Comic: Intersectional Feminism

United we stand…

the real joke?

They’re all claiming to be the Biggest Victim. They’re literally all losers.

Cultural Marxism is finally turning on its henchman and proving, among other things, that multiculturalism doesn’t work. There will always be competing genetic interests. The intersectionalists are calling for segregation. Just like the trans-acceptance ones wanted to end the very concept of ‘Woman’ as an exclusive signalling claim.

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.
Anyone?
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…

DO NOT TRUST A DODGY SIGNAL.

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.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/226350.html
“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.

Newsflash: BAD GUYS LIE. THEY LIE OR THEY WON’T FOOL YOU LONG ENOUGH TO WIN.

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.

comment
“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;
>HELP THE OUTGROUP! THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOTHING TO THE GROUP! SACRIFICE AT ALL COSTS!
>…STOP DEFINING THE INGROUP! THAT MODEL IS REDUNDANT AND EVIL!
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?

Black man Holocaust mashup

I wonder if the black one knows about black genocide and the wealth inequality of the Jews that continue to this day. He probably does but I’d have mentioned it.

I don’t know what to say about this otherwise. It’s also difficult to hear anything.
“You was oppressin’ the German, you was oppressin’ him!”
I think the guy in glasses got a very hard reality check there about the unity of diversity.
You know he’d want the black man arrested if he could. That way he’d win the argument, in his mind.

“I’ve seen it! I’ve seen it!” I doubt he saw that Holocaust documentary by the Jewish guy who interviewed the Auschwitz people that admitted, on camera, the ‘chambers’ were built after the war.

You could point to a common kitchen knife and claim Jack the Ripper used it, doesn’t make it so. Burden of Proof.

This type of thing is often what happens when factions of identikit Leftism meet.
One party shouts, the other cries, then they swap. Like a hissy fit from adults.

They’re trying to outsignal and rentseek so I think the black guy wins.

Who is the victim here?

Check today’s Prog-Stack.

“Women used to be ladies”

The latest meme making an irritating entrance into popular thought.

TLDR; read bolded.

It’s intended to insult clubbing culture (fine, ban clubs, otherwise, STFU about them).

Like most memes appealing to history, it’s misled at best, misleading at worst.

Rewind to the earliest times with video.
Ladies have fun too. Anything less is an overhanging lie from the Sexual Revolution.

“Yes but women used to be demure and coy, they didn’t dress and act like sluts.”

It is ironic the modern man has such a lax definition, as if looking at a man ‘the wrong way’ is slutty.

Women have always ‘made eyes’ at men, because we have eyes. When we use them, we’re accused of making eyes because studies show men are acutely sensitive to social overtures from women.


Maybe, just maybe, the nature of people doesn’t change much over time, and not everything is about you and how hard done-by you are? The term for that is a victim complex.
Look up the Evelyn Nesbit scandal, it was their OJ.
They even had versions of the Kardashians, pin-up girls before pin-ups, which really date back to the 18th century and painted adverts. If you believe any advert, it’s a de-facto IQ test and you lost.


Maybe read some social history before acting like you understand all women?

Especially those in other time periods.

^If that were true, you’d be a billionaire selling us bullshit. Advertising people understand people.

Funnily enough, women tend to be up on social history, so I find a meme that relies on our collective ignorance of it rather entertaining. The average woman knows as much social history trivia as a man knows military.

In perfect truth, such males want to castigate degeneracy without drawing attention to their own.

Let alone limiting it. R-types playing K.

This is intellectually dishonest, an argument based on bad rhetoric, bad faith, historical ignorance and makes for a coward. If you’re irritated that, in a world where sex is freer than ever, you still cannot get laid, perhaps the problem is not the people you fail to impress?

Maybe the problem is that you keep bitching like a gay guy.

Don’t look at a pretty woman and think the modern version of ‘ANKLE?!!!!‘ only to wonder why you’re labelled a creep and become a social leper. Offended people on this stuff are dull from birth.

Look and think ‘that’s nice’ and move on with your day because this superficial shit is not, by definition, important.

The women least likely to wear a miniskirt are prostitutes, because the goods are not given away for free.

Everything you know is wrong.

Ask a man with sisters if he judges their sexual desperation on what they wear.

Imagine if we applied the same judgementalism to men – all short-sleeve shirts are hereby signs of a gigolo. Shorts? Whore! Wear trousers like a proper man!

Only in the 20th century did it suddenly become acceptable (imho, no) for an adult man to wear shorts. It was considered ridiculous and you’d be mocked for it like turning up to a funeral in assless chaps, as was going topless until coal-miners striked because of job demands. This is the God’s honest truth. Look it all up. Shorts are literally the most immodest thing a man can wear, the male mini-skirt. It’s worse than a mini-skirt because things can play peek-a-boo. Short sleeves come in a close second and were taken up by the Italians with the sleeveless ‘wife-beater’ where they both should have been left, men couldn’t show their waistcoat at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Casual or modest, pick ONE.

I heard this meme from Clarey on YT years ago – he immediately began to criticize every modest fashion going, with an emphasis of vitriol for the maxi skirt. …That’s just a skirt. It’s a term for a proper skirt.

This stuck in my mind because I assumed it was a joke and waited for the punchline, the hypocrisy was so overt to a non-American. You have no idea what you want, but you know how much you want it!

He hated totally normal skirt lengths, pictured in the Edwardian videos, because it covered women up and he couldn’t ogle them, no more than five seconds after saying, to paraphrase- Why don’t women dress like ladies anymore?

The problem is male demand.

Male demand for risque fashions. Rappers are the main problem.

You can see how years of this from Kindergarten can make for avoidance of anyone who tries to pull it.

You can’t countersignal if nobody values your opinion to begin with. Look through the photos of the men saying these things and you’ll quickly realize they attract casual women because they are casual men. I haven’t seen a single one that owns a single (ONE) good suit. A good suit, by style standards and formality rules. Not a great suit, not an impressive suit, not an elegant suit, not a gentleman’s suit. A single decent item.

Which brings me to my next point: how do you intend to pay for that?

More fabric, more $$$$$. That is not a typo. A suitable wardrobe is 4-figures, a good one is five. This is based on wear and variety for activities. Being formal is more expensive, rappers lie.

Look at the guys making these claims about ladies. Are they gents?

Any woman looking at these guys will immediately notice the discrepancy, it’s like…

Which fork, Forney?

They have no clue of basic etiquette and try to prattle on like a stage mother.
They are alcoholics who couldn’t tell you the difference between a white wine and red wine goblet if their lives depended on it.

Nobody takes this ‘advice’ seriously. They have nothing to offer but opinion and personal complaint.

The funniest thing my society friends ever heard about women’s fashion was one drab man telling, loudly, anyone who would listen, that spaghetti straps were the sign of a slut.

This story still does the rounds and I’ve heard people quoting it without getting the joke.
Guess the nationality. Go on, guess. I think we all know.
Guess what he was wearing with his bad tan and fake Rolex he kept showing to people who could tell the difference.

These are the guys who refuse to buy a drink to assert interest (formal politeness) or buy a dinner they invited their intended to (the formal rule) but they want a woman with expensive taste?

Are you quite sure?

They slob around in t-shirts and shorts, in general, and wonder why the women draped in £3,000 Dolce don’t give them a second look. Class does come into it. The problem is, they have none.

Therefore, they refuse to see it as an issue…. because it IS the issue.

Women do not qualify to men. Eggs are expensive.

However, not looking like ‘Kevin the teenager’ helps.

Would you show up for a job interview wearing this? Are you using it for a sport? If the answer to both is NO, do NOT wear it out of the house and for the love of Christ get a good suit before you start spouting off on Patriarchy and the dire need of male leadership.

You don’t care how you look? Yes, it shows.

Hate sluttiness? Push to ban all contraception and sexual health clinics. Yes, all.

Hate immodest clothing? Push for Elizabethan clothing laws. Yes, in social history, there are many, many actual, literal laws that restricted things like length for modesty, and most women are aware of these. It would also mean strippers are illegal and you can’t pretend to be rich in clubs without actually being rich.

I don’t expect these guys to grow the balls, ..do you?

Conformity is a feminine virtue, as I mentioned earlier, so don’t blame all women for the actions or obscenity of singular examples, otherwise, all men are like Jack the Ripper; non sequiturs about men would be far more insulting.

Why aren’t women virtuous, they ask, not a virgin themselves.

Because none of the previous words will get through to ‘these’ people.

We mock idiots like you.

The Guardian panics, turns on SJWs

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/01/blame-trump-brexit-identity-liberalism

They say no enemies to the Left, but when the going gets tough, they push one another in the line of fire first.

These hoes ain’t loyal.

They always beg a question with this rhetoric, critical theory never posits alternatives so you can never argue with an alternative.

And how, exactly, would a non-populist democracy work?

How? How would we count votes? Isn’t a vote like a beauty contest? This is absurd.

A selection of comments.

How else can Oxford law students tell welders about how privileged they are.
Identity politics is how the modern left got around having to deal with poorer people,class and economic inequality.
It was also about making the focus on themselves, their friends and not those beneath, whatever colour or sexuality etc they are.
It is a rejection of what the left was always about.

We were taught to value diversity back in the days when we weren’t overwhelmed by it. Now, the fear is setting in because we never thought that we, the majority, would have to sacrifice our own culture in order to help other people assimilate. I think the current problems are being caused by minorities who have not reciprocated by sacrificing a part of their culture to fit in with us. Yesterday, I noticed that the wrod ‘ADVENT’ has been replaced by ‘chocolate’ (thanks, Tesco). It seems we are no longer allowed to call advent calendars by their real name. I have always supported the multi-cultural society, but it’s gone too far now.

Edging towards some kind of argument about 15 years too late.

At last someone in this paper that gets it, sadly judging by the comments the average Guardianista still doesn’t and let’s be honest they never will, they’re not genuine left wingers, they’re more interested in virtue signalling than they are in actually doing any good.
The old left wouldn’t have supported staying in the EU and they wouldn’t have tolerated the harm mass immigration has done to the poorest, there’s a reason why UKIP could destroy the Labour Party.

Multiculturalism doesn’t work. Globalism is good for capitalists.

Utterly superb article that I am amazed to see on here, and which restores a considerable amount of my faith in the Guardian. So much so that I’ll give serious thought to contributing, finally.
Obviously I say this as the article effectively supports the position I’ve been setting out for years on here – I imagine many would disagree with this though. The problem for those people, is that they have no way to win power back with identity politics.

Oh no what a shame…

These people have never painted a room, have they? You plan your exit first, otherwise the expression ‘paint yourself into a corner’. Victory conditions, not that they read game theory. They probably think it’s the Scrabble rulebook.

It* was only going to work for as long as Labour held the working class.

The White working class.
You screwed over the white people and they stopped voting for you. Boo hoo.

They always beg the question, they presume their belief system is true and you agree with it, before speaking. Social Justice is a theory. So is creationism. So is astrology**. You can make a layman’s theory about anything, but the burden of proof is on you to apply that fantasy to reality. If you can’t, if you fail to FIX the problem and pontificate on about it (a Catholic term) then you lose. Leftists – all talk, no walk.

*Cultural Marxism.

**Yes I’m mocking myself. However, I did predict Trump based on an uncanny Regulus, making me more reliable than 90% of MSM. Even most astrology sites were gunning for Hillary based on a misread of her natal chart.

“Hold the working class”
“No way to win back”

much force and entitlement, the Left always becomes fascist eventually

They know exactly what they’re doing. The type of creature to flop on its back, expose its belly and plead for mercy, and then, once your back is turned, kill you ruthlessly. If Trump hadn’t won, what do you think this article would have been about? They want to start fights and beat people (up) without using their fists. Cowards. Who listens to a chicken? Especially when they go Chicken Little about the ice caps (fine), the polar bears (fine) and the poor gays (better than ever). They complained about victory so we gave them defeat.

The push to accept pedophilia

Predators all operate in the same way.

It starts like a certain religion, with children.

Step One of Infiltration: “We’re harmless!”

Like the Big Bad Wolf in nana’s dress. The Trojan (sorry) Horse. They say they want to live in peace, while constantly stirring up trouble. Peace is code for ‘Leave me alone whatever I do’.

Then comes the request.

Step Two: “Pity me.”

Rhetorical, appeal to emotion. “Real” victim, by existing. And probably money. They get you to trust them, make their deviance socially acceptable. This way, they can get close to authorities e.g. the classic single mother, the social workers whoring off helpless orphans as having ‘boyfriends’, prevent teachers from reporting them or just freely search for victims to target.

Then finally, what they’ve been working up to…..

“Let me in.”

They say ‘You can’t choose who you’re attracted to.’ As if you can rape anyone you’re attracted to in the street a la Roosh’s ‘satire’. As if people don’t have rights, and private bodies, and physical attraction cannot be ignored.

Actually, sexual tastes are mutable/fluid/changeable/trendy/fashionable, as porn users have proven in various studies. You seek what you feed. A man seeks out anal porn, they’ve turned themselves homosexual. They’re conditioning themselves, training their body’s sexual response cycle. A man seeks out goat porn, child porn, etc. They choose to orgasm to these deplorable things, out of personal weakness. You may hear them say they are shocked by those things, not sexually aroused. Okay, then why touch your junk while viewing it? Nowadays, it is common for men to consider that masturbation requires porn… a view pushed by degenerates, wishing for new recruits, knowing about the desensitization cycle because slippery slope does apply to physical stimulation. Like going to the gym and building muscle. You load on more until you buckle. The body is one big input and output machine. Sex is the biggest carrot (sorry) of incentive in behaviourism. It builds Empires and destroys them.

If you take up babysitting jobs while fantasizing about little girls, you don’t get to blame other people for being ‘bigoted’. Projection of guilt doesn’t work. He already lied to himself, to other people, stalked around his chosen demo, scoped a target, and engineered a situation where he could commit a crime. That is 100% him.

Hold adults responsible for their actions, victim culture is based on infantilization, babying people and holding them to lesser standards. Standards are not ‘unfair’, they are necessary if you want respect. Sometimes I get accusations of being sexist toward men. It isn’t my fault men commit the majority of sexual crimes. That is my exact point. They are 100% responsible for their actions, including the oven-worthy ones. As are women when they rarely make those evil choices  e.g. https://www.icetrend.com/morgue-worker-arrested-after-giving-birth-to-a-dead-mans-baby/

Evil isn’t a male/female/Christian/Muslim/Hindu/atheist/whatever thing. That is my exact point, exactly. It is a choice, which everyone has. If you cannot accept the responsibility of adult choices, you do not get the rights associated with adulthood either e.g. the ability to consent to sex, a choice. Such people are correct, they should be treated like children – but with no half measures. Hence, the asylum was made, to give these people the peace they needed.

Briefly, on stigma.

Every time I see a BS argument about ‘ending stigma’ like a mean rumour on the playground, in practice trying to blame other people for being the victim and reacting as such to unacceptable behaviour from the sick who inconsiderately refuse to get help or take their meds, I know I’m seeing a person that has never witnessed true mental disease. Psychiatry follows the Medical Model. Mental illness, is also mental disease. They are the same thing in synonym and in theoretical backing. Like client and patient refer to the same person. It’s like someone with Black Death who visits family, not caring if someone else gets hurt. At best, they’re terrible sociopaths lacking remorse and empathy in spreading it by choice (cough HIV cough). They should seek solitude and treatment until they are safe for society.
Depression isn’t someone posting crying emoji on social media. Psychosis isn’t limited to thinking you shit unicorn sprinkles. Mania isn’t painting pretty swirly pictures with cutesy hashtags. Depression is a mother drowning her baby because the father refused to co-parent and there aren’t enough hours in the day alone*. Psychosis is murdering your parents because they refused to make you Mac n Cheese so they were obviously demons. Mania is jumping off a building because they thought they were could fly on the power of good intentions. Enabling those sick people for your own ego is also sick. Sick people require treatment, this is common sense. If they don’t require treatment, they are not sick, and therefore, require no sympathy, as they are perfectly well and simply bad at coping with everyday stressors. As many people are without bellyaching about it and promptly seek mechanisms to forever fix their own issue, responsibly. Stigma is the sane reaction to the insane. Diseased people are dangerous, whether the illness is mental or physical. You cannot guilt people into placing themselves in harm’s way. That is wrong.

Abnormality isn’t any excuse for criminality. The law is not a guide on what is psychologically healthy.

Back to pedophiles.

Acceptance, it starts. Everybody accepts that degenerates exist. We have the internet. We know you’re there. What they mean is Accept me in your life.

Against freedom of association and its less-discussed flipside, the Right to Ostracize. 

Eventually they move onto celebration, but all the parades in the world won’t quiet that little voice inside called a Conscience. They don’t like the idea of God because God sees all, even the things that person is in denial of while it is convenient.

But if it’s something you can’t help, there’s nothing to celebrate. If it’s a medical condition, it needs to be kept private for treatment. Otherwise social pressure comes in. That’s why therapists must be confidential, because even their balanced account will bias the recovery. These people slander themselves, happily. They are quite stupid. Reputation has repercussions. You want to write about rape in a lascivious tone? People will think you’re a rapist. You want to write about abusing little girls? People will think you’re a pedophile. Nobody forced you dudes.

It’s like how the self-styled ‘pansexuals’ love orientation theory, although an All option is an impossible orientation (it’s like a sphere as a degree) but then they begin listing all the things they aren’t into. When Pan means all. So no, the meaning of the word implies you are a necrophile, and a pedophile, and into bestiality. That is the meaning of the word. If you use that choice of word, you are going to be considered among that lot. Personal definitions don’t apply to the public. You don’t get to play thought police.

Educate yourself = Brainwash yourself with my opinions for me.

FYI This is Pan.

At the very least, pansexuals are goat-fuckers. If you are not a would-be goat-fucker, don’t call yourself a pansexual, dipshits. Otherwise, when you use that term thinking you’re cool on tumblr, you’ll find yourself swiftly unemployed as the creepy guy. It is creepy. Creepy is the new edgy. If you get a face tattoo or stupid hair, you’ll be fired for that too. Welcome to social consequences for social ineptitude, brought to you by maths.

*Anyone who disputes that very common story, ask yourself ‘Where was the father?’ At literally any point beforehand.

The Boromir Strategy of opposing Cultural Marxism and PC diktat

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/the-boromir-strategy-as-advocated-by.html

There is a false belief that we must possess the same faults as the Left to win. That we must harbour the rapist, the pedophile, the deviant and the criminal if they are effective at parroting what we like. That we must harbour evil and its potent force of degeneracy because the shit is flecked with gold. Thankfully, the majority of us see through this falsehood. For example, if there were plenty of evidence that a certain PUA were a rapist by the legal definition, we would be foolish to hold such a person up as a moral authority at a time when we need good leaders more than any.

Spiritual leaders must be pure. We already have hypocrites in power.
There is no such thing as an atheist that understands faith. If they understood it, they’d have it.
There is no such thing as a bad person with the right to lecture the good. There is nothing to learn from these people who willingly made many mistakes and continue to expect respect for evil deeds.

Know them by their fruit. They were a toxic influence then and it was easier to resist. Once a cheat, always a cheat. Once a liar, how can you trust them? Once a criminal, how can they speak of law with respect?

The Nazi stuff, while funny for rhetoric, is ultimately self-defeating. It makes people switch off. We’re tired of hearing about it. The fact the supposed Alt Right is defending ardent socialists makes me gag.

It worked on a rhetorical level to speak like them. To disempower their linguistic tricks by overuse.

The point is idiots didn’t get the joke in mockery, so we see genuine emotional appeals as fact like “If I can’t judge feminists, they can’t judge me by calling me mean names like misogynist, they’re the real sexist, they’re misandrists! Now I can ignore everything they ever say!”

No wonder the feminists mock them for this, they deserve to be! They’re doing the same BS.
It’s like the shit test myth, it’s a way for them to feel desirable even when in the midst of rejection.
In this case, it’s a way to feel reasonable when reason is literally on their side already.

Playing victim is a big one. Nobody is ever going to believe the normal white man is a victim. They’re too loaded in the historical stakes, they have various privileges handed to them like average IQ score. This makes the losers of the group especially humiliated, so they attempt to ‘flip the script’, while also feeling innately superior as part of their group, which doesn’t work. Contradiction Central. You can’t use SJW tactics seriously unless you are an SJW. Even they aren’t really serious, they never agree on anything.

For example, saying social science is BS then using all their studies and terms e.g. social frame, social script, evolutionary psychology stuff, it’s embarrassing to be associated with these people, it’s like a logical feminist looking at one next to her at a rally doused in her own period blood with regret.

jury nodding yes

They mistake the arguments for powerful in themselves. They support victim culture. If only SJWs accepted those premises, it wouldn’t matter IRL.

They accept the evil premises e.g. we are all biologically equal, when the Burden of Proof is otherwise on them, and then try to make special appeals to exceptions.

It doesn’t work.

Let them feel the full weight of the Burden. And if you MGTOW, actually GO.

hmm did not know nice surprised hot

As for faith, societies are built on spiritual belief in the future. It’s the only way they can survive. Narcissists don’t like God as a Father Figure because he’s bigger than you, you can abandon him and he makes rules that interrupt your hedonism. I saw the funniest article from a supposed redpill site claiming the Alt Right was bad because it wanted to ‘police’ men. Imposing positive expectations that lead to a good world are a burden on a selfish hedonistic failure. They won’t even accept good rules, as their complaints about the evil postmodernism are from bad faith, they want personal Special Snowflake exemption as much as Sandra Fluke wants exemption from the expense of her own baby-killing.

Ask them one simple question: Was the Sexual Revolution a good thing?

If they say yes, they side with Cultural Marxism from hedonism. The societal impact has been ruinous to anyone with a clear conscience to sift the evidence. CM would never have taken hold without that, ahem, carrot. It pacifies men and keeps women distracted from settling down too by wasting their time on ‘bad boys’ that 50s movies told them to like. Prior to the 50s, the idea of women preferring the Bad Boy would’ve been stupid.
These losers in the manosphere explain away their failure to attract women as a defect in the women themselves. Plenty of men are happily married, it’s you dudes.

A town of Patriarchs they claim they desire would beat them to death for negging their daughters. They want to be treated like indulged brats just like the people they hate so much, and that’s why they hate them, the narcissism of small differences. A Patriarch for President would tighten drug law, curb binge drinking, reduce sex tourism and tighten rape law.

However, we must practically show people the way first and reverse the political damage that actively inhibits spiritual good. Once the path is clear, faith will naturally creep back in, once financial interests are abolished. Otherwise, people only hear the propaganda. Two-prongs is the best approach because the practical reality differs from theory, where spirit is always a higher concern, quite literally.

Good comments on a linked post.

“Thus the great harm of the manosphere is the way that it warps one’s worldview. The ultimate effect of being a regular consumer of the manosphere is that’s one’s view regarding sexuality, and men, and women, becomes satanic and joyless.”

A cheap squirt of endorphins, I’ve seen it described.
Casual sex for cheap people.

“The Left has sought to prohibit – and even legally proscribe – white / Christian / European national pride (and hatred of their opponents) precisely because the Left wants whites / Christians / European nations to stop resisting, lie down, and die.”

They fear the power of family. You can’t have a family without unity and you can’t have unity unless you oppose the forces driving them apart.

There is a difference between pride and not being ashamed to live and do good (righteous pride). They are actively shaming the good.