You may have noticed a few lame trolls today. That’s because ManginaBoobz linked to my post about my desire to leave this planet of women and manginas behind. Besides discovering that the readership of ManginaBoobz is homophobic (although they may only be homophobic against male homosexuals), I’m surprised that ManginaBoobz didn’t write about my World Of Ptavvs post or the related post, Zoe Quinn Is A Thrint. I’m really disappointed.
I have a question for all you white vagina worshipping nationalists reading this. Why do you come here? You aren’t going to convince me of anything, and this blog is very obscure. Yet, you people keep showing up. Why?
If you don’t know who Zoe Quinn is, she’s a woman who created a shitty video game (if you can call what she vomited a video game) about depression. To get visibility for her so called video game, she cheated on her boyfriend with 5 different guys. On top of that she verbally abused and gaslighted her now ex-boyfriend. This was one of the events that caused the GamerGate scandal to explode.
Despite Zoe’s unethical and evil behavior, she has an army of manginas willing to do her bidding. The Corruption In Video Game Journalism Facebook page said it well.
She could do anything, ANYTHING she fucking wants and still have a legion of followers back her purely because she is a girl. If she was man this would be a non-story, nobody would care about the harassment, nobody would give him the benefit of the doubt, nobody would pull articles down all over the net for his privacy.
You know what it comes down to? These people treat women like fucking children, poor helpless creatures that need to be protected. It fucking disgust’s me that people like this have such absurd pull in both the industry and the media. Yet we can’t even debate the issue without instantly discrediting the entire movement as sexists because we dared to criticise a public female figure.
When you look at Zoe Quinn’s ability to manipulate legions of manginas, something no man could do, she is an example of how the Thrint really is a metaphor for women.
There’s a science fiction novel by Larry Niven called World Of Ptavvs. The back story of it is that 1.5 billion years ago there was a slave empire run by aliens called the Thrint. The Thrint were not very intelligent and had poor skills with tools. The only reason they could create a slave empire was because they had telepathic abilities that could allow them to control other aliens which the Thrint called “the power”. On the Thrint homeworld, the Thrint’s telepathic abilities weren’t anything special. Since the Thrint weren’t intelligent, the only reason they were able to create an interstellar slave empire was because other aliens had sent manned probes to explore the Thrint homeworld. The Thrint were able to take control of the aliens that visited their homeworld via “the power”, and that’s how the Thrint were able to get their interstellar slave empire. The Thrint pretty much never invented anything on their own. Sometimes a Thrint would be born without “the power”. Those Thrint were labelled Ptavvs and sold into slavery or murdered. The Thrint empire was destroyed by a slave rebellion led by other aliens called the Tnuctipun. While the slave rebellion was successful to a point, the Thrint decided to create a mega amplifier for “the power” where they telepathically forced everyone to commit suicide. All that’s left of the Thrint in modern times are some creatures descended from them called Grogs whose telepathic powers are so minimal as to be effectively harmless.
The Thrint, their “power”, and the Tnuctipun are metaphors for the world today. Women are like the Thrint in that their singular “power” is their ability to manipulate men. Beyond that they can’t do anything else. The equivalent to the Tnuctipun are MRAs and MGTOW. The one difference between women and the Thrint is the myth of female hypoagency. All the aliens conquered by the Thrint knew that they were being enslaved by the Thrint. On the other hand many men don’t know they are being ruled by women because of propaganda that says women have no agency.
One of the things those of us opposed to misandry need to do is create a “world of ptavvs”. In other words, we have to nullify women’s power to manipulate men .
A lot of you have already seen this video where Whoopi Goldberg points out that a woman shouldn’t hit a man and expect that a man won’t hit back. The other women in the video are aghast at what Whoopi Goldberg is saying. There’s an acronym for this, DHMIAG, or “don’t hit me I’m a girl”. What’s missing from that acronym is the second part, “but I can hit men because I’m a girl”.
This is an example of how women use hypoagency, the idea that women are never actors but only acted upon, to manipulate men. Hypoagency is also tied to women being “weaker” than men. In the DHMIAG example, there are two things going on. First, if a woman hits a man it’s assumed to be a man’s fault. The woman is only reacting to what the man did so he “deserved” it. Second, the man isn’t supposed to hit back, that is engage in self defense, against women because it was somehow his fault that she hit him. Third, the man isn’t supposed to hit back because the women is basically equivalent a child or a pet.
When described in this fashion, it sounds pretty demeaning to women in theory. Yet, women across the political spectrum from liberal feminists to conservative traditionalists argue in favor of women having hypoagency. Supposedly, this means that women are treated as “inferior”, but in reality that isn’t the case. On the feminist side, this shows up in lobbying the government for special treatment (affirmative action, transfer payments that only go to women etc.) since women are supposedly in a “weaker” position, yet women get all this free stuff. This was what the Hobby Lobby case was all about. Women are supposedly incapable of getting their own birth control so employers have to pay for it. It’s using “weakness” as an attempt to get free stuff.
On the traditionalist side, it’s even more obvious. In traditional Christian churches, for example, it is taught that women are the “weaker vessel” and are “inferior” to men. What ends up happening is that the church says that men are supposed to “lead” but if women sin, then it’s all the fault of a man (typically a husband) for failing to lead. Even though women are supposedly in an “inferior” position in church, women conveniently are exempt from all responsibility and accountability. This is why women are the biggest defenders of traditionalism.
While in the DHMIAG example women have the equivalent status of a child or a pet, it’s important to remember that most people treat children and pets very well. And it’s not like women are treated like children or pets all the time. Women can move back between child/pet and independent adult status as is convenient for them. And that’s how all these examples work regardless of whether it’s on the feminist or the traditionalist side of the political spectrum.
Women know that most men are honorable so that men will instinctively defend those they perceive as weak. So women present themselves as “weak” to manipulate men into giving them whatever woman want. Women use our honorable nature against us in a very insidious and evil manner.
Anytime you hear a woman arguing for their “inferiority” or “weakness” in some area, it’s an attempt to manipulate you. The thing to remember is that women have political power so even though men are on average stronger than women, for example, it doesn’t matter. Political power trumps all, but part of the hypoagency scam is to distract you from that.
I asked a few years ago why all these supposed “good women” never do anything to show themselves and differentiate themselves from all the evil women out there. The obvious answer is because there are so few good women out there as to make them practically nonexistent. That there are so few female MRAs and similar women is proof of that.
The problem of the lack of “good women” is worse than you think because there are plenty of cases where it would benefit the “good women” to make themselves known and differentiate themselves. We’re not just talking about cases where “good women” should be doing things to help men just out of the goodness of their hearts. We’re talking about cases where if nothing else the “good women” should be doing things that would help men but generate benefits for them at the same time.
On another blog a while ago, I read about the perfect example of this. During divorce, which happens frequently and is mostly caused by women, women get custody of the children most of the time. This means that men lose access to their children especially since women can prevent men from seeing their children with impunity. Even when courts order that men get visitation, they won’t bother enforcing it. Thus, a divorced man’s access to his children is completely dependent on his ex-wife. For many divorced men this means being completely shut out of their children’s lives.
A divorced man losing contact with his children isn’t the only victim here. The divorced man’s parents also lose contact with his children. The children lose a relationship with their paternal grandparents. This brings up a question, why aren’t mothers of divorced men fighting for their sons when it comes to visitation and custody issues after a divorce? You don’t see any organization of grandmothers fighting the divorce courts on this issue. They aren’t joining any fathers’ rights groups.
This isn’t just a case of these mothers should be helping their divorced sons out of the goodness of their hearts (although that should be reason enough for them). These grandmothers (presumably) lose contact with their grandchildren because their sons do. It would benefit these women to help their sons on this issue because they would regain a relationship with their grandchildren. It directly benefits grandmothers to fight for their sons visitation and custody rights. Since this obviously isn’t happening even though it would benefit the mothers of divorced sons, there are only two possibilities why grandmothers aren’t doing this:
1. Women are willing to sacrifice a relationship with their grandchildren just to stick it to men, even their own sons. In other words women hate men more than they love their grandchildren.
2. While the divorced son loses visitation with his children, the grandmother is getting visitation from her son’s ex-wife but is complicit in cutting her own son out of her grandchildren’s life. A woman is willing to conspire with her son’s ex-wife against her own son, her own flesh and blood, because she hates men.
Either one of these is pretty evil. Women don’t just hate men in general. They hate their own sons (and other men in their own families). Women are willing to sacrifice their own sons on the altar of supporting other women EVEN WHEN IT PERSONALLY HURTS THEM. This example pretty much puts the issue of “good women” to bed.
On a side note, this is another reason why white vagina worshiping nationalists are full of shit. They talk a lot about duty to kin and racial solidarity, but this example proves that women are stabbing their own male kin in the back. They’re stupid to trust to their female kin or white women in general. Of course, white vagina worshiping nationalists are fine with white men being stabbed in the back by white women as long as white babies are produced.
stoner and tarnished, your parents, while abusive, succeeded in producing White children. You would even call yourselves “normal” White children. But a Negro, even if he was one of the very few moral and talented negros, can never produce White children.
There you have it, an example that shows “good women” are incredibly few in number and shows another reason why white nationalists are white vagina worshipers.
I’m white according to most people’s definition of white. I feel absolutely no solidarity with the white race so I renounce the white race. I also renounce all other races for what its worth.
One of the problems with all race based (and ethnic based) nationalism is that it is obsessed with producing babies. Thus, in race based nationalism women are worshipped and men are lowered to slaves or beasts of burden. This is why I use the term white vagina worshipping nationalists. It’s not just an insult.
This means that for men, women and manginas of their own race will stab them in the back. This is true for all race nationalists of every race so there is no such thing as racial solidarity as far as men of any race are concerned. It’s also true when dealing with people who aren’t race nationalists. The difference is that they aren’t spewing propaganda about racial solidarity.
Since woman worship is widespread among most people regardless of race and regardless of whether they believe in some form of race nationalism or not, there are really only two actual races. Women and manginas are one race, and non-mangina men are another. I would not be surprised if a genetic analysis showed that non-mangina men are a different subspecies than the rest of humanity if not a different species.