Friday, October 21, 2016

The Attraction Irony

The hallmark of a broken society: many women will now respond better to male infidelity than to male fidelity.
Most men in this part of the world won’t so much as verbally disagree with his female or even raise his voice at her. Men like this are fearful of the proverbial shit storm they’re sure will ensue if they upset the applecart. For this reason they live in a perpetual state of discontentment caused by this fear.

A man in a relationship where he’s afraid to check his woman for any reason will lose the single most important element in in keeping her loyal: respect. A woman cannot love a man she does not respect. It can’t be done. And if a man doesn’t have any backbone, his woman can’t respect him let alone love him.

According to women, two of the worst things a man can do to a woman within the context of a sexual relationship is physical abuse, and infidelity. But knowing what we know about women tells us that that these two ‘crimes’ keep them around a hell of a lot longer than the opposites.
It does make sense, in a sick sort of way. The man who cheats obviously commands interest from other women, whereas even the most desirable man can be dismissed as unable to attract interest from other women if he is resolutely faithful.

From a strictly hypergamous perspective, the unfaithful man is more sexually attractive than the faithful man, by definition. Traditional women are taught to control their hypergamous urges, just as traditional men are taught to control their promiscuous urges, but then, increasingly few men and women have been taught to deny themselves anything these days.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

A belated surrender

Women interpret criticism as "hate" and "abuse". This is why it is important to keep constantly hammering at the feminists and SJWs. They can't take criticism. They can't take the heat. It kills them inside. Sooner or later, they will quit and sink back into the bitter solipsism that spawned their attack on reality:
All of that shit right there is why writing this blog feels like pissing into the wind. Because for the abusers, there are no negative consequences. They’re able to leverage the controversy generated by my existence into increased sales and awards, while for me the consequences are always negative. There is only ever a progressive, steady toll on my health, sanity, and relationships. I might succeed in changing things behind the scenes at a few gaming companies, or at affecting the lineup of speakers at a single convention, or seeing harassment policies implemented at a handful of conventions and events. But none of that does anything to change the daily lived reality of what it means to be a woman in games.

People have told me more times than I can count that I’m “brave” for writing this blog. I’m “brave” for being open about my feelings and experiences, and I’m “brave” for saying what I think without apologizing or minimizing in any way. And to them, I always say the same thing: I’m not brave! I’m stupid. Doing what I do is like beating my head against a brick wall on a daily basis. Every once in a while, I might knock a tiny chip off the wall, and people may applaud and say, “look! Progress!”. But ultimately, nothing I do is every going to seriously harm the wall, but it will seriously harm me if I keep at it long enough....

I hate feeling that I’m playing into a generational story of defeat. My mother was run out of STEM because of sexism, ruining a career as a brilliant research chemist. She has her name on 12 patents! And the fact that I couldn’t persevere makes me feel hopeless. How can I tell my daughter that she can achieve anything of meaning when I have only stories of defeat to offer her? How can I tell her that she can beat the odds when her mother and her grandmother are both strong women who have been ground down into silence?
This woman is both stupid and part of a multi-generational losing tradition. Her daughter can't beat the odds because there is nothing to win. Life is struggle. Respect must be earned, it is never granted to whiners and complainers and those who others men into doing their work for them.

She has the complete opposite of the MAGA Mindset. It is not surprising, because women like this don't have the good sense to stop trying to change things for the worse, America is considerably less great than it was. It's good that she finally surrendered. She shouldn't have tried to fight reality in the first place. The cruel fact is that the world would have been a better place if her campaign and her blog had never existed.

Women will use any tool to try to shame men into not fighting, they will appeal to any authority to forcibly silencing men by threatening their jobs, their freedom, and their families for nothing more than the crime of voicing an opinion. Because they simply cannot take the heat in a world of free expression.

So, turn it up on them. Until they can accept the principle of free speech means everyone has exactly the same right to criticize them that they have to criticize everyone else, one side or the other is going to be silenced. And it isn't going to be us. We don't quit. Ever.

Observe that what proved to be effective in the end was not logic or sweet reason. It was relentless demoralizing rhetoric. These are psychologically weak individuals, so always hammer at their psychologies, don't waste time on their flawed ideas or perverse objectives.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

The unsalvageable

Nicholas Peake describes the casualties in the War on Men at Return of Kings:
Over the years I’ve known a few friends (and, sadly, family) who at some point I began to see in a different light—these were men very close to me who eventually revealed themselves to always make bad decisions, avoid personal change and self improvement, fail with women (or get with terribly low-tier ones), and periodically need my help to get themselves out of a hole they had dug for themselves.

At the very least it was slightly annoying, but after bailing them out numerous times I become angry and frustrated with the lack of personal responsibility. I came to understand that these are broken men.

What I now call the “loser mentality” is not reserved for extreme cases like drug addicts, felons, and so forth.  Sometimes otherwise nice, decent people are actually living a “loser” life; not everyone is necessarily “bad” but sadly are still a net negative and will drain us of money, motivation, time, and more if we don’t make the hard choice to walk away from them.

There appear to be common traits among these types which serve as telling indicators of those who your good intentions are wasted on.
It's a perspicacious article and he makes some very good observations. But the key one is this: Never expect help when you really need it from those who have the loser mentality.... Losers cannot be counted on.  Ever. 

That's why I am very wary of placing any trust in gammas or omegas. They are like wounded dogs and won't even hesitate to bite the hand that is feeding them. And the moment I sense that I'm dealing with a gamma, I do my best to extricate myself from their web of drama and delusion.

Often, the fact that they have been mistreated and they do merit pity leads both men and women into misguided sympathy. But it is best offered in the abstract and from afar.

You can't cure any man with a broken mindset. About the most you can do for a man like that is give him a copy of MAGA Mindset, by Mike Cernovich, and hope for the best.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Alpha Mail: Gammas in the Wild

From a reader:
Spotting Gammas in the Internet wilds is relatively easy. Whenever there is a debate, they always hedge their arguments in a sort of supposed plausible deniability. Rather than directly addressing a point, and crafting a counterpoint, they deliver some kind of sarcastic reply that, if they are challenged on, they will claim wasn't aimed at the original post. The format is like this:

OP: The sky is blue.
Gamma: You know, so many stupid people think the sky is blue.

If challenged on the attack, the Gamma will try to escape with "oh, I wasn't talking about YOU," even when it is clear that he was. He'll then spin himself as the victim when the OP replies with a counterattack. He seems blissfully unaware that this sort of passive-aggressive behavior generates a raging desire to throttle the crap out of the Gamma. He must also be unaware that anyone with intelligence sees right through him. The Gamma thinks this kind of thing is supremely clever, when in reality it demonstrates in full public view just how much of a Dunning-Kruger idiot he really is.
Yes, if there is one thing, just ONE thing that I could convince every Gamma of, I would choose to convince them that they are not fooling anyone. For some reason, they seem to believe that their transparent little tactics are opaque to everyone else, and that no one realizes what they're doing.

I think this may be part of why women hate Gammas so much. Gammas often use female tactics, but when they do, they tend to use them ineptly. So, women tend to feel contempt for them in addition to feeling that the Gamma is invading their turf and playing the game wrong.

I think it must be difficult to live life as a Gamma, though, in that they're direct-conflict-avoidant and yet are constantly trying to pick fights. All I know is that once I recognize a man as a Gamma, I don't argue with him or even discuss substantive things with him anymore. I have no interest in their constant quibbling, dramatic posturing, and silly theatrics. You can't always punch them in the face, but it is very easy to cut them out of your social circle, because no one else really wants them around either. After that, it's easy to ignore them.


Monday, October 17, 2016

Roosh's Journey

Newsweek chronicles the transformation of Roosh from pickup artist to political philosopher:
When I meet Roosh at a Starbucks in Washington, D.C., he’s early. That’s surprising, since he tells his readers to show up five to 10 minutes late to dates. (“She’ll have anxious feelings focusing on your arrival instead of the doubts she had about coming to see you.”) Less surprising is that he records the interview. “Your editor, is he part of the global conspiracy?” Roosh asks. [Editor’s note: Yes.] “No? But let me ask you this: Who hired him? [And] who hired him?” Roosh is tall and has a thick, bushy beard with gray patches. He’s wearing a red “Make America great again” hat and a T-shirt, jeans and black sneakers. He grew up around Washington and says he is back visiting his parents; he’s been bouncing between countries for the past decade and lately sticks to Russia, Poland and Ukraine.

Roosh’s focus has changed, and Free Speech Isn’t Free shows it. His previous books explained how to “bang” women, but his newest one turns to a topic likely familiar to Trump’s followers: how people from minority groups can say whatever they want while straight men cannot. “There are active attempts to silence men, to marginalize them, and at the same time to elevate all these far-left agendas and viewpoints,” he tells me.

That shift in thinking is occurring across the “manosphere,” the informal network of websites, blogs and online forums that deal with masculinity, dating and men’s rights. “Once you learn how to do well with women, then you start understanding the deeper political and philosophical issues,” Mike Cernovich, another unofficial leader in the movement and a friend of Roosh’s, says in an email. “Why are gender relationships so toxic, you start to ask, and from there you are down an entirely new rabbit hole.” Few are exploring those ideas as well as Roosh is, Cernovich adds. “Roosh is a welcome relief from the banality of pseudo-intellectualism that passes for ‘free thought’ these days.”
If you haven't read Free Speech Isn't Free, you absolutely should. It's highly informative and even modestly thought-provoking.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Sexual histories are relevant

As usual, feminists want to decouple female actions from consequences:
Both witnesses said she behaved with them in detailed sexual terms as Evans had claimed she did with him. And so the judge agreed that evidence of the woman’s sexual history could be admitted. I believe this will have a devastating impact on victims – and that it will in future stop them coming forward for fear of what they face in court.

I was part of a research team in 2003 that monitored the effectiveness of the laws preventing routine cross examination of a complainant’s sexual history. I sat through a number of rape trials and heard the flimsy reasons used by defence barristers when arguing that the judge should make an exception and allow the jury to listen to salacious details about the complainant’s sex life.

In our research, judges granted permission in two-thirds of the cases that we observed and did allow sexual history evidence, which was raised even in some cases involving children.

It has been widely reported it is rare for previous sexual history evidence to be admitted as evidence, but this is blatantly untrue. I hear regular stories from friends and colleagues that work in Rape Crisis and other support services of their clients being grilled in the witness box about their sex lives. Sexual histories are already dragged up and they already have a chilling effect on victims’ willingness to come forward. The Ched Evans case has made this many times worse.
They should have a chilling effect. That's a positive thing, because it will prevent more false accusations like the one that Ched Evans's accuser made.

In fact, there should be more chilling effects, such as jail terms for women who make false rape accusations.

There is an easy way for women to not have a sexual history that calls their testimony into doubt. Don't be a drunken slut, and then people will be much more likely to believe you.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

When divorce-rape isn't enough

Even getting the kids, the house, and half the money isn't enough for some women:
We have been following the investigation of the murder of Florida State Professor Dan Markel – a case that has cast suspicions on the family of his ex-wife and fellow professor Wendi Adelson. Much of this suspicion has been drawn to Adelson’s brother, Charlie Adelson. Charlie Adelson was reportedly romantically involved with Katherine Magbanua, who just happened to be the mother of two children with Sigfredo Garcia, one of the two accused hit men (with Luis Rivera). Magbanua was arrested recently and then Rivera has cut a deal to cooperate in a guilty plea. Now Rivera has reportedly given evidence that further implicates the Adelson family. Rivera pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and told police that the motive for the murder for hire was because “the lady wants her kids back.” In a truly chilling added element, Rivera said that he saw Wendi Adelson before killing her husband and that she stared directly at him and Garcia.
All I can say is that if you're going to have a hit man kill your ex-husband, you should probably consider taking some acting lessons first and find a professional to write your lines for you. And just to avoid insulting everyone's intelligence, don't replay the scene from the last crime drama you watched.

 Listen to the policeman's voice as he's interviewing her. He knows perfectly well that the woman was involved, and her weird statements intended to draw the investigation's attention away from her family only tended to reinforce his suspicions. Every policeman has seen a thousand women fake-cry to get out of a ticket.

She says that she is “scared someone maybe did this – not because they hate Danny but because they thought this was good somehow.”

As a general rule, if a woman is talking about how she is scared, she's either lying or trying to justify an action she knows was wrong.