First Principles

First principles are the bark of a man’s soul, in both senses of the word “bark”. Betray your first principles for expedient negotiation, and you’ll pay a costly tribute for your cowardice later.

Along this theme, commenter Trainspotter writes,

ho: “that anti white goyism isn’t the only thing at work”

It might as well be. Everything else pales in comparison, or is a mere offshoot of the essential anti-white nature of the current ruling orthodoxy. For example, the “war on men” is really a war on whites. The real target is white men, and more broadly Western civilization. That non-white men are also harmed is more collateral damage than anything else. They were never the real target.

To put it in, shall we say, less than scholarly terms, I’d order the importance of various issues more or less as follows: first and foremost, the racial issue. Then a pile of shit. Then another pile of shit. Then everything else.

That’s why leftists can tolerate dissent on almost any issue, save race. [ed: and feminist victimhood/empowerment (nevermind the contradiction)] Oppose any of their other pet projects, and sure, they won’t like you. But oppose them on the racial issue, and they go insane with hatred and rage. Their heads spin around and explode. And even when they go nuts on another issue, it’s almost always because it ties in with an important racial angle or consequence.

Race is the decisive point on the battlefield. That’s why when conservatives gave up on the racial issue a few decades ago, and re-branded themselves as “color blind,” the current fiasco was baked into the cake. Once the anti-whites won on that single issue, they were inevitably going to win on pretty much everything else, given time. And they have.

Separation is the only solution.

Well said. “””Conservatives””” abandoned their first principle when they caved to the lie of color blindness. Once they turned their backs on the truth of essentialist race differences, they doomed themselves to lose every battle to follow. In Heartistian terms, they tried to save their skins by sacrificing their scrotums. That never works. And, as history has shown since that seminal self-betrayal, and continues showing, the leftoid Hivemind juggernaut steamrolls the American culture and flattens it into its preferred shape: two-dimensional. The scalped ballsacks of their conservative suckups swing from lampposts against the gray skies.

It would’ve been the harder path for conservatives, but sticking to the first principle of the immutable disparities of the races would have spared a brighter future for the nation. They would not have spent the last six decades in the defensive crouch, squealing like stuck pigs.

Other first principles:

A government’s first principle is defense of the territory in which its citizens live and thrive, and guardianship of the borders against the invasion of races dissimilar from the race of the founding and creating native stock of the nation.

A man’s first principle as regards his interaction with women is to act as if he is spoilt for choice, even when his choices objectively fall short of limitlessness.

A woman’s first principle is to favor her procreative capacity over all other concerns.

Betray these first principles. and any short-term consilience won will in due time become corrupted, and then reconstituted by your enemies into spears aimed at your heart. Oftentimes, the spear will be wielded against you by your own hands.

Read Full Post »

The Art Of The Golddigger

If you observe women without rose-colored glasses tinting your impression or a shiny pedestal obstructing your view, you’ll easily notice patterns in their behavior that abjectly defy their spoken intent. Sometimes, not often though, women will admit in moments of candor the true shape of their desire that they otherwise spend inordinate energy and time concealing under layers of obfuscation and guile. Russian women, bless their cynical souls, have a habit of divulging the secrets of the da!da! sisterhood. One of these pre-babushkas, an avowed golddigger, confessed to the yearning she and other women have for men who are “walls of stone”. Dominant men.

“There are three types of men,” she tells her students. “The creatives. The analysts. We’re not interested in those. The ones we want are ‘the possessors’,” and she repeats the tell-all, prison-intimating phrase, “a man behind whom you feel like behind a wall of stone. We all know how to spot them. The strong, silent men. They wear dark suits. They have deep voices. They mean what they say. These men are interested in control. They don’t want a forceful woman. They have enough of that already. They want a girl who’ll be a pretty flower.”

The alpha male. Every woman wants one, few will nab one. Supplies are limited. Most women, average in looks, will spend a lifetime with men they don’t fantasize about seducing.

Oliona came to Moscow with next to nothing when she was twenty and started as a stripper at one of the casinos, Golden Girls. She danced well, which is how she met her sugar daddy. Now she earns the basic Moscow mistress rate: the apartment, $4,000 a month, a car, and a weeklong holiday in Turkey or Egypt twice a year.

The rewards are good for women born with a fortuitous commingling of DNA.

Oliona’s playing fields are a constellation of clubs and restaurants designed almost exclusively for the purpose of sponsors looking for girls and girls looking for sponsors. The guys are known as “Forbeses” (as in Forbes rich list); the girls as “tiolki,” cattle. It’s a buyer’s market: there are dozens, no, hundreds, of “cattle” for every “Forbes.”

The line between soft and hard polygamy blurs in totally liberated sexual markets. Thanks to female hypergamy, the choosiest sex isn’t women; it’s alpha men. Bring in the cows.

“So many eighteen-year-old girls,” says Oliona, “breathing down my neck.” She’s only twenty-two, but that’s already near the end of a Moscow mistress’s career. “I know I’ll have to start lowering my standards soon,” she tells me, amused rather than appalled.

Glasnost.

 “Today we will learn the algorithm for receiving presents,” the instructor tells her students. “When you desire a present from a man, place yourself at his left, irrational, emotional side. His right is his rational side: you stand to his right if you’re discussing business projects. But if you desire a present, position yourself by his left. If he is sitting in a chair crouch down, so he feels taller, like you’re a child. Squeeze your vaginal muscles. Yes, your vaginal muscles. This will make your pupils dilate, making you more attractive. When he says something, nod; this nodding will induce him to agree with you. And finally, when you ask for your car, your dress, whatever it is you want, stroke his hand. Gently. Now repeat: Look! Nod! Stroke!”

Game for women is essentially methods for maximizing the allure of their beauty and their child-like vulnerability.

(“They think they’ve won something when they get a dress out of us,” one millionaire acquaintance tells me when I tell him about the lessons at the academy. “I let them win sometimes. But come on: What could they ever, ever take from us we didn’t actually let them?” “You know what my word for them is?,” asks another. “I call them gulls, like sea-gulls, circling over garbage dumps. And they sound like gulls, you know, when they sit and gossip in a bar together. Kar-Kar! Kar-Kar! Gulls! Funny: isn’t it?”)

The men sitting in the drivers’ seats know how to play this game too. If you’re a billionaire, gifting a hot piece of ass with a $4K/mo apartment is chump change in exchange for sexually spoiling her prime fertility years and dumping her when her four-year expiration date has been reached. (Female product expiration dates tend to arrive much sooner for men with more market options.) In gambling, this golddigger strategy is what is known as a sucker’s bet.

“Russian men are completely spoilt for choice; Western men are much easier,” she says earnestly, like one carrying out market research. “But the problem with westerners is they don’t buy you presents, never pay for dinner. My German guy will need some work.”

If you’re an American dating an ex-pat Russian girl, don’t buy her stuff. Sure, she’ll lash out occasionally at your stinginess, but she’ll keep coming back for that one roll stuffed in your pocket that really matters. In other words, ACT like a man spoilt for choice.

“He’s handsome as a God,” Oliona tells me, whispering with excitement. “He was giving out hundred dollar bills to girls for blow jobs. Kept going all night. Imagine his stamina! And those poor girls, they don’t just do it for the money you know; every one of them thinks he’ll remember them, that they’re special, so they try extra hard. Of course I refused when he offered: I’m not like THEM… Now we’re seeing each other. Wish me luck!”

Super alphas get a train of blowjobs in da club for pennies on the ruble. The women, naturally, deceive themselves that they’ll be the ones to “convert” the alpha into relationship material, aka sponsorship.

The one thing Oliona will never, ever think of herself as is a prostitute. There’s a clear distinction: prostitutes have to have sex with whomever a pimp tells them to. She does her own hunting.

You have to admire a whore’s honesty about the nature of the deal.

‘Do I really have to go home with him?’ I asked my boss. ‘Yes.’ I went back to his hotel. When he wasn’t looking I slipped some Ruffinol in his drink and ran off.”

Russia is in an anti-feminist alternate universe.

Finally, the shiv that twists guts in the platitudepuses:

“But what about love?” I ask Oliona. It’s late; we’re taping an interview in her apartment. We’re drinking sticky, sweet Prosecco. Her favorite. The nervous little dog snores by the couch.

“My first boyfriend. Back home in Donbas. That was love. He was a local authority.”

Authority is a nice word for gangster.

Chick meets jerk. Chick falls in love. Real love. Fin.

Oliona’s relationship with the Pushkin-loving Forbes didn’t last long. “I thought at first he wanted a bitch. So I played that role. Now I’m not sure, maybe he doesn’t want a bitch. Maybe he wants a nice girl. You know, sometimes I get confused, I can’t even tell which one I am, the nice girl or the bitch.”

Women will bend over backwards to appease an alpha male exactly like beta males will do to appease a cute girl. The difference is that women prostrate themselves for a shot at a relationship, and betas for a shot at sex.

Read Full Post »

Champion Of Promiscuity, Or Garden Variety Skank?

Recall the CH definition of feminism:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

The goal doesn’t have to be consciously intended for it to be operative. Most feminists aren’t thinking, “I want to enlarge the sphere of acceptable expressions of female sexuality and shrink the sphere of acceptable expressions of male sexuality.” But conscious awareness isn’t necessary for subconscious desires to percolate up through the prefrontal cortex and get rationalized as a moral crusade for an invisible sex inequality.

Taking their actions and their steady stream of contradictions at face value, it’s evident that feminists loathe male desire. How else to explain the facility with which feminists hold competing and incompatible worldviews in their frazzled hamster brains?

Vanity Fair had a very favorable write-up of Strayed in a recent issue and at one point states that Strayed “is a champion of promiscuity”.

In the very same issue, VF has a profile of Russell Brand, and gives us this gem:

Which brings us to a sticking point: for all his talk of prayerfulness and humility, there persists an image of Brand as a bounder and a cad. Does this compromise his credibility with women? I put this question to Suzanne Moore, a liberal, feminist columnist for The Guardian who is, in many respects, politically sympathetic to Brand. “It’s funny. I have a 13-year-old daughter, and she absolutely adores him—he seems designed for young people who are just getting into politics,” she said. “But he still has this history, no matter how much he cloaks his sexism—and I’ll call it sexism—in this new spiritual talk. He plays this double game, being very self-aware of his past misdeeds, but I don’t know how much respect he has or shows to women.”

Which begs the following: How would VF cover a Strayed-Brand hookup? Champion of Promiscuity Hooks Up with Misogynist Pig, seems about right.

The feminist schizophrenia in terms of liberated promiscuity coupled with our “rape culture” brings to mind that classic scene in Little Shop of Horrors with Steve Martin as the sadistic dentist and Bill Murray as his masochist patient.

Further proof, as if it was needed, that feminists and weak-minded women who chant along monotonically with their idiocy, really only have as their purpose the construction of a world where men are harangued and shamed for their natural male sexual desire and women are exalted for theirs. Thus, we get nonsense like relabeling skanks as “champions of promiscuity”.

Why do feminists want this world? Because most feminists are ugly, sexual marketplace losers who have to give away their putrid pussies for free to get any action, and they take out their resentment on men and on the normal women who love men as men and want to satisfy men in the way that only feminine women can.

Read Full Post »

Love Letters To Mass Murderers

A Norwegian regular reader passes this along.

Major Norwegian newspaper VG (vg.no) today have prison authorities confirm that mostly women send letters to Anders Breivik, the anti islamist who killed 77 people in 2011. Many of the letters are love declarations.

In the paragraph “Get [receives] letters from all over the world”:

It reads:

– He gets all kinds of letters. Senders [“Spammers” like Google Translate suggests is not the word used] are from all continents, some are very young, most of them are women, he gets some declarations of love, but the majority of the letters express support for his political views, says Hillesland.

Original link in Norwegian:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/terrorangrepet-22-juli-anders-behring-breivik/fengselet-stanser-breiviks-massebrev/a/23360188/

chicks dig jerks
yes they do
a jerk in jail
is extra diggable too!

Breivik is no Don Juan in the looks department, but he still gets more marriage proposals behind bars than a law-abiding beta male will ever get buying drinks for girls at bars.

Exhibit Anders in reflexive female desire for killer men should be heartening in at least one small way to dissident rightists: You can put to rest any theory that states young, fertile women must be won over first for a revolution to get off the ground. Nah. Assert your principles, start the revolution without the women, and the women will follow once you burnish some serious badboy iconoclast cred. Add a dollop of charm and a reckless disregard for the feelings of others, and the women will come running.

In totally unrelated news, J.K. Rowling has no idea why so many Harry Potter fangirls LOVE LOVE LOVE morally dubious badboy Draco Malfoy.

Read Full Post »

Men Not At Work

Many readers forwarded this NYBetaTimes article about men dropping out of the workforce. The author listed several factors aggravating this War on Men trend.

Working, in America, is in decline. The share of prime-age men — those 25 to 54 years old — who are not working has more than tripled since the late 1960s, to 16 percent. More recently, since the turn of the century, the share of women without paying jobs has been rising, too. The United States, which had one of the highest employment rates among developed nations as recently as 2000, has fallen toward the bottom of the list.

Thank you, mass immigration and Wall Street wunderkinds!

Many men, in particular, have decided that low-wage work will not improve their lives, in part because deep changes in American society have made it easier for them to live without working. These changes include the availability of federal disability benefits; the decline of marriage, which means fewer men provide for children; and the rise of the Internet, which has reduced the isolation of unemployment.

All of these are doubtless contributing factors, but as with most Hivemind reporting on the topic of men dropping out, there is a studious avoidance to analyzing the role that women, and their marital worthiness, play in men’s choices. I will explain below.

Men today may feel less pressure to find jobs because they are less likely than previous generations to be providing for others. Only 28 percent of men without jobs — compared with 58 percent of women — said a child under 18 lived with them.

A misleading stat. Divorced women get custody of children, and men pay child support. So some number of these no-employment men living alone are indeed providing for others, just not in the way they would prefer.

A study published in October by scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies estimated that 37 percent of the decline in male employment since 1979 could be explained by this retreat from marriage and fatherhood.

Women initiate 70+% of all divorces. Who’s retreating from marriage and fatherhood, again?

“When the legal, entry-level economy isn’t providing a wage that allows someone a convincing and realistic option to become an adult — to go out and get married and form a household — it demoralizes them and shunts them into illegal economies,” said Philippe Bourgois, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied the lives of young men in urban areas.

Yes, mass immigration and automation are certainly demoralizing to unemployed men who weren’t born with the capacity for abstract thinking and symbol manipulation, but you know what else is demoralizing to men? Fat women, single moms, and sluts looking to settle down after a lifetime cocking up.

There is also evidence that working has become more expensive. A recent analysis by the Brookings Institution found that prices since 1990 had climbed most quickly for labor-intensive services like child care, health care and education, increasing what might be described as the cost of working: getting a degree, staying healthy, hiring someone to watch the children.

Cost of getting a degree = runaway credentialism.
Cost of staying healthy = following the government low-fat guidelines.
Cost of hiring a nanny = embracing the DIOK (dual income, one kid) lifestyle.

Meanwhile, the price of food, clothing, computers and other goods has climbed more slowly.

Corn and porn.

So many conservative social commentators, like Ross Douthat, fail to account for feedback loops in the sexual market, and how that trickles up and affects the economic market. They have a blind spot about women, preferring to lay blame for all society’s woeful indicators at the feet of men, so that they may continue polishing the pedestal of their faire maidens.

But men react to opposite sex cues just as much as women do. Think of men as having two engines of motivation, one internal, one external. The internal engine is self-starting and self-perpetuating, and it evolved to confer upon men a shot at raising their status so that they could attract more and better women.

The external engine is context-dependent. Visual cues fuel it, and it puts out more power the more enticing visual cues are fed into it. This engine, too, is a product of evolution, but it is more easily short-circuited by negative environmental inputs that were rare in the millennia when evolution was working to perfect both engines.

Men’s (white men’s, at any rate) external engine of motivation looks around, surveys a landscape teeming with land whales, single moms, and sluts, and decides that, hey, working their asses off in a crappy, low-wage job for a shot at wifing up George Lucas’ pelican gullet is the dictionary definition of a raw deal. Throw in the growing ranks of single moms, even the thin fuckable ones, and the women who have amassed considerable premarital histories on the cock carousel and are therefore less likely to stay faithful or to avoid the divorce altar, and men’s motivation to perform for these female losers dwindles to nothing.

Now add the finishing ingredient — porn — and you have most of what you need to know about why marriage rates are falling and men are dropping out of the economy, particularly among the lower classes. (The upper classes have more stable marriages because getting married later in life circumscribes the availability of tempting extramarital options, especially for older wives. Plus, upper class women are generally thinner and hotter.)

Dropped-out men may not be consciously happy about their non-employment and increasing alienation from society, but subconsciously they are making very rational cost-benefit decisions based upon real world incentives and disincentives. In 2014 America, cheap online porn is more rewarding than an expensive fat wife, and disability insurance more rewarding than working at a paint shop for $9 an hour. Change those two inputs — make both American women and American wages more attractive — and you will begin to see men dropping back into contention.

Read Full Post »

Exposing The ‘Women Never Lie About Rape’ Myth

A compendium of studies from the 1990s found that the Feminist Fantasy Tax is calculated based on faulty inputs.

ABSTRACT: Empirical evidence does not support the widespread belief that women are extremely unlikely to make false accusations of male sexual misconduct.  Rather the research on accusations of rape, sexual harassment, incest, and child sexual abuse indicates that false accusations have become a serious problem.  The motivations involved in making a false report are widely varied and include confusion, outside influence from therapists and others, habitual lying, advantages in custody disputes, financial gain, and the political ideology of radical feminism. […]

Begin with evidence of false accusation of rape, the crime which has become not only the metaphor for all cases of sexual misconduct but for male sexuality itself. Alan Dershowitz (1991), for example, has further harassed his students by telling them that an annual F.B.I. survey of 1600 law enforcement agencies discovered that 8% of rape charges are completely unfounded. That figure, which has held steadily over the past decade, is moreover at least twice as high as for any other felony. Unfounded charges of assault, which like rape is often productive of conflicting testimony, comprise only 1.6% of the total compared to the 8.4% recorded for rape.

Unfounded rape charges are twice as high as any other felony. More women lie about being raped than about any other criminal perpetration upon them. Why is this? One, women gain a lot from passing off a rape lie. Psychologically, they gain “re-virginization” from an awkward welling of regret after, say, a one night stand (or a UVA shattered glass ganglia rape). Socially, they gain an air lifted provision of support — financial and emotional — from family and friends. They also avoid potential social ostracism from dating badboys. Finally, some women are simply malevolent and impulsive, and utilize the expedience of a false rape accusation to slake a thirst for vengeance or to assuage a bitterness brought on by sexual market failure. (Recall from CH tomes of yore that success in the sexual market is defined differently for women than it is for men. If women don’t extract commitment from a worthy man, they have failed.)

And false rape accusations, vile as they are, are undoubtedly encouraged by rooted social and legal incentives. If the jurisprudence, academic, and media industrial complexes are biased to favor women’s accounts of lurid sexual events, then some women at the margins will be tempted to leverage that spontaneous favoritism for their own ends. This is precisely what happened in the catfishing UVA rape hoax story.

Although useful, the F.B.I. and DNA data on sex crimes result from unstructured number gathering.  More informative, therefore, are the results of a focused study of the false allegation question undertaken by a team headed by Charles P McDowell (McDowell & Hibler, 1985) of the U.S. Air Force Special Studies Division.  Its significance derives not only from its scholarly credentials but also its time of origin, 1984/85, a period during which rape had emerged as a major issue, but before its definition included almost any form of non-consensual sex.

The McDowell team studied 556 rape allegations.  Of that total, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape.  That left 300 authenticated cases of which 220 were judged to be truthful and 80, or 27%, were judged as false.  In his report Charles McDowell stated that extra rigor was applied to the investigation of potentially false allegations.  To be considered false one or more of the following criteria had to be met: the victim unequivocally admitted to false allegation, indicated deception in a polygraph test, and provided a plausible recantation.  Even by these strict standards, slightly more than one out of four rape charges were judged to be false.

It’s easy to lie about rape, there is sometimes incentive to do so, and the numbers back it up. Reminder: Men’s lives are ruined by false accusations of rape. Women who lie about rape know this, but they don’t care.

Needless to say, false rape fabulists also harm real victims of real rape, who must suffer under the pall of incredulity incited by their femme fatale sistren.

The McDowell report has itself generated controversy even though, when rape is a frequent media topic, it is not widely known.  Its calculations are no doubt problematic enough to raise serious questions.  If, out of 556 rape allegations, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape, then a large number, 46%, entered a gray area within which more than a few, if not all, of the accusations could have been authentic.  If so, the 27% false allegation figure obtained from the remaining 300 cases could be badly skewed.  Moreover, the study itself focused on a possibly non-representative population of military personnel.

The McDowell team did in fact address these questions in follow-up studies.  They recruited independent reviewers who were given 25 criteria derived from the profiles of the women who openly admitted making a false allegation.  If all three reviewers agreed that the rape allegation was false, it was then listed by that description.  The result: 60% of the accusations were identified as false.  McDowell also took his study outside the military by examining police files from a major midwestern and a southwestern city.  He found that the finding of 60% held (Farrell, 1993, pp. 321-329).

Here’s a bet I’m willing to take: There are more false rape accusations than there are false paternity accusations. The big difference? Women aren’t vilified or thrown in jail for cuckolding men.

Finally, the false rape accusation money shot: The prevalence of FRAs on college campuses.

Equally revealing were addenda following Kanin’s basic report.  They reported studies in two large Midwestern state universities which covered a three-year period ending in 1988.  The finding of the combined studies was that among a total of 64 reported rapes exactly 50% were false.  Kanin found these results significant because the women in the main report tended to gather in the lower socioeconomic levels, thus raising questions about correlations of false allegation with income and educational status.  After checking figures gathered from university police departments, he therefore reported that “quite unexpectedly then, we find that these university women, when filing a rape complaint, were as likely to file a false as a valid charge.”  In addition, Kanin cited still another source (Jay, 1991) which supported findings of high frequency false allegations in the universities.  On the basis of these studies, Kanin felt it reasonable to conclude that “false rape accusations are not uncommon” (p.90).

Some women who file false rape allegations are mentally ill. Some women, especially college students, are doctrinaire feminists. Some women push the FRA button to blow up dull relationships or stoke jealousy and white knight-ism in third parties. But most, I’d bet, are women showing acute symptoms of Regret Rape, that condition of emotional duress primarily afflicting women who have made voluntary and consensual, if rash, decisions to sleep with men who didn’t fancy the women as much as they fancied the men. Or, similarly, these Regret Rape women consensually slept with men whom the women later retroactively deemed unworthy of their sex.

It’s time to have a serious national conversation about false rape accusations. NPR… your move.

Read Full Post »

Shocking Report: Feminist Facts Don’t Align With Actual Facts

You can’t make it through a day it seems without coming across some inane feminist assertion about women, men, rape, pay gaps, sex, discrimination, or the patriarchy. One of their favorite fake facts is the “1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted on college campuses” incantation.

It’s bullshit on its face, but gets megaphoned through every channel of the Hivemind media because the elite and their propaganda arms are fully invested in the feminist narrative, and in the anti-male policies that feminists advocate. They are tandem malevolent forces. And the Hivemind is, if nothing else, expert in message discipline.

But the Narrative is collapsing, hard and fast. Body blows are raining down upon it. Take this actual fact, for example: The DOJ released new data on sexual assault, and it was not congenial to the feminist or anti-white frat bro religions,

A new report on sexual assault released today by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially puts to bed the bogus statistic that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. In fact, non-students are 25 percent more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students, according to the data. And the real number of assault victims is several orders of magnitude lower than one-in-five.

The full study, which was published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division within DOJ, found that rather than one in five female college students becoming victims of sexual assault, the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5). For non-students, the rate of sexual assault is 7.6 per 1,000 people.

Commenter Simon Corso, who forwarded the study, writes,

Not that anyone here needs me to tell them that feminists are full of shit, but rape statistics [are] being exaggerated by over 500% and the lie is so often repeated that it’s commonly believed.

And the 500% feminist fantasy tax may even be too low. As commenter Wrecked ‘Em notes,

When the remedy (e.g. the “affirmative consent” ridiculousity foisted on college students in California recently) is way out of whack relative to the problem (0.61% is still 2x what a lot of other studies have found), what you get is not a reduction in the problem but an increase in the unintended consequences.

The UVA article in Rolling Stone is a good example. Expect to see more collateral damage like that as the feminists double-down on the 1-in-4 theme only to watch the soap go flying out the window as they squeeze harder.

Feminists aren’t interested in reality or hard facts. That stuff is apparently too UGH PENIS for them. But that wouldn’t be a problem (after all, it’s fun to mock deliberate retards) if the elite didn’t give dumbfuck lying feminists platform after platform, day after day, year after year, to drench the public at large with the yeasty grievance pus of their psychological illness.

Hey, in related Feminist Fantasy Tax news, their cherished pay gap is predominately a function of women’s voluntary job market choices, and not discrimination. And you know that “war on women” fake but accurate rallying cry that Hivemind megaphonies like NPR and President Butt Naked ritualistically chant sun-up to sun-down? A minor corrective: If there’s a war against one particular sex, all the data say that war is being waged on men. Latest salvo: More men than ever are shafted out of the job market.

Not that any of these pleas for sanity will make a difference. The Fundamental Premise remains operative and exploited by a power elite and a battalion of screeching manjawed foot soldiers, all of whom, if judged by their actions, despise men, and non-elite white men in particular. So why do I bother? Because shivving diseased hindbrain meat is fun even as the blob zombie hordes devour the last morsels of civilization.

Read Full Post »