like a peasant). There is payment for education and a lack of learning, and certainly no scholarly humility. Standards are fake to them, as fake as those ladies. An idolatry of immaturity in every form. And they expect decent men to find this attractive? The mind boggles.

If a man desired masculinity in a partner, he’d fuck the real thing, an actual man.

Modesty and Equality

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201409/should-we-be-humble

Interesting points;

Hume is tame compared to Nietzsche. For Nietzsche, our society is evidence of the triumph of Judeo-Christian slave morality over Greco-Roman master morality. Master morality originates in the strong, and is marked by values such as nobility, pride, courage, truthfulness, and trust. Slave morality, in contrast, is merely a reaction in the weak to oppression by the strong, and is marked by such values as humility, sympathy, cowardice, and pettiness. In master morality, the good is whatever is good for the strong; in slave morality, it is whatever opposes the masters. By pretending that congenital meekness is a choice that is both moral and desirable, slave morality makes a virtue out of impotence and subjugation. Thus, pride becomes a vice or sin, humility is elevated to a virtue, and the son of God washes the feet of his disciples and lets himself be crucified like a common criminal. Slave morality is a cynical and pessimistic inverse morality that involves careful subversion of the old master morality. It seeks not to transcend master morality, but, through ‘priestly vindictiveness’, to emasculate and enslave the strong by convincing them that their strengths are evil. 

Nietzsche maintains that democracy, with its obsession with freedom and equality, is in fact the heir to Christianity, even though democrats generally prefer to trace their lineage to Ancient Athens. In our society, the old and natural Greco-Roman morality vies alongside the inverted Judeo-Christian morality. Modern man is confused because he constantly has to juggle their contradictions, while himself, on the whole, being neither Christian nor ancient.

While there is much of interest in Nietzsche’s master-slave dichotomy, he and Hume seem to confound and amalgamate humility with modesty or meekness. Both modesty and humility involve self-abnegation, but whereas modesty involves self-abnegation for the sake of others or for the sake of receiving praise or adulation, humility involves self-abnegation for the sake of truth and of a higher self.

I’ve found you can perfectly predict the Left/PC/Progressivism by asking this question: what would a weak selfish narcissist trying to appear saintly and pure do?
Celebrate the low, the lowest of the low, making oneself out to be high(er than them). False modesty and when questioned, narcissistic injury. Respect nothing, worship the self and all its basest urges.