Updates

I have several things I want to update everyone on.  I have written two new pages.  The first, Why the black pill?, is the new about page.  The second page, The Paleo-Game Cult, is a work in progress and rough draft about the nature of the Roissysphere gamers and the obsessions with the paleo diet, conspiracy theory, etc. in addition to game.  It’s the beginning of what will likely be a few pages about the ideologies that game gets incorporated to.  At some point I will write a page on feminist interest in game and another page on how that’s similar to the Paleo-Game Cult’s use of game.  Comments are open on those two pages so I would like all comments related to that under those pages and not here.

Conspiracy theorists still can’t provide evidence of their conspiracies so the say stupid things like, “Rich people have free time so they must be conspiring.”

The Susan Walsh debacle that got started when she said that “frivolous divorce was overstated by MRAs” continues.  In following this debacle, several people have pointed out something interesting about Susan Walsh, that the men in her family are non-entities to her.  Susan Walsh two brothers that both were abused by the divorce system.  The state of her husband and son don’t concern her.  She sides with women over men in her own family.  (I have seen examples over and over again of women being misandrist even when their misandry directly hurts the men they claim to love so Susan Walsh is a typical woman.)  Here are some comments from various people on this subject.

Its been pointed out numerous times but never stops being horrible: the complete nullification of her son from any thought at all. This is a woman who waxes poetic on the internet about alphas, how to get them, how to move on to the next one. Endless advice for girls, while her loser son likely sits as an incel and will for the remainder of his life (not even his own mother wants him. I’m sure it was a flip of a coin whether she kept her beta-husbands son to begin with, since women RARELY keep the sons of betas to term.)

Woe to that poor boy. Especially considering the radfems Walsh has been inviting would rather give him a double-tap to the back of the head than give him any advice. Maybe his mother feels the same way, on account of his broken, undesireable, inadequate genetic material.

If Susan Walsh is aware of her son’s state at all, she probably game him some game literature.  This is a guarantee that Susan Walsh’s son is now getting laid as much as I am.  He may have been getting laid as much as I do before she found game.

The only thing I have heard SW say about her husband besides that he exists is how big of a beta he is. IOW SW is trashing her husband as a big chump.

It’s the same with SW’s son. We never hear anything about him except how he is a big beta too. SW is trashing her son as a future chump.

Since SW treats her son & husband with such contempt, then she clearly is as bad as the feminists.

In game circles, “beta” is considered effectively equivalent to “lower lifeform”.  Since Susan Walsh is immersed in game, calling her husband and her son “betas” means she has nothing but contempt for them.

Anyone who is defending Susan Walsh by this point is either insane or a white knight mangina.  One thing I glad to see is more men speaking up about Susan Walsh who didn’t in the past for whatever reason.

I’ve never understood why so many in the manosphere (even some otherwise highly bright individuals I think highly of) think so well of SW, when she clearly is an inconsistent, at best, supporter of men in general – her blog, which is aimed at women, with its title ‘Hooking Up Smart’, shows one all one needs to know about her and where her sympathies lie. Not with the menfolk…

For a long time myself, PMAFT, and a couple others were lone voices in the wilderness on Susan Walsh.  Now, more people understand the truth about her that we have known for a long time.

Susan Walsh

Several questions have been asked about Susan Walsh.  I don’t have the time right now to run through all of the problems with her because such a thing would approach being a doctoral dissertation.  Instead I will do my best to provide a brief summary with some examples.  None of the examples I list are freak occurrences.  They are part of a pattern on Susan Walsh’s part going back at least two years of lies, deceit, and woman firstism.  She claims not to be a feminist, but only because she has tried to redefine feminist purely in terms of being a slut.  This definition fails to capture what feminism is really about, female supremacism, and Susan Walsh is a female supremacist.

One question that was asked was whether Susan Walsh is pro-game or not.  This should answer that.

This is the reason I am vociferously pro-Game and anti-feminism.

The anti-feminist part is effectively a lie as I said, but there is no doubt now about her stance on game.

Susan Walsh appeared in the manosphere around two years ago give or take.  Some the gamers tried to convince her of game.  There were quite a few fights between the gamers and her because at first she didn’t buy into game.  Eventually, she did, likely because she realized that the cult of Roissysphere game can be used to control men for the benefit of women.  Once this happened all of the gamers that were fighting her stopped that and starting kissing her ass except one, Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech, one of the few (possibly the only) sane gamers out there.  PMAFT’s perspective is not about game as much as it is about mens rights and respect for men, so he wasn’t taken in by her sudden conversion to being pro-game.  PMAFT kept on disagreeing with her so she eventually banned him from hooking up morons.  She tried to claim that PMAFT couldn’t hold a “civil conversation”, but those of us who know PMAFT know that is bullshit.  You can read more about this on PMAFT’s blog at this link.

It was sometime after this that I came along to the manosphere.  For a while I got on fine with Susan Walsh.  Then one day all of a sudden, she went nuts about me.  She started calling me “creepy”, not to me since she doesn’t talk to me anymore, but to other people.  Calling a virgin man like myself, “creepy”, is no different than calling a black person a nigger, or using any sort of racist or anti-semitic slur.  I can’t give you links exactly what happened with Susan Walsh because it’s all in her head.  Here is an example of her calling me creepy.

Keoni, I’ve wrestled with this guy before. He’s impossible to reason with, he just lashes out irrationally. He was a fixture on HUS even before he started blogging and finally left in a huff claiming I’d banned him. I hadn’t but I would have been justified in doing so – he hijacked a bunch of threads complaining about everyone without taking any responsibility whatsoever for his own circumstances.

This is what women mean when they use the word creepy.

Not only did Susan Walsh call me creepy but she lied (like she does over and over again).  I never said that she banned me from hooking up stupid.  I left because commenting there was a waste of time, not “in a huff”.  What she calls my “not taking responsibility” is my refusal to believe in game.  Since game doesn’t exist, women aren’t just automatons responding to men.  They are responsible for what they do, and I was holding women responsible.  She also has the nerve to call me irrational when Hawaiian Fat Blob was writing a conspiracy theory about how I was down voting his comments on The Spearhead, and when I had to delete various comments from gamers because they were coming here to drive traffic to their blogs.  One of HFB’s sycophants, Workshy Joe, another gamer who has employment problems, admitted to this.

For the sake of brevity, I going to skip a lot here.  There’s a lot of talk about the 80/20 rule, where 20% of men are having sex with 80% of the women.  Gamers think this is true, and more or less so do I.  Susan Walsh has talked about the 80/20 rule as well, which the gamers took to mean that she agreed with them.  She let them think this.  What Susan Walsh meant by the 80/20 rule was that 80% of sex is happening between 20% of the men and 20% of the women.  Not that long ago, Susan Walsh’s duplicity in this area was uncovered.  Later in the comments, she tries to pull some BS by claiming various surveys about a person’s number of sex partners are anonymous which by definition can’t be.  (The survey thing is better explained here and here.)  What Susan Walsh is trying to do here is invoke the myth of equal suffering as described on The Spearhead, in order for women to not be held accountable for their actions.  She tried the same thing when she was still talking to me.  She said that there women “in the same situation as me”.  I challenged her to produce a 33 year old involuntary virgin woman.  Susan Walsh did not do this and let this insult to my intelligence stand.

As a result of all this one of her sycophants made up a conspiracy theory that I had “invaded” Dalrock’s blog, and all the anti-Susan Walsh comments were really sock puppets of me.  I didn’t even know that there were people rightfully criticizing Susan Walsh until after that conspiracy theory accusation was made against me.  Despite that, even many of the gamers were starting to catch on to Susan Walsh’s lies, passive aggressive behavior, and general modus operandi as explained in the following by Anonymous Reader.

Unfortunately a key part of her “hanging in there” consisted of simply ignoring facts that did not agree with her pre-determined conclusion. This is part of a pattern with Walsh; she makes some sweeping generalization, men provide examples that disprove it, she ignores them or even belittles them with some feeble snark, then she goes on to repeat the same false claim again in some other venue. In the case of surveys, there are some major issues with truthfulness of women that Walsh refuses to discuss. Basil posted a small study that clearly demonstrated that women will lie about number of sexual partners except when they believe that they are certain to be caught. This doesn’t surprise me as a man, but apparently it doesn’t fit in well with Walsh’s view of women – so she ignores it. I’m not impressed when someone claims to be ‘open minded’ one minute and then demonstrates obvious close-mindedness the next. Actions speaking louder than words, once again. I bet that even if someone went to Walsh’s own blog and posted links to the study, or even the study itself, she’d continue to ignore it.

And yes, I’m going to bring up her claim that she can spot entitled women just by looking at them from time to time. Because it is a claim that is testable, but she refuses to test it. It is a claim that flies right in the face of some men I know, and she refuses to acknowledge that. Her arrogant ignorance in this matter doesn’t give me any confidence at all in anything else Walsh has to say, frankly.

This matters because Walsh on the one hand is presenting herself as an honest debater, and an honest researcher. But honest debate means putting claims to the test, testing hypotheses and admitting if they cannot pass muster. Honest research means following evidence wherever it leads, not starting with a preconceived idea and only accepting data that supports it.

Based on what I’ve here and elsewhere:

Susan Walsh says she looks at all the data, but her actions are those of someone who is cherry picking surveys to support a predetermined conclusion.

Susan Walsh says she’s willing to learn from men and admit when she’s wrong, but her actions to me are those of someone who has zero interest in men’s real experience and an arrogant refusal to admit any error.

So as far as I’m concerned, she appears to be just another “Team Women!” player, and nothing more.

PMAFT, another gamer, said something similar.

You have realized the same thing I have discovered a long time ago. The only difference between her and Amanda Marcotte is that Susan Walsh is running a better con. It’s telling that Susan Walsh’s only opposition to feminism is the part of feminism she perceives as harming women. She agrees with every other part of feminism. For example, she is against men going expat to find wives/form families (not to mention men going ghost). This shows that Susan Walsh wants to keep men in the marriage 2.0 system. This is one of a thousand examples.

Her attempt to redefine the 80/20 rule is another example of how Susan Walsh is playing for Team Woman and nothing more. She is trying to claim that women are suffering the same lack of sex men are. We know this is not true. Walsh’s subtle redefinition of the 80/20 rule is similar to duplicitous Middle Eastern leaders who say one thing in English for American/Western consumption and another thing in Arabic for local consumption.

Put all of this together, and it becomes clear that Susan Walsh is all about trying to keep men locked in to the feminist system here in the West. Just because she disagrees with (or is willing to sacrifice) some transgender sex-positive lesbians does not mean that Susan Walsh isn’t playing for Team Woman.

Over the last week, Susan Walsh’s true nature was exposed again at Dalrock’s blog when she revealed what she thinks causes divorce.  A man commenting at her blog said the following.

Men are shattered and blind sided by divorce far more than women are. Usually the woman you files for divorce has slowly been making up her mind to do it for some time with much consultation with her girl friends. Maybe because she cheated and thus dissolved her feels of bondedness when married women have good emotional sex with another man, but not when men do.

This was Susan Walsh’s angry response.

Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

Everyone in the manosphere knows the truth about divorce.  We all know how it is female initiated for the flimsiest of reasons, yet Susan Walsh both insults our intelligence and proves she is no anti-feminist with this comment.  She said that divorce only happens because men cheat which we know is bullshit.  You have to read all of the comments to that link above.  (Don’t complain that it’s too long.  It’s all relevant.)  Eventually you will find out how Susan Walsh digs a deeper hole for herself on this issue, lies about what this gamer said, accuses Dalrock of taking what she said out of context when he didn’t, etc.  Eventually, even Dalrock gets tired of Susan Walsh’s bullshit.

Even if she ultimately acknowledges the reality of frivolous divorce, there still is her bizarre denial that she ever wrote what she did, not to mention her characterization of her statement Provide stats for this or shut up. as I expressed a curiosity as to what percentage of female-initiated divorces are frivolous. She also is claiming that she was responding to an entirely different comment from Doug1 than the one she quoted in her response. She doesn’t characterize this as an oversight or error on her part, she simply denies her reply was actually a reply to the comment everyone can see she quoted.

Lastly, I’m not impressed by her stance that she hasn’t had a chance to look into the topic of frivolous divorce. Given her long history blogging with a primary goal of getting women married, at the very least it shows a profound lack of intellectual curiosity. How can this not have ever interested her before? Furthermore, she clearly has seen the issue raised repeatedly on my site and others across the manosphere and instead of considering what she read dismissed it out of hand. Her latest statement (the one the OP is in response to) betrays a deep hostility to men’s complaints about women taking advantage of the system. Taken all together her driving passion seems to be to put as many women as possible in the position of being able to victimize men through the unfair marriage laws and courts.

Read that last sentence several times to make sure it sinks in.  The end result of this is that the gamers are all realizing the truth about Susan Walsh that PMAFT first realized back in early 2010, something he realized even before I did.

Dalrock,

Taken all together her driving passion seems to be to put as many women as possible in the position of being able to victimize men through the unfair marriage laws and courts.

Wow. Pretty harsh. But probably true…

And this is just a couple of days after dragnet and others had explained how she is ‘not that bad’. I agreed with the position at the time, but now I think I will re-assess.

Susan Walsh has both a daughter *and* a son, btw.

You will notice that sentence at the end about how Susan Walsh has both a daughter and a son.  The fact that she has a son rarely comes up whereas the fact that she has a daughter comes up all of the time.  When someone says, “Susan Walsh is just trying to help her daughter,” the question I have to ask is what about her son?  That’s in addition to “helping her daughter” seems to mean “putting as many women as possible in the position of being able to victimize men through the unfair marriage laws and courts” which is by definition at the expense of her son.  This is even more clear when you learn about Susan Walsh’s life story which was being a slut followed by snagging a beta to bail her out.  What she is trying to do is make sure her daughter has that option because men are figuring out what is going on and will not be the beta to bail out an aging slut.

I could write about more examples from the last two years, but Susan Walsh’s pattern of lies, deceit, and woman firstism is clear.  To end this, I am going to add a comment from Roosh’s forum about Susan Walsh.

ehh, I don’t care for her. Her tone of writing is insultingly saccharine, though I suppose that’s inevitable when writing for women. The woman earned an MBA from Wharton, but you’d never guess it from her writing.

She takes what male game/MRA writers say, misunderstands half of it, and then relays it to her female readers. Many of those readers, by the way, seem to be there for her patented 12 Step Slut Rehab Program™.

When I read her site, I feel like I’m reading “How to Manipulate Men for Dummies.” It feels like the goal is not a successful satisfying relationship with a man she loves, but rather how to “get what you want” out of dating, how to have the relationship on “her terms.” The man is merely an accessory, to good feelings and status among her peers. It feels like the impetus for the site is sluts get pumped and dumped, and they want to know how to keep Mr. Alpha around.

Slut Rehab is definitely what hooking up stupid should be called.

Update: Dalrock made the following comment, and I think it should be included.

I’m glad this is clear for you, because I read what she wrote several times and still have no idea where she stands on the topic of the post. It reminds me an awful lot of a speech by a politician. She made a claim, I refuted it. She then proceeded to deny making the claim, question my integrity, accuse me of taking her comment out of context, and obfuscate the issue. I have given her the benefit of the doubt whenever I could, and worked very hard to not make this a personal issue. In return she scolds, accuses, and makes it personal. Now, as someone predicted, she returns as if none of this happened and apologizes for offending anyone who feels strongly about the issue of divorce. I expected much more from Susan.

Even the part which appears to be acknowledging an error is actually restating what she said in the beginning, and reiterating her defense that she was taken out of context:

In truth, it was not my intention to say that women do not file for divorce frivolously. I am well aware that they do. However, my desire to have the exchange put in context is legitimate.

Note that this is not a retraction of the position that I challenged. She didn’t say that women never file for divorce frivolously. She said:

Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

As far as I can tell she hasn’t retracted this and is simply continuing to deny and deflect, all the while continuing to accuse me of taking her out of context.

New Name For The Blog: The Black Pill

I have been considering changing the name of the blog for a long time.  The name, “Omega Virgin Revolt”, outlived its usefulness, and the topics I was writing about went beyond the name.  I was looking for a concept that I could use to name this blog, and a few days ago I found it, The Black Pill.  The Black Pill is a concept invented by Paragon, a commenter here, that I am using with his permission.  Read what he had to say about it.

 We need to talk about taking the ‘black pill’, meaning to reconcile that there are no personal solutions to systemic problems – which can only resolve over evolutionary time.

There are no personal solutions to systemic problems, and feminism/women is a systemic problem.  This is why game doesn’t exist, the paleo diet is a lie, and conspiracy theory doesn’t describe reality.  They’re all delusional attempts to try to formulate a personal solution to the systemic problem of feminism/women.

Throughout the manosphere you will hear guys talking about taking the “red pill”, and allusion to The Matrix trilogy of movies, where the main character was given a red pill to discover the truth about the matrix and the real world.  However, as it is currently used in the manosphere, the “red pill” isn’t dealing with reality, it’s at best a slightly more realistic delusion.  In some cases it’s nothing more than an alternate delusion.  To discover reality as it is, you need to take the black pill.

I am not changing the URL of the blog since I don’t want to lose any of my considerable readership, but I have changed the name of the blog.  I have also changed my username to “The Black Pill” and changed my gravatar to an image of a black pill.  Over the next week or so I will be updating the About page and the other pages to reflect the new name of the blog.

This is only really a name change to better describe the blog.  There will be no real change in content or direction.

Women Don’t Have Actual Problems

There are a bunch of women whining on twitter for the last several days under the hashtag, #mencallmethingsPM/AFT had the good sense to declare on trolling contest on it.

#mencallmethings is just another example of how women (in first world countries) don’t have any actual problems.  Between the government and manginas doing everything for women, no woman has any true problems.  Any “problem” a woman has is because of one of these reasons:

1. A desire for the equivalent of fried ice.  IOW she wants something that is physically impossible.

2. Failed attempts at defrauding, stealing from, or otherwise attempting to enslave men.

That’s it.  When a woman has to go through 1% of what a typical non-alpha man has to go through then maybe she can talk about having actual problems.  Until that happens women should keep their mouths shut.

Women Don’t Want Decent Men

I agree with all of this.

One thing that stood out in Jax’ story to me was three things:
1. In spite of the fact that her husband was a scumbag; it didn’t stop him from marrying a woman and having kids with her;
2. In spite of the fact that he was a scumbag; according to Jax, it didn’t stop a lot of other women from lining up to be his mistresses; even though they must have known he was marriied, with children, AND a scumbag;
3. In spite of the fact that he was a scumbag; that evidently hasn’t stopped him from moving on to new female ‘conquests.’

Come to think of it, that describes pretty closely the lot of most scumbag-type males I know. They either have wives and girlfriends; ex-wives and girlfriends; or they stay single and have harems of girlfriends. But they’re never without willing women, and usually lots of offspring as well.

Does anyone SERIOUSLY want to argue that women really WANT decent men?

It’s About More Than Dating

One thing I have noticed is how whenever I bring up the bad behavior of women, the response always has a dating context.  My experience being the recipient of female bad behavior is much larger than anything related to dating.  For instance, I didn’t ask out any of the women who falsely accused me of sexual harassment.  I didn’t even have any contact with them.  If the bad behavior I have gotten from women was only related to my attempts to date them, then I should never have gotten any bad behavior from women when I wasn’t trying to date them.  I certainly shouldn’t get any bad behavior from women I have had no real contact with, yet both has happened.

I suspect that the reason why no one is willing to discuss my experiences with female bad behavior that were not dating related is because it is impossible to mount a defense for the women in those cases.  They can’t claim I was being creepy to women I had no real contact with.  It exposes that women are being bitches to men they find unattractive regardless of the context and regardless of whether they had contact or not with men such as me.

The Feminist Time Machine

When you point out how women have treated you like crap, women and manginas will blame it on your supposed “misogyny”.  When you point out how women treated you the same when you had a high opinion of women, then you will get accused of secretly always hating women even if you aren’t aware of it.  I’m calling this phenomena “The Feminist Time Machine”.

What they’re really saying is that since you are a “woman hater” now, that it was fine for women to hate you before you became a “woman hater”.  In other words they are saying that they have some sort of a time machine that can predict who will become a “woman hater” years before it happens.  This is equivalent to the plot of the short story and movie, Minority Report, where people get arrested for crimes that have not committed yet but supposedly will in the future.  They only way that can make sense with that kind of foreknowledge is if the foreknowledge caused the crimes.  It’s the same with The Feminist Time Machine, so any “woman hating” would have to be intentionally generated by women.

It’s just another example of how women and manginas blame the victim, non-mangina men.

A Question No Woman Or Mangina Will Ever Answer

Lots of women and manginas say that the reason why I can’t get a girlfriend/get laid/am hated by women is because I’m a “misogynist asshole” or something similar.  They say that women are staying away from me because they don’t want misogynists.

Knowing that claim, here is a question that no woman or mangina will ever answer.  I wasn’t what they call a “misogynist” most of my life.  I had a much better opinion of women most of my life.  I was not born with my current opinions about women.  They came from experience, especially my experiences with being the victim of false sexual harassment charges.  Since so much of that happened before I developed my current view on women, then why did women treat me EXACTLY THE SAME as they do now?  Why is not being a “misogynist” getting the exact same results as being a “misogynist”?

The Killing Fields

Recently, I read about a guy who got rejected in a very public and humiliating way by a woman for being interested in geeky/nerdy things despite being a widly successful hedge fund manager.  This doesn’t surprise me as I am a widly successful owner of my own business who women pretty much universally hate.  I know that being rich isn’t a guarantee women will want you even if they’re gold diggers.

Read the following comments.

The same thing happens in the college scene, where guys majoring in science and engineering learn to avoid or lie about their education because if they admit CS or physics as a major, even if their game is tight to that point, the girls will simply drop the enthusiasm and drift away.

“I used to wince at Whiskey’s ad nauseum repetition of a phrase he would parrot on Roissy, “Women hate, hate, hate Betas.” Now I’m not so sure….”

They do. The idea of being sexual with or pursued by a beta is nauseating to them, betas are subhuman and deserving of calumny.

Both these comments got me thinking.  They remind me of another example where a woman talked about “useless beta men” and an “epidemic of inferior men”.  The ideology that women act on is the ideology of Pol Pot, of the Killing Fields.  Women want non-alpha men purged and intelligence is considered by women to be a lack of alphaness in a man.  This is similar to the ideology that led to the killing fields.  Many of the millions who were murdered by the Khmer Rouge in the Killing Fields were murdered for showing signs of intelligence.  That included everything from education to the possesion of wristwatches and/or glasses.  If modern geeky hobbies had existed in Cambodia in the 70s, I’m sure that would have been included along with wristwatches and glasses as evidence of intelligence, and anyone interested in geeky hobbies would have been murdered too.

This makes it clear that the ideology of what women are doing now and what Pol Pot did are very similar.  The Killing Fields needed to be opposed for both moral and practical reasons and so must what women are doing now.  Rebel at The Spearhead said that women are engaged in a “holy crusade” against men, and what I have documented in this post is an example of it.  The Khmer Rouge was also on a “holy crusade”.  As Rebel also said what is at stake is nothing less than civilization itself and your existence and freedom just as it was with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Gamers Are Having Problems With Malware

A few days ago Mangina Johnson’s website was identified as a source of malware.  He is not the only gamer with malware problems.  Hawaiian Mangina has been fighting malware on his computer for 4 days.  What’s with gamers having problems with malware all of a sudden?  It’s like they’re passing malware around like an STD.

I have never had problems with malware.  It’s like the malware knows who deserves to be attacked.