Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

From a long thread at MPC about the “red pill”, the assertion in this post raised an eyebrow:

One of the major problems with the Manosphere (that betrays the fact that it’s really just a vehicle for misogynists to try and get laid)

What did I tell you about tradcons sounding just like feminists in their shared compulsion to pathologize male sexuality? So now men with a working libido are “misogynist” according to the tradcon worldview.

is that they demonize female promiscuity while glorifying male promiscuity.

I don’t read red pill sites (except on rare occasions when readers send a link to one they regard as worthy of my attention). Speaking on behalf of the Chateau lordship, there is no “demonization” of female sexuality here. The telling of ugly truths about female nature is not the same as railing against female sexual nature and hoping it goes away or can be turned into something more benign to an equalist view of the sexes. (A glib “is, not ought” should suffice here.)

Now, it is true that, in a vacuum, female promiscuity is far worse than male promiscuity.

“In a vacuum”. How sophistic. Since when has the sexual market ever operated “in a vacuum”? Never. And yet, for reasons explained here ad nauseam (although apparently not nauseam enough), female promiscuity is more corrosive than male promiscuity to relationship and family stability and, scaled up, to societal stability. Yes, sluts really are more dangerous to social health than are cads.

However, male promiscuity REQUIRES either female promiscuity or homosexuality in order to occur.

This is the assertion that roused an eyebrow. (Ignore the homo slur, which is typical MPCspeak when faced with the task of explaining vigorous and unapologetic male heterosexuality.) Superficially, it sounds credible. After all, it takes two to tango. More cads must necessarily mean more sluts to complete the pairings.

Except, it doesn’t work that way. Betraying a deep ignorance (or willful dissembling) about the nature of the sexual market and the psychosexual differences between the sexes, this MPC poaster fails to grasp the reality of female hypergamy and male desire for variety, and how those intrinsic dispositions can affect the arithmetic of romantic pairings.

The top 20% of women strongly prefer to be with the top 10% of men. The top 10% of men will spread their seed among the top 30% of women (and often more widely than that), only strongly preferring the top 10% of women when they are serious about commitment and settling down.

The hypergamy-polygyny nexus results in a shaky equilibrium where a small percentage of cads are having sex with a larger percentage of women. But these cads jump from woman to woman, or they keep multiple women as sexual outlets in a de facto harem, meeting up with each one on an irregular basis, (hence the common complaint among woman dating jerkboys that the jerks they love are never around).

What this means in practice is that one promiscuous man will date ten less promiscuous women, since each of his lovers is likely to be with only him and not sharing him with other men in a multiple concurrent sexual relationship arrangement. (Women are more averse than men are to fucking multiple lovers concurrently.)

Conclusion: yes, male promiscuity can coexist with female chastity. Or a reasonable 2016 facsimile of female chastity.

Up to a point.

Eventually, if there are enough cads (cf., Africa) then sluts will have to increase in number to keep up with the changing ratio of fevered flings to lukewarm LTRs. A society in which 90% of men were promiscuous cads would require a boost in the numbers of promiscuous sluts to bring balance to the sexual force. Or one VERY slutty woman to service all those men.

Read Full Post »

A reader offers this photo of the Lion Trump as evidence of perfect alpha male body language.

Everything from the posture, to the stride, to the body language, to the insouciant look on his face screams alpha and oozes charisma.  These fledgling beta male gamer types could learn volumes from this photo alone.  Jeb too.  But he’s a lost cause.

Jeb is useful as a lesson in what not to do. He’ll never let us down on that job.

As for Trump’s victory stride… yes, I’d have to agree that is about the most alpha male pose a man could strike. The open torso and Christ-like welcoming hands ready to embrace believers are the foundation that support the entire alpha edifice. Open body language is alpha because it makes one vulnerable to attack, which implies that the man intentionally opening his body is confident no one will dare attack him, or if he is attacked he will fend it off easily.

Women (and men) perceive this gregarious posture as the look of an alpha male, because it triggers ancient stirrings in the primal cores of our brains. We are a divinely inspired species, but the animal instinct is always there, lurking, to remind us of our earthly shackles.

FYI, open facial expressions evoke the opposite perception in people. Wide eyes, raised eyebrows and open mouth communicate beta maleness. Combining a closed facial expression with an open body language is the recipe for influencing people’s perceptions of you as the arch-alpha.

Read Full Post »

Tradcons and feminists have more in common than either would care to confront. Browsing popular alt-right outposts, I’ve found that a significant number of them — not all; I don’t mean this to be a sweeping indictment of the tradcon right — share with feminists a misunderstanding of sex differences and of the functioning of the sexual market (hint: it’s transactional in nature, and sneering at the messenger won’t change that fact).

So what false notions do tradcons and feminists share?

  • Pussy pedestalization

That’s one. Feminists and (some) tradcons reflexively defer to the contradictory premises that female entitlement both a. doesn’t exist and b. must be catered to at all times.

  • Sexual desire uniformity

Tradcons, like feminists, wrongly assume men and women share reproductive goals, or that the triggers and the expression of their desires are similar. They are not.

  • Sinful male sexuality

Tradcons, like feminists, express a wanton cruelty toward male sexuality, never missing a chance to pathologize it. Where it really shows is in their hate for sex differences in attraction and arousal, which they dismiss by denying the biocentrality of visual stimulus and mate variety to male sexuality. Or, if they don’t deny those things, they demonstrate their contempt of male sexuality by deriding its emotional and sensate power over men, and belittling men who “can’t control” their natural urges.

  • Denial of female hypergamy

Female hypergamy is real, (and different in kind from male mate choice motivations). Maybe tradcons are upset by the science-y terminology. That’s another deficiency they share with feminists. If it helps them get over their anxiety about being mistaken for an autistic, they could call it “dating up”.

  • Denial of depraved female sexuality

No one in the “Sex Pill” community argues that male sexuality can’t be depraved. Gang bangs, facials, and homosex come to mind. But tradcons, like feminists, have a peculiar habit of denying the facets of female sexuality that tend toward depravity and darkness. For instance, female rape victims often go on to have consensual sex relationships with their rapists. And, oh yeah, there are all those coercive rape fantasies women indulge.

Similarly, tradcons (maybe not so much as feminists) tend to overestimate women’s inclination toward faithful monogamy. Studies consistently show women are less monogamous than tradcons assume and more monogamous than men as a sex.

  • Denigration of male sexuality as “entitlement”

Tradcons, like feminists, have a hysterical hatred of men trying to improve their romantic fortunes. They slander normal male desire for a quality dating life as entitlement, when it’s nothing of the sort. (Entitlement is the feeling one is owed something for nothing; most men who want to get better girls know that they have to put in the effort commensurate with the quality of girl they’re aiming for.)

The entitlement slur is one of the more toxic tradcon smears against men. The tradcon mercilessly mocks the man who strives for a cuter girlfriend, but lavishes praise on the woman who screens for Mr. Right. Self-discrediting.

  • Belief that marriage is an equal sacrifice

Tradcons, like feminists, want to believe that women sacrifice as much as, or more than, men do when deciding to marry. Not true. Men must tacitly renounce the heart of their natural, God-given sexuality to marry; women don’t. Women have a greater disposition for monogamy than do men, and a weaker urge for sexual variety and profligacy. Marriage is therefore an easier transition for women to make than it is for men to make. This sex discrepancy in monogamous marriage sacrifice demands an array of legal and informal cultural recompense for married men. (This recompense can take form in big and small ways; e.g., “king of the castle” privileges, wife taking his name, etc.)

Btw, Tolkien and CH are on the same page about men and their greater marriage sacrifice:

tolkienmonogamy

  • False equivalence between male and female cheating

Tradcons, like feminists, abhor sex-based “double standards”, refusing to accept that double standards are a fact of life when the species in question is sexually reproducing. Tradcons love to lump male and female cheating under one umbrella of equal awfulness, but the comparison deserves more nuance than that. One, female cheating can result in pregnancy (especially true before the Pill and latex condom, which was the environment humanity evolved in for most of its history). A cheating wife impregnated by her dalliance was a serious cuckold risk to her husband. The same cannot be said of a cheating husband.

Two, when women cheat, they tend to hypergamously cheat, (they turn the sex spigot off to their husbands). Men cheat in the harem-building style, mostly for physical pleasure (as opposed to the yearning for romance typical of cheating wives), and often retain love for their wives even during the times of their extramarital trysts.

***

My evidence for tradcon resemblance to dumbfuck feminists comes from reading what a lot of them who are normally straight thinkers on a number of hot button topics have to say about sex, love and women. I don’t attack all tradcons, but I do note there are quite a few of them who are as dumb about sex as shitlibs are about race.

(This is a good point to remind tradcons that one can be both clear-eyed about innate sex differences in desire AND about the importance of monogamy/marriage to Western Civ.)

The reflexive tradcon white knighting for the female sex finds its source in the same place all people tap when considering the lamentations of the women. It all gets back to the Fundamental Premise. Women are the reproductively more valuable sex (by order of the cosmic overlord), and this eternal truth explains innumerable societal phenomena related to the instinctive urge by both men and women to favor women’s concerns at the expense of men’s concerns.

***

It’s been claimed that the Sex Pill is the gateway drug to the Race Pill. But I’ve noticed a lot of race realists have trouble with sex realism. Is it a problem of demographic bias? Maybe race realists are older (less naive about race) and settled down. They’ve been out of the seduction game for a while and have forgotten what climbing-the-walls horniness feels like, or how much tougher it is to seduce younger, hotter, tighter chicks than older, hoarier, looser women?

Read Full Post »

Recently, I had box seats to a brief lovers’ spat on the sidewalk. The couple starring in the show crossed my path perpendicularly. It was a telling scene, flush with unspoken truths about the differences between men and women. She’s following him, begging for his attention. The girl has that frantic look like her baby is floating down the river in a basket and she’s chasing after it.

All the while (not a long while, maybe twenty seconds total), he’s striding purposefully ahead of her, oblivious, or affecting an air thereof, to her fevered pleadings. He stands tall, a confident posture and a neutral facial expression leading his way. He looks kind of like a dick.

I couldn’t make out what the drama was about, but it didn’t matter. There was a larger message in this theatrical release. I thought:

“This is the direction love should go. It’s natural. Woman to man. Woman gives love, man receives love. (Man gives desire, woman receives desire.) No matter what happens next, this woman desperately chasing down her man will eventually fall into his post-coital arms, the both of them happy with their respective statuses in the relationship.”

I tried to imagine by way of thought experiment how my perception of the scene would have changed if the roles had been swapped. If instead he had been pleading with his girlfriend to slow down, and she kept walking ahead of him. I twitched at the thought with instinctive revulsion. There was only one-way love in that reverse scenario, him to her. Submissive Male to Dominant Female. A guarantee of relationship extinction.

No one loves a needy man, not even himself.

How will you know your relationship is on solid ground? If she’s running after you, red-faced and trembling with love and yearning and desperation and desire and, yes, fear. The sexual polarity is aligned. The love amplified.

If you’re running after her, afraid to lose her love? You already have.

A good, if abstractedly imperfect, test of a woman’s love for you is to ask if she would she die for you. You can ask yourself this question, and if you’re honest you’ll know the answer.

Would she die for you?

Because most women wouldn’t.

I watched TED talks today and a woman there defined love as you would give your life for that person. I would die for my son without question..but for my husband probably not. I do love him, but I wouldn’t die for him..would I die for my husband when we first started dating when I was CRAZY in love with him? Nah..

You’ll know you own your woman if she’s so in love she’d at least claim in online scribblings that she’d die for you.

Read Full Post »

There is a relationship between a woman’s marriageability and her “down-to-fuckability” (shortened: DTFability). It’s quite robust and replicable.

Down-to-fuckability is fancy scientific jargon for the impression a woman makes that she is eager and ready for sex, and that bedding her would not be much of a challenge. DTFability also suggests an openness to sexual experimentation and to trysts in public locations.

DTFability is similar to, but not the same as, sluttiness. For a woman to qualify as a slut, she has to have racked up a higher-than-average cock count. A better synonym for DTFability would be skankitude, which embodies the stylistic and behavioral qualities of sluttiness but not necessarily the high cock count that is the trademark of the slut.

A woman who is commonly considered by men to be “down to fuck” is a sexpot identified by her skimpy clothes, whore hoop earrings, tattoos, slut eye and other quirks of appearance, as well as by her seductive flirtations and aggressively sexual demeanor. Masculinized women with the telltale “manjaw” and careerist ambitions are representative of the DTF woman; they don’t play coy and they love giving head.

Marriageability refers to women who are “marriage material”. These women are the polar opposite of down-to-fuckable women. A marriageable woman, by her appearance, style and demeanor, implies a low risk of unfaithfulness and a high disposition to romantic loyalty, and following from these implications she likely possesses a pretty good maternal instinct as well. These things matter to men who are considering settling down and starting a family with “the right woman”. A faithful, loving, affectionate woman is a woman who is unlikely to frivorce or cuckold a man.

Looks-wise, marriageable and down-to-fuckable women aren’t all that different from each other. Beauties can be found in both groups, although DTF girls tend to a “hard” look and a psychotic thousand-cock stare, while marriageable girls tend to look softer, kinder and, less encouragingly, diffident. DTF girls inspire horniness in men; marriageable girls inspire romance in men.

Horniness and romantic investment aren’t positively correlated. Their relation is haphazard at best. Yes, men generally want to spend lots of time with women who make them horny, but women who inspire nothing BUT horniness exert a relaxation effect on men’s more subtle sexual urge: the urge to protect and provide. In scientific terms, a DTF girl is a “fucknchuck”, while a marriageable girl is a “waitnmasturbate” (i.e., men are willing to wait for the marriageable girl to open up sexually to them, while they endure the wait by masturbating).

And that explains the inherent tension in men when choosing between marriageable and DTFable girls. Men love the sexy, alluring ingenue with the come-hither eyes and Mariana Trench cleavage, but they don’t so much love her infidelity risk and her reckless, indiscriminate coquetry. And men also love the coy, demure, innocent blushing beauty with the promise of a hymen and a chaste sensibility, but they don’t so much love her prudery, sexual timidity and loose-fitting cable-knit sweaters.

So men looking to the future with a woman that goes further than a one-night-stand or a three month fling must find a balance between the two female genera. A woman who is too sexy is a divorce and cheating risk. A woman who is too prudish is a bed death risk, comfortable with weeks of sexlessness and having an aversion to blowjobs (which when she gives them can result in her face twisting into a rictus of disgust; quite the mood killer with the lights on).

Which brings us to:

The Marriageability-DTFability Relationship Curve

marryslutcurve

This curve captures the essence of the subconscious decision-making process that goes on in the minds of men judging women for their marriageability. A High Marriageability woman is NOT the most prudish and faithful; such a woman will dutifully bear and raise your children, but she will not dutifully bare herself and raise your churro. A very Low DTFability woman earns a “meh” on the marriageability question.

Peak Marriageability occurs at the inflection point where a woman is still relatively chaste but has a nascent talent for projecting a hungry sexuality in your general direction. This is the Sweet Spot (to complement the Wet Spot). A man would feel comfortable leaving a Sweet Spot wife for stretches at a time, and simultaneously would never dread having to hear from her the snapper-sutured lie “I have a headache”.

After this point, the more DTFable a woman becomes — which, in practice, means the more a man will push hard for first date sex with her — the less marriageable she is. A woman with a porn star look and Megyno Kelly’s aggrocunt short haircut will arouse a desire to rush her home and pile drive her through the mattress. What she won’t do is make any quality man with sexual market options reach for his wallet to buy her a fancy dinner, let alone a diamond engagement ring.

A smart woman knows where this balance lies, and works it to her advantage when trying to snag that perfect man into marriage. If there are glowing reviews to be written for the High DTFability girl, it’s that she isn’t satisfied with missionary alone, she gets down to business without a lot of insufferable wavering, and if you have even a lick of experience with women you’ll know how to spot her cruel wantonness and avoid serious romantic entanglements that could cost you your sanity and sense of self-worth, if it was precarious already.

Read Full Post »

Another drearily familiar rapefugee news story contains a portentous subtext.

All over Europe, women are suffering the consequences of the Muslim invasion disguised as a refugee crisis, and one reporter’s encounter was captured on video. A group of Muslim migrants thought she was too attractive, then showed her what happens as a result.

The video is at the link above. There’s nothing NSFW in the video; it’s just the usual enriching perspectives we’re instructed to appreciate from our colorful third world Diversity.

A reader gives his interpretation of this vibrantly multicultural scene, and issues a warning to the White Men of the West.

Here is the reality.

These guys have monumental, stone cold asshole game.

They treat this woman like absolute shit, and she is fascinated by it, she keeps calling them back for more.  She lets the guy take the microphone out of her hand.

In the pussified world of Western European girly-men, these guys stand out as masculine, hard men who say what they want, take what they want.  They walk down the street like they own it.  They don’t smile.  They double down when challenged.  They give sub-zero fucks.

CH readers will see where this is going … .

The dried up miserable vaginas of Europe’s women will be engorged and dripping at the sight, and they will be blushing and squirming in their chairs and playing with their hair even as they say, oh, how awful … .  Then they will do everything they can to get more of these unapologetic bastards into their country, and look for the opportunity to be called a slut, have their hair pulled, their clothes grabbed and pulled off, be slapped, be violated, be dominated, be owned.  As more of these videos circulate, the man-starved women of Europe will become increasingly desperate to spread their legs for a vicious and hateful pummeling by these invaders.

They will forget their own so-called men ever existed.

And to get all “meta”, feminism was a civilization-wide shit test, and the men of Western Europe and the USA failed.  They have been reduced to sniveling beta status ever since.  The poon of the West is desperate for a stern and iron Alpha ramming by anyone, and the first guys who showed up are these Muslim dirtbags.

Looks like it’s their lucky day.

Note that the foregoing is clearly correct for the Germanic countries.  The Muslims will own the place in a generation.  This is not true in Eastern Europe, only the west.  The Poles, Hungarians, Serbs, will absolutely without blinking shoot, hang, stab, run over with trucks, set on fire with gasoline, or club to death every Muslims they can get their hands on before they will turn over their women.

Hyperbolic, but he’s onto something. After watching the video, I wouldn’t go so far to say the female reporter is sexually aroused (she could just be chirpily stringing the rapefugees along to make sure she gets entertaining quotes), but the wider theme explored by the reader is by and large true: when stronger* men invade your public space, your women will eventually, and often in contradiction to their own stated wishes, gravitate into an orbit with the dominant invader male valence and assume the submissive position.

*Stronger in a sexual market context means less appeasing, bolder, and firmer of frame. IOW, an asshole.

The lesson is that when an existential crisis threatens the nation, its women simply can’t be trusted to correct course. Men must steer the ship. And if that means dismissing their women’s opinions while they get to the hard job of making their country great again, then so be it. The dismissiveness will probably reignite their women’s desire for them.

The conclusion one must draw is the utter incompatibility of the White K-selected races with the less-than-White r-selected races. Multiculturalism is a failure. Worse, it’s a deliberate failure; an attack by the ruling classes against their own people.

The saracens are a different breed, possessing a natural ZFG attitude and patriarchal insolence towards women that may not buy them much poon in their homelands but acts like a tingle generating explosive reaction in secular, betatized, domesticated, and effeminated European societies. The shy, shoe-gazing, polite White European beta male – representative of his tribe – is rendered impotent when contrasted against the brutish brown man’s street theater, and the White man’s women notice the contrast, and their hindbrains, despite the best intentions that some may have, map out sexual market hierarchies accordingly.

PS Refreshingly, there are some young women who know the score.

If there is hope among White women, it lies with the virginal cuties. But, as reader Diversity Heretic averred, the White man’s chivalry comes with a necessary cost.

Okay, you want male protection. Male protection comes at the price of female deference. If you want to compete with (and displace) men in the job and education marketplaces, if you want women to be defense ministers, if you want to pursue a career at the expense of being a wife and mother, if you want income and status equality with men, if you want to ride the alpha cock carousel until your early thirties, then expect to find a beta male provider who’ll buy with a ring what you gave away free when you were younger and hotter,

THEN CHICKY BABE, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN! GUTEN GLUCK UND GUTEN ABEND!

PPS PA writes about white knighting (when it’s appropriate, and when it’s self-toolage.)

PPPS Reader Philomathean adds,

I’m not convinced the majority of White women support the invasion because they long for a mud breach in their vaginal canals. It’s state sponsored, socially approved moral posturing no different in spirit than an Oprah inspired kaffeeklatsch.

I reply: But women lead the moral posturing to open the borders. They are lapping men in their eagerness for more diversity enrichment. There is a deeper psychological compulsion that animates women’s politics, and I contend it begins at the source of female sexuality: their innate desire for strength and dominance in men. Right now, that female desire has been redirected to outsider males, because their own men are hamstrung from reacting in the proper masculine manner to the alien threat (and too many are donning miniskirts as feeble signs of protest).

Read Full Post »

If you look hard, there are outposts where Shitlords and Realtalkers feel free to speak unassailable truths. One reader passed along this quote from an Israeli politician who was offering an explanation for Europe’s open borders madness and supine welcoming of their rapefugee replacements.

Israeli politician agrees with your observations on the women of Europe + Migrants.

“Western Europe is kneeling and inviting the noble Muslim savage to rape it,” wrote the maverick politician on his Facebook page. “What is the meaning of this phenomenon? Were there only German women at that train station in Cologne? Where were the men?”

The Muslims who leave their home countries seek Germany, Sweden and Finland not just for financial reasons, he speculated. “There is something much deeper at play here. Western Europe is actually the most secular place in the world. Most of humanity believes in God – the US, too, is mostly populated by believers. Western Europe is an island of atheism; the situation there is reversed.

“This is a culture that has removed God from its consciousness. It took God out of the game and locked Him up in museums,” Feiglin theorized. “The pressure of the Allahu Akbar culture bursts naturally into the irreligious vacuum – it is a matter of physics, really. Of intercontinental maleness and femaleness.”

“Generations of denial of God have engendered a craving for authority and meaning,” the philosopher-politician explained. “The police does not attempt to prevent the rape just as it did not attempt to prevent Kristallnacht, because in truth, it is desired. The battered woman syndrome, the subconscious, the political correctness of Merkel and those who invite in the immigrants, actually desire it. […]

“The circle closes with crazy speed,” Feiglin observed. “Women’s liberation disappears. The State will not protect you – get used to it. Your Godless religion has evaporated. Find yourself a man – a Muslim one, of course – to protect you. There is no other masculinity.

“The battered woman syndrome” is just another way of politely saying “generic female sexual nature”, because all women, to lesser or greater degree, desire their submission to a powerful and dominant alpha male. And the dominant alpha male needn’t be manifest through the individual man; the strict orthodoxies of patriarchal religions like Islam also fill the role of authority that people, but particularly women, deeply and profoundly crave, beyond even conscious apprehension.

This is an important topic, because it befuddles not just equalist leftoids (who were never going to be un-befuddled) but also race-aware white knights who despite their willingness to grapple with many ugly truths that frighten mass media and the culture gatekeepers, nonetheless exhibit a strong allergy to thinking clearly when the subject is (White) women and their peculiar habits of mind. (These alt-white knights also co-opt a rhetorical crutch preferred by the shitlibs they hate: glib and snarky ad hominem against those who do speak truthfully about female nature.)

Men invade, women invite. The essential sex distinction is the male disposition to conquer and acquire power and the female disposition to accede and acquire the charity of the powerful. All real world evidence points to these diverging male and female essences. It would be funny if it weren’t dead serious that every single global crisis contradicts the feminist (and lickspittle manlet) worldview.

Today, a Swedish woman was stabbed to death by a Muslim refugee. Add her body to the running count of White female victims of rapefugee runaway entitlement. It has been three weeks since the Cologne mass sexual assaults on German women at the hands (and groins) of Middle Eastern men. It has been two months since the Paris attacks when Muslims killed hundreds of White Frenchmen and -women.

Dwell on recent history. Now consider this: two days ago, a German poll revealed glaring sex differences in male and female support for various German political parties. “Frauen” are women. The “AfD” is the anti-immigration party.

frauen

I don’t think you’ll see anything more shocking than this snapshot of the German female id. It calls to mind that Plath pith, “Every woman adores a fascist”. What’ll it take to convince White women that it’s in their best interest to shut the borders to hordes of nonWhite orcs?

“Best interest”? Maybe that’s the problem. Women’s best interest isn’t necessarily aligned with their men’s best interest. That Israeli politician quoted above is onto something dark and ominous when he accuses the West of assuming the role of intercontinental femaleness — the psychological condition responsible for civilizational ennui and exhaustion and prostrate submission to invading foreigners. Western men have become their women — gelded freaks who dress in mini-skirts to “support” victims of the Cologne sex attacks — and into that masculinity void unapologetically patriarchal Muslim migrants rush to provide that “other masculinity” which animates the hindbrains, and the ginewaves, of so many young fertile WHITE women.

Because who is going to protect these White women? White men in mini-skirts? It is to laugh. And though many women will claim otherwise to reporters holding microphones and even to themselves when uncomfortably alone with their thoughts, their actions expose a different motivation.

I call this sex-disparate phenomenon “The Feminine Mistake”. It was a mistake to hand to women inordinate power – at 51% of the population, women hold the levers in democratic societies – over public policy and the nation’s constitution. Women are who they are; they can’t help themselves when they vote for equalist leftoid nation-destroyers.

If the White West is to save itself from its worst instincts and sentiments, it’s going to take something that most cucks, manginas, and male feminists are loath, or scared, to do: tell women to step aside, because they are royally fucking up the place.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: