91 comments on “Morons

  1. This just proves how different men and women really perceive the opposite sex. When you look at it from the perspective from a woman because of their way is designed some guys just happen to look very creepy due to their unattractiveness in the same way some girls just look very ugly to guys. It’s really hard for unattractive men and attractive men and most women to look at reality in the same way because the attractive men and most women are “IN” so to speak and the unattractive men are out of the social mating game.

    Does it make it right? Of course not, just become someone is unattractive due to below average looks and poor social skills does not give women the right to treat these men as second rate citizens. I’ve never been in your situation W&N, but I empathize with you. I had an old friend where something similar happened to him. He got fired on some small negligible thing because some omen happened to not like him. In my earlier posts, I advocated self improvement solely as a means to survive in a harsh environment, but that route might work best solely for borderline men. Some men like W&N are far too much on the other side to cross over.

    The same treatment happened to people of the black race. It took a passionate speaker like Martin Luther King Jr. to make it known. Anyways, I’m not saying women have to necessarily treat unattractive men like rock stars to make things good, all they need to do is treat them with indifference not contempt, which is the exact treatment ugly fat women get.

    It’s funny, I used to think when I was young and naive that we were making progress when it came to human rights. Now that I’m older, I’ve realized that we just keep switching a new demographic to step on once the mistreatment of a specific group is discovered by the general populace. That’s the sad truth, the mistreatment doesn’t exist until the vast majority of the public believe it is a mistreatment not just the afflicted and until that moment, the mistreatment does not exist.

    • Self improvement without objective goals is nothing more than a scam. And anything having to do with women is not an objective goal.

      Since you think that I’m “too much on the other side” what is your answer for guys like me? I can think of a few but I won’t say them because I would be giving ammo to my enemies.

      • That’s the thing, you set the goals for yourself, that’s the point of self improvement or it wouldn’t be self improvement it would be letting other people tell you how to improve yourself instead. Like yohami stated several times in previous threads, women is just a byproduct of real self improvement that helps in all areas of life.

        I don’t think you are too much on the other side or any guy for that matter. However, I put you in that category for your refusal to change hence you are too much on the other side. My advice for you is just adopt MGTOW, which is a form of self improvement anyways.

        • I don’t know what to say anymore, it seems like you have just given up. Honestly, my advice is just figure out who you are because it seems like you don’t know who you truly are and how you come across to people.

          Meditation is good for that, but maybe you need to step out of your comfort zone. Why not try smoking weed if you haven’t? That will enable you to look at things in a different perspective and things you were blind to before become more obvious.

    • How many unattractive women get accused by others, of sexual harassment?
      How many unattractive men get accused by others, of sexual harassment?
      Could it simply be, that fewer men choose to report the advances of an unattractive woman, vs. more women choosing to report the advances of an unattractive man?

      • What w&n experiences goes far beyond reporting normal courtship behavior as if it were sexual harassment, he is not even attempting any kind of “courtship rituals” if you will — No, what is happening is that these women hold him in contempt to the point where these women feel the need to go out of their way to attempt to abuse authority and judicial manners to snuff him out for the high crime of not being physically attractive to them.

  2. W&N,

    Just minimize your interactions with women. Don’t talk to them unless they talk to you first. When talking with them, keep it work related. Do engage in some small talk with them though, so your avoidance of them isn’t OBVIOUS; i.e. talk about the weather, traffic on the way in, etc., but don’t talk anything serious with your female colleagues. That way, you avoid women without APPEARING to do so! That’s always worked for me… 🙂

    MarkyMark

    • Very good advice Mark, this is how I handle women in the workplace pretty much. Whenever I don’t it always comes back to bite me in some way.

      • Because you didn’t do any small talk, so you made it look obvious that you were ignoring them. Hence you came off looking creepy because you just did your own thing and they thought something was wrong with you. Obviously nothing was wrong with you, but women will come to crazy conclusions like that if you don’t socialize with them even minimally.

        • Not interacting = creepy? What? Not interacting is just being asocial. It’s a world apart from being creepy. I’m pretty sure I could even get women to agree with me on that one.

        • If not interacting was creepy, that means every man late for an appointment or intent on following road laws is ignoring women…

        • and is hence “creepy”.
          Bus drivers, taxi drivers, chauffeurs, pilots, ship captains, long-haul drivers.
          All creepy?

        • So if I work in a building with hundreds of people and I don’t encounter them (and thus don’t make small talk with them) because my job mainly involves writing computer software in my cubicle or office, I’m ignoring those people? This is the problem. Everyone is coming up with increasingly absurd attempts to justify female criminal behavior because most people won’t admit what women are doing is wrong. I’m waiting for someone to tell me that I’m sexually harassing the entire female population of the Earth by being on the same planet as them.

        • white and nerdy says: “So if I work in a building with hundreds of people and I don’t encounter them (and thus don’t make small talk with them) because my job mainly involves writing computer software in my cubicle or office, I’m ignoring those people? This is the problem. Everyone is coming up with increasingly absurd attempts to justify female criminal behavior because most people won’t admit what women are doing is wrong. I’m waiting for someone to tell me that I’m sexually harassing the entire female population of the Earth by being on the same planet as them.”

          Obviously what women are doing is wrong, they’re taking advantage of their power. If you are happy the way you are and all the shit you take for being you, then stay the same 😀

        • InT says: “Not interacting = creepy? What? Not interacting is just being asocial. It’s a world apart from being creepy. I’m pretty sure I could even get women to agree with me on that one.”

          I’m saying if you don’t interact and you look off, women will draw their own conclusions about you . Of course the same could happen with you interacting in the wrong way.

        • They will also accuse men who do make small talk if it is of benefit to them. For example, a woman coming up poorly in a performance review may decide to say it is because you, who made small talk with her, were sexually harassing her. No evidence is needed, of course. Just that you were seen talking to her. You are fired.

        • Creepy has basically become a slur used against unattractive men. I believe W&N ran an article here in which he said that calling men creepy is like calling blacks niggers. I agree on that point.

  3. W & N wrote:
    That’s what I was doing but I didn’t do any small talk but it didn’t help.

    That’s the rub, you should be able to engage in “meaningless” social conversation as camouflage. I can’t improve much on MarkyMark’s advice – be affable and cordial with everyone, but keep your interactions with women to an absolute minimum. I’m speaking as a man who has gone through some situations similar to yours.

    It also helps to have a friendly (male of course) coworker or confidante to exchange war stories with. Your blog may serve a similar purpose.

  4. Women should not be able to harass men who are not socially aware with false sexual harassment charges. That’s a gaping hole in the system that needs to be fixed. The law is there to protect the innocent and the weak, not to punish people for not being sexually attractive.

    • Or even “not driven to random madness by my ethereal beauty as the princess of a thousand stars, therefore he must be evil”.
      The fact that so many get away with it, and of those that are caught the penalty despite having destroyed lives, is so paltry… really shows how much the justice system cares to see justice done when there’s either no proof or no proper process being followed before a persons’ good name is forever tarnished.
      If the false rape/sexual harassment accusations don’t get ya… your professional licenses may be revoked, or your ability to gain loans or participate socially will be severely damaged…
      “No blood, no foul?” Not when it comes to those accusations.

  5. This whole thing just proves that feminism is all about sticking it to unattractive men, and maximizing un-interfered access to attractive men.

    • Maximised un-interfered access to attractive men is right… because women want the unattractive men to pay for her lifestyle to get close to the attractive men.
      And while women may say they don’t want a cheater, they ignore the obvious solutions of either “settle for something less” (funny considering the guy she pays for is very likely going to pay her way since women make up 80+% of all household purchases)… or be alone.
      That’s why the woman who says “you’re the nicest guy she’s met” should set off alarms (they may be superior communicators but their strategies are so transparent because many use the most “cost-effective” methods on naive nice guys)… because if she couldn’t find nice guys previously, she either couldn’t tell them apart from the bad guys (in which case she’s stupid, so being nice – to her at least – doesn’t matter) or she prefers the bad guys to the nice guys (in which case she’s a liar)…

  6. It’s just funny how manboobz makes all these assumptions, thinking the law must be just, and that women aren’t biased to the sisterhood. The latter reason brings into question the whole way sexual harassment charges are levied and supported.

    • The Duluth model of “the man is at fault” “the male gaze is unwelcome” puts a lot of unemployed misandrists, whether men or women, in employment.
      “Of course it’s true, if it keeps me fed, teeheehee!”

      • I wonder if feminist indoctrination about “male gaze” helped spur W&N’s sexual harassment allegations. All he would have to do is make the mistake of looking in a woman’s direction a little bit too long, even if unintentionally, which would then be “harassing” her.

        Women can misinterpret all kinds of shit when it comes from unattractive men. A smile could be seen as something dirty and sexual, a look could be interpreted the wrong way, etc. A real minefield. And who gets blamed for this? Not the hysterical women. W&N gets the blame. For having a dick basically.

        • Absolutely. You could have scenarios like you’re trying to get the attention of a male coworker but happen to be looking in the direction of a female coworker. Female coworker imagines that you’re staring at her with your “male gaze” and you’re harassing her when you have never met her nor have any idea who she is.

        • You notice how indifference is only a problem if you are a man that is “not wanted by women”?
          For a man that is wanted by women, his indifference is seen as a sign of strength.
          What’s in common with both scenarios?
          The existence of the woman, who thinks she alone can sit in judgement of others, is entitled to make false accusations, and is entitled to get away or even be praised for making such accusations.
          Quite quite revealing.

      • I interviewed for a job in Duluth last year. They flew me in, paid my way, and then never followed up, so I told them where to go in no uncertain terms. I’m too old for this shit, and from what I can see, far better off not living there.

        • Yeah I responded to a job opening up there without stopping to think it was an arctic feminazi paradise. As it turns out they never ended up contacting me. Just as well.

    • David Futrelle (if that’s even their real name, it’s probably a woman) is a bundle of logical fallacies. Don’t expect any kind of consistency out of him. The logical fallacy he invokes here is the just world fallacy.

  7. InT wrote:
    It’s just funny how manboobz makes all these assumptions, thinking the law must be just,

    I suspect he knows that they aren’t, but carries on anyway in the hope that he’ll get laid. Idiot.

    and that women aren’t biased to the sisterhood.

    My experiences at the workplace say otherwise. Female herding is fundamentally an amoral entity, probably for evolutionary reasons.

    The latter reason brings into question the whole way sexual harassment charges are levied and supported.

    A lot of the problems would be reduced or removed by getting rid of Human Resources, which produces nothing, performs no useful service, and is staffed almost entirely by women.

    • While I probably will be doing that within the next month or so, that really doesn’t solve the problem. I know plenty of guys in my situation who went to hookers and escorts but it changed nothing in their day to day dealings with women.

    • The problem with prostitution for men who are at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sexual desirability is twofold:

      First, it will not solve their problems. When they fuck an escort, it isn’t suddenly going to be some magic elixir that makes women they aren’t paying money to in exchange for access to her vagina want them any more.

      Secondly, the whole idea is a turn-off for a large number of men. What you get is a professional who likely spreads-for-pay for several men a day who will not be into the act (fucking a woman who isn’t into it is awful) and, for men like W&N, the man will know she otherwise wouldn’t give him the time of day. Sure, he might get lucky and find that rare prostitute that is giddy and actually likes to have sex with any man, even men that the vast majority of women find repulsive purely on a physical/sexual attraction level, but don’t count on it.

  8. C’mon, you have to give this particular collection of freaks some credit. At least they’re dense enough to make explicit what the rest of their fellow travellers desperately try to hide, namely the totalitarian nature of their agenda.

    Consider this particular case: they really are claiming that the mere fact an accusation is made against a man means he must be guilty, since even if the actual charge is based on a lie, he’s clearly guilty of provoking them to lie about him in the first place.

    The average witchfinder would have more integrity than to come up with such a bunco formulation.

  9. One more thing: didn’t this all used to be called ‘blaming the victim’. Applying the same standards here as they demand elsewhere, W & N would be quite within his rights to turn up to work dressed in a toga and with his skin dyed green without being victimised.

  10. Morons is right.

    These people are obviously sheltered.

    When the Duke Lacrosse SCAM was occurring, I asked a woman what she thought about it.

    Her EXACT words:

    “Well, they probably didn’t rape her, but if she accused them of that, then they must have done something wrong”.

    I lack the intellect to give this kind of an attitude a fancy Greek or Latin Label – like ad hominem or whatever.

    nonetheless, ’tis bullshit.

    • This is just the type of problem you get from most women. Most women aren’t going to accuse me of sexual harassment. But when a woman does there are plenty of women who will support her despite knowing that it didn’t happen. To them you must have done “something” wrong. Or you “deserve” to lose your job because you’re neither a married man nor a woman. Women have no sense of justice or morality.

      • Oh – that manboobz guy. He was the one that started this.

        David Fraudtelle. Just ignore him.

        He is an idiot.

        I plan to make one final post about him in the near future, then be done with even observing him.

      • Of course many of them will have no sense or morality… because many of them plug into social networks and play politics and try to be queen bees. Also, they believe they are always right, can never be corrected, and if they are wrong will try to destroy you to return to their mental construct of always being right.
        The woman with a lot of female friends has probably destroyed more peoples’ reputations than you know.

  11. The thing is, by not interacting with them or caring about them, you are removing yourself from their “social support network”. This is actually WAY worse then flirting with them. You aren’t giving them stuff for free and looking after their interests for free. This is VERY VERY WRONG. They are women, here them whine and demand.

    And if you aren’t listening to their whining and demanding, well maybe you need to be replaced with someone who does.

    • Yup. Another example of female entitlement… how about earning sympathy or friendship?
      Instead, it’s “you better pay me for telling you my problems since I am too good for you.”

  12. Did you see this post W&N? http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/04/24/winning-beats-the-game/

    Seems like it might be up your alley, as it’s a former PUA blogger talking about how “Game” is actually just “winning at life”, and how he shut down his pickup advice blog because he was sick of PUA. The comments are interesting too(i.e. “If a guy feels like a loser, then there is nothing I can say or do to help him.”)

      • Yeah, I’ve generally not seen my success in life correlate with success in women. I don’t know, maybe I’ve never really had moments where I feel 100% put together? I always feel like something is wrong, or missing. Either way the advice strikes me as simplistic, even if it makes sense. I guess it also depends on how intrinsically outgoing you are.

      • re: success and attraction. How do you explain to the people whose lives are a mess and still get women? Is it all just the result of an inflated sense of self-worth?

        • “Is it all just the result of an inflated sense of self-worth?”

          I think so, in a way. I guess I read that post not so much literally, and more as a concession that the advice is a load of crap. What is “winning at life”? Total fluff, no substance at all.

          Not that I have much experience at succeeding with women, but the times I’ve attracted them do correlate with a certain mindset, namely, the moments where I wasn’t even considering women at all, just doing my own thing. Not always, or even usually, correlated with succeeding in the sense that most people think of it in the West(was a stoned out college loser at one of these moments), but definitely not letting female bullshit affect what I was doing with my life in any way. Followed shortly thereafter by failure, when I realized that the girls were into me, and started caring about it.

          Anyway, I thought the Assanova post was interesting because it seemed like a snake oil salesman admitting that snake oil doesn’t actually cure anything, so thought I’d bring it up.

        • My theory, based on my understanding of evolutionary biology and psychology:

          Mating success is by and large only based off of your physical characteristics, or your genes. Physical appearance is of course the way we can tell who has good genes and who doesn’t. Physically attractive generally = good genes, at least to our sensory organs. Women are sexually attracted to the most physically attractive men, just like men are to women, but are FAR more discriminating due to the biological reality of scarcity–they can’t just go and and have several children with several men in a short period of time as men can with several women.

          Matt Ridley really put it best in the Red Queen:

          “There has been no genetic change since we were hunter-gatherers, but deep in the mind of modern man is a simple hunter-gatherer rule: strive to acquire power and use it to lure women who will bear heirs; strive to acquire wealth and use it to buy affairs with other men’s wives who will bear bastards . . . Wealth and power are means to women; women are means to genetic eternity.

          Likewise, deep in the mind of modern woman is the same hunter-gatherer calculator, too recently evolved to have changed much: strive to acquire a provider husband who will invest food and care in your children; strive to find a lover who can give those children first-class genes. Only if she is very lucky will they both be the same man . . . Men are to be exploited as providers of parental care, wealth and genes. ”

          … of course, he does classify that he doesn’t believe biology is destiny and all of that but let’s face it, most people don’t observe, don’t care, and are ruled by their emotions or their animal instincts. This is pretty much the rule. Those who follow the path of free will are pretty much the exception to the rule. It can be done. Our civilization and science and technology are proof of it.

          Now, think about life tens of thousands of years ago. There’s no money, and anyone alive is pretty much guaranteed to be able to scrape together the necessities as life is harsh and anyone who can’t cut it is not going to survive.

          What do you think women are going to go for, really…? Sexually that is, in their base desire to reproduce. Sure, they still wanted a guy to do that whole protecting and hunting bit, but why have his children when some stunningly attractive other guy in the tribe looks so much better? Women are visually oriented as men. This is fact. They are as attracted to youth and beauty as men are. Consider this: Rape is primarily about sex. Look at who female rapists target the most. The same young “in their prime” targets that male rapists do. These make up the overwhelming majority of rape victims.

          I suppose like today in most circumstances, the women would have still had to give up sex as a token gesture to keep the provider-type guy on the hook the guy being exploited as resources and protection and in some cases his swimmers would be faster than “Hot Guy’s”. Or maybe she got lucky and found both the provider and the good genes in one so none of the duplicitous shit is required. This explains why, rather than a lower percentage (maybe 10 to 20%) reflective of the percentage of men that women are most sexually attracted to passing on their genes, something like around 40% of all men (and 80% of women) got to pass on their genes because obviously they’re not going to hunt and protect and all of that if she isn’t giving it up to them.

          I believe the objective materialistic success in civilized life as we define it currently has very little to do with mating success and at best, without being sexually attractive only makes a man potential to be used by women. Our metric of success has very little to do with reproductive success or survival success as would be defined as success in a natural setting.

          Indeed, trailer trash dudes with 12 children from 11 different women are the big winners when it comes to nature and reproduction. We didn’t evolve to gauge success or mating fitness out of whether you’ve got a Rolls Royce or a mansion. Only women have evolved to care about resources for offspring, but they can get it from one man while having sex with another as DNA testing has proven is epidemic even in our great and “civilized” society.

        • “How do you explain to the people whose lives are a mess and still get women?”
          There is some kind of twisted logic to it… kind of like the way you think the person who is “incompetent AND drunk” is deserving of a break, vs. the person who is purely “incompetent”. Sometimes people get into relationships with others to show an audience “look at what a great person I am, to get into a relationship with this troubled soul.”
          Of course, said troubled soul has to suffer from the holy trinity of either being a substance abuser, a gambler, or a beater.
          Being chronically late for appointments or forgetting names doesn’t seem to get the same kind of sympathy. Neither does being a stamp collector or matchstick model-maker.

    • Or rather, “if the fields where he is not a loser is something that women are not attracted to(or a byproduct of that) or feel no fascination with as a pleasurable distraction, there is nothing I can do to help him”
      A lot of women are enamoured of a construction workers’ biceps. They like the idea that a man can build something they can show off to others as a tribute to them alone.
      How many women take the time to thank technical professionals whose abilities allow them to gossip intercontinentally? Oh, that’s not sexy enough since her friends don’t find it sexy.

      • “Mating success is by and large only based off of your physical characteristics, or your genes. Physical appearance is of course the way we can tell who has good genes and who doesn’t. Physically attractive generally = good genes, at least to our sensory organs. Women are sexually attracted to the most physically attractive men, just like men are to women, but are FAR more discriminating due to the biological reality of scarcity–they can’t just go and and have several children with several men in a short period of time as men can with several women.”

        (Laughs uproariously).

        Yeah, that’s why Ameriskanks are attracted to metrosexuals, drug-addicts, men who die young, and men that are physically feminine or weak.

        Whatever.

        • “Indeed, trailer trash dudes with 12 children from 11 different women are the big winners when it comes to nature and reproduction.”

          Only in the short term.

          Let’s see how they fare in three generations. You’d be VERY surprised.

        • Yeah, that’s why Ameriskanks are attracted to metrosexuals, drug-addicts, men who die young, and men that are physically feminine or weak.

          Whatever.

          You’re trying to prove my point, aren’t you? They are. Look at the men they idolize the most. Especially those they idolize through the lens of popular media and which celebrity men that women think are greatest. The commonality you’ll find is how objectively good looking looking the man is.

          Only in the short term.

          Let’s see how they fare in three generations. You’d be VERY surprised.

          Oh really? Aside from those with obvious genetic defects passing on those defects, it really doesn’t matter that these people may have low IQs. Their genetic lines have managed to survive for how many hundreds of thousands to millions of years? Exactly. What makes you think that them not being top genetic stock is going to cause anything in a mere few generations if they’re not inbreeding.

          As I said, as far as nature is concerned, those low society guys that have dozens of children from as many women are the big winners.

  13. “You’re trying to prove my point, aren’t you? They are. Look at the men they idolize the most. Especially those they idolize through the lens of popular media and which celebrity men that women think are greatest.”

    No. Ameriskanks are not discrimating from a lineage/long term perspective at all. They are concerned about the immediate.

    Actually, what I’m really getting at is that Ameriskanks have terrible judgment in mate selection. Without medical advances and state and funderal funding, their breeding would be no where near to the extent you see now. You realize that single moms birthing children from multiple fathers were actually treated with sham and no where to the extent they are now . . . right?

    “Their genetic lines have managed to survive for how many hundreds of thousands to millions of years? Exactly.”

    This proves very little—generations can die off fairly quickly if not maintained. Your arguement is actually from a non-evolutionary perspective, btw; offspring would change, grow, and adapt to their environment, not devolve with birth defects and low I.Q.s just to proflierate. In fact, I was reading about how the brain (the prefrontal cortex) evolved over time, and how aspects of that configures with human consciousness, language, reasoning, and judgment. I’ll use this as an evolutionary example . . .

    (From the wiki if you are curious:
    “It is also widely believed that the size and number of connections in the prefrontal cortex relates directly to sentience, as the prefrontal cortex in humans occupies a far larger percentage of the brain than any other animal. And it is theorized that as the brain has tripled in size over 5 million years of human evolution,[30] the prefrontal cortex has increased in size sixfold.”)

    “What makes you think that them not being top genetic stock is going to cause anything in a mere few generations if they’re not inbreeding.”

    Because history bares this out; just like civilizations crumble or get assimilated, so can familial lines. I think you seeing what is occuring with Ameriskanks now and being rather myopic—current behavior is not indicative of constructive long term mating tactics.

    “As I said, as far as nature is concerned, those low society guys that have dozens of children from as many women are the big winners.”

    That’s a gross assumption. They only thing they have “won” in the short term is procreating, and that’s it. If you are going to pul the nature card, then we could also see that nature has a way of culling the herd of the weak and infirm. And without the assistance of The State and support for the trappings of monogamy, assurance of progeny that is the father’s, paternal investment, penalities for cuckolding, that activity would fall through its ass without safety nets.

    And who does it benefit? And why volume over quality? Do you realize that creating even a quasi-matriarchy with their mate selection is part of the recipe for disaster? Look at what Socialism, social engineering, single moms, and feminism has done to black communities. Your statement here starts fraying in tatters when we witness the long term results. Look at the birth rates compared to mortality rates. Then come back to me.

    Even an artificial matriarchy cannot survive forever, much less a real one.

    Another question I pose to you is thus: if nature intended to pose “beta” males take care of the multitude of kids of “alphas,” then how come so many refuse to openly support cuckolding? Think about it. Maybe because it’s not . . . natural, perhaps?

    • “Our metric of success has very little to do with reproductive success or survival success as would be defined as success in a natural setting. ”

      I would argue that Ameriskank behavior in mating and breeding is not insuring survival success in the long haul. Reproductive success? Only in those circles with mainline or above birth replacement rates.

      Not to mention there are a lot of people in the “average” looks department that are pumping out children.

      • Civilization itself is an artificial construct. I agree that the ghetto matriarchal shit and the laws that support it are causing it to crumble, but that has nothing to do with nature or what is considered reproductive success.

        What makes you think those pampered high society shitheads would do any better in the case of societal collapse than some backwater rednecks? Would they be any better at surviving it? If so how. This argument is along the lines of any other “Chosen People” argument including the ones feminists use to say that their perspective is right because, well, they say it is. They don’t say how this is or how it couldn’t be the other way around, of course. It’s pure ideological dogma that relies on beliefs and not questioning those beliefs– it requires the suspension of reality, of real human experiences and actual evidence supporting these claims.

        • “What makes you think those pampered high society shitheads would do any better in the case of societal collapse than some backwater rednecks? Would they be any better at surviving it?”

          Strawman.

  14. Ok I’ve said this again and I’ll say it now…. “Human nature” is not set in stone. Humans evolve by challenging their nature, not using it as an excuse for ignorance and oppression. What if they decided that it was merely “human nature” for whites to enslave blacks, we’d still have this going on? What if we decided the Nazi’s were just following human nature, and let them off the hook?

    Yeah in the animal kingdom some males get put out, but do you know what the result is? They rape the females in order to appease their psychological and emotional, biological needs. So, are we to assume rape is “natural”? Then why do we froth at the mouth in an attempt to attack a rapist, meanwhile allowing women to get away with asexually raping men?

    Fact of the matter is, you only have to go back maybe about 50-60 yrs to realise this problem among men did not exist in the dating scene.

  15. So please, spare me your Hitlerite Darwinian eugenics bullshit. Humans are not animals. Creatures, yes, but not animals. We’re SUPPOSED to have things that set us apart, such as complex thoughts and consciences. And the ability to challenge our nature (which is how society evolves).

  16. Hell, even if your argument did hold water (which it doesn’t), it would be much more humane to put a gun to our heads and blow our heads off rather than leave us alive to suffer.

  17. But I do agree civilization is an artificial construct, it’s there to enslave humanity. It is the matrix. In fact, the constitution was a lie from the beginning, countries never existed. Armschel Rothschild makes this clear in modern times by stating “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws.” And he runs the World Bank. Also ask yourself why we have an international arms industry? Meaning the bankers fund and instigate both sides, play both sides. War is merely a sickeningly inhumane business. Hell, Germany had a constitution before the Nazis took over. This “civilization” matrix is and always has been an hierarchy of slavery and domestication. Domesticated like cattle.

    And we are slaves today, anyone who thinks they are free, I dare you to leave your job and move out into the wilderness and see how long you can make it. If you pay taxes, your a slave. I am a slave, not happy to admit it, but it is what it is.

  18. One more thing “Observer,” you keep ranting about “defective” and “inferior” genes. The more you do this, the more you sound like Adolf Hitler. What is next, some rant about the “superior race”? Nobody is biologically any better than the next person. Everyone has flaws. Humans aren’t meant to be a perfect species. I don’t wanna hear about your “superior genes.” Get the fuck over yourself or get the fuck out.

    I’d LOVE to see how YOU’D fare, being constantly told down through life that your genetically inferior and a burden to the human race, a burden to the gene pool. And systematically pushed out.

    • No, I keep “ranting” about the statistical reality that historically, only HALF as many men as women got to reproduce. And today, we have DNA paternity testing laboratories saying about 1/3rd of their tests come back saying the man is NOT the father.

      You can attempt to paint me as some Adolf Hitler eugenicist all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts. I am not saying my genes are superior or anything of the sort. This is very impersonal. Take your histrionics and feminist inspired “personal is political” bullshit elsewhere and consider some facts.

      http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

      Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women?

      It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children.

      Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

      I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

      Right now our field is having a lively debate about how much behavior can be explained by evolutionary theory. But if evolution explains anything at all, it explains things related to reproduction, because reproduction is at the heart of natural selection. Basically, the traits that were most effective for reproduction would be at the center of evolutionary psychology. It would be shocking if these vastly different reproductive odds for men and women failed to produce some personality differences.

      Now consider what women are attracted to. Consider what they chase in their youth before they decide to “settle” in middle-age for a provider chump they will statistically likely cuckold with some other man’s child, as is beared out by the DNA analysis proof that we are descended from twice as many women as men, and the reportings of DNA testing laboratories that do paternity tests.

      Is it all coming together yet, brent?

      Now that the laws and culture support and encourage this behavior as well as the regime we live under that artificially inflates women’s status with affirmative action in all forms of socioeconomic hierarchy, what do you think the expected result is? Exactly what we’re seeing now.

      Women chase “bad boys” (the sexually attractive minority) in their youth. They realize that, oh my, these guys won’t or can’t put a ring on their finger and that there’s simply too many women desiring men who they outnumber some 4 to 1 or so, and so it is a statistical impossibility for all of these men to commit to them.

      Come middle-age, the hamster spins and they decide it’s time to get Mr. Good Enough to pay for the financial burden of her biological imperative. Mr. Good Enough is of course a man outside of the sexually attractive minority. Perhaps a man like W&N, even. In fact that would be perfect for the women who don’t end up with their dream beau as many men in W&N’s shoes are very desperate and will jump on any chance they can get and do just about anything for a woman who shows interest, even if she’s just an obvious worn-out skank looking for a meal ticket.

      The result of things as they are now is that a lot of men like W&N who can’t get anything. They might have been able to before feminists decided to legislate female biological greed, but who knows if those women who earlier times would have paired up with men they didn’t find sexually attractive in their youth would have run around on them or they would have even really reproduced back then since DNA technology didn’t exist back then. I bet some women will start giving W&N some come hither looks in a few years, trying to get into his wallet. I wonder what he’ll do then.

      The short of this is that DNA technology has shed light on a very dark but true part of human nature. We are far from out of the jungle, comrade.

      • I bet some women will start giving W&N some come hither looks in a few years, trying to get into his wallet. I wonder what he’ll do then.

        Assuming that happens (and I have doubts that it will), either use them for sex and dump them like the skanks they are or completely avoid them since they will likely have STDs and kids. The STDs are dangerous to my health and the kids are dangerous to my wallet. (Child support authorities will be going after any man they can claim has a “relationship” with a child for child support. They will be that desperate.)

    • Observer is also completely missing another point I’m making . . . Ameriskanks are bad at mate decisions and judgment, but they are also the ‘gatekeepers’ of breeding to a large extent. Of course, I was making the point that good men are being passed up because of this. No where did I say anything about “high society shitheads” and “backwater rednecks.” Apparently, Observer thinks he’s above those stereotypes considering the language he employed. Interesting.

      • Women have always been the gatekeepers of mating. In nature, males display while females CHOOSE. The problem is that female mating strategy of getting resources from one male while mating with another has been made LAW. The male strategies like mate guarding and punishing infidelity have been outlawed (see: no fault divorce).

        My “high society shitheads” and “redneck” analogy was apt because you are under the misguided assumption that the prosperous of society are a type of “Chosen People” while those at the bottom are not and that those at the bottom breeding will somehow have disastrous effects on their bloodline causing it to end a few generations down the line because, well, you just don’t say why. Why can it not be the other way around? Same kind of reasoning feminists use when saying their perspective is correct but yours isn’t because, well, you’re a man and therefore can’t be right. Same reason Marx used for his claim that the proletariat were correct and not the bourgeoisie.

        Sure, a bunch of low society criminals and non-producers having a bunch of children they can’t support that likely won’t grow up to be productive members of society are bad for civilization/society, but nature… nature gives not one fuck for civilization.

        • Observer:

          Interesting statement in your last paragraph, because in way you are actually fueling what I’m already posit here. Of course, you are making a strawman about the “Choosen People” argument—in real nature, those people have the ability to survive, thrive, and prosper are usually those without artificial, massive support to keep them going. It’s not something I’ve made up, although there are always exceptions. I also think you employ the “nature” assertion without knowing to much about what you are talking about—simply witnessing a trend in human behavior doesn’t equate it with being natural.

          What you are also glossing over is the fact that Ameriskank behavior in mating and breeding are creating a situation that injurious in the long haul. You act like I’m making a judgment call, but you’ve already answered what I was going to answer for you—-it’s women who are inclined to decide what generations keep going and those who don’t. Eugenics? I’m not a proponent of another political policy at all; when it comes to who dies out and who continues, women have us beat on that hands down. Especially feminists; Margaret Sanger is an obvious example. Doesn’t it even bother you that feminists would prefer men live in a matriarchal environment instead of one that is generally beneficial for men and women? They claim the latter and really promote the former in practice.

          “Same kind of reasoning feminists use when saying their perspective is correct but yours isn’t because, well, you’re a man and therefore can’t be right.”

          Logical fallacy. I’m pointing out why feminist mentality, Ameriskank decision making in mate selection, and Socialist programs are eroding away at Western civilization. I never said, “They’re wrong because they are women.” You don’t seem to want to understand why the above is deleterious for us, “nature” or not.

        • Doesn’t it even bother you that feminists would prefer men live in a matriarchal environment instead of one that is generally beneficial for men and women? They claim the latter and really promote the former in practice.

          Yes. A little, anyway. Why would I post about it,otherwise? I’m just one man of modest means who can’t do anything about it, though. I’m more interested in studying human behavior, and it seems we’re much more like animals than we’d like to believe. There are those who think like me but who are few in number and mostly afraid to speak out. I can see why. Look at all of the professors and scientists that have been bullied into resigning by well-funded feminist organizations for speaking non-PC truths.

          I realize that the social environment that feminists are creating is by definition unsustainable. I’m sure they’ll get theirs when violent revolution breaks out, though. Too bad everyone else is going down with them.

        • To Observer:

          Yeah, people are part animals in the sense we have animalistic tribal impluses, and that is how propaganda works by playing on those impluses. However, there is something which is supposed to set us apart from animals, an ability to have high complex thoughts, emotions, empathy…. We evolve as a species by countering those impulses….

          For example, we could have just as easily used “human nature” or “biology” to defend the slave trade, the halucaust, etc, but we didn’t… Although all that was scripted, they didn’t stop the slave trade for caring about human rights, they did it because they had a plan… But that’s a whole nother story.

          The people running this system are inbred and psychopathic to boot. One thing about the mind of a psychopath, they are very logical, dry logic, like a computer. They have no emotions or empathy. In fact they see morals, what makes us humans in other words, as a sign of weakness. And they are breeding this out of us and making us into an animalistic society more than ever…

          I believe it was Darwin who stated “teach people that they are apes and they will begin to act like apes.”

  19. I think I’m kind of beginning to understand what you two are arguing about :/ It’s an aweful lot to take in all at once though, trying to understand where both of you are coming from in the matter..

    • Yeah, it’s pretty in depth. There’s more I’ll add here tomorrow if I get the chance, but I will say this—how modern Ameriskanks pick men as partners isn’t very positive for most men. Monogamy benefits men more than this current condition; one of the arguments that people discuss is whether primal matriarchy is true nature—it’s something that men and civilization have always tried to transcend.

      Despite what feminists say (I’m not accusing anyone here of thinking along these lines), they are inclined to slum towards a matriarchal ghetto.

      • The term “Ameriskank” seems to leave out a lot of other nationalities’ women who make terrible choices too…
        Sometimes, merely the fact that the guy isn’t a local gives a “gina tingle”. Of course, not every woman getting that gina tingle is a lady.
        And while marriages to foreign wives work out, many foreign wives have the ability to fly into spectacular, irrational rages while using their background (i.e. lifestyle back in the old country, “father hit my mother” myth) as a convenient cover.
        A completely submissive wife would drive me nuts (please have other hobbies and interests of your own that don’t threaten the marriage or lead to a financial abyss or abandoned/unwanted children)… but neither is an autonomous vulture who picks at your wallet, any much better.
        On that level, I have seen in my circle of friends that some of the women of Asia demonstrate that:
        1. the wallet counts
        2. they’re willing to hit their boyfriends in public
        3. they cat around, but hide it under the pretense of “I’m a good Asian girl, just trying to enjoy my youth, how dare you be judgemental you chauvinist, I want to leave my horrid existence (this, coming from a person leading a middle-class life)”
        4. you better don’t make me mad ’cause I can get angry and you have to make up for the terrible treatment in the past that women had.
        Take your life slow, men of the world. Make wise decisions. Don’t fall into the trap of getting married just to make society happy, when to make society happy you have to sacrifice yourself… while being blamed for everything bad.

        • Also, lets say you found a foreign woman from somewhere where there are still good women, like the Philipines, or Eastern Europe or somewhere…. If you move her over to the US (or some other 1st world matriarchal nation) she will fastly become americanized/westernized and become corrupted once she gets around the sisterhood and they put all this feminist power shit into her head.

          And if you think your gonna go to the Philipines or some place, just to even meet her, let alone moving there if that is your intent, it’s gonna cost you at least $15,000 just for flight, housing, food, marriage costs, visas, rental car, etc etc. Then on top of that you need to go through that country’s embassy, you need a high paying job lined up, a house lined up, you’ll need to get the government’s approval…. It’s much more difficult than the Winston Woos want people to believe, if your not working a white collar job you can forget it.

        • Winston Wu, the same guy who talked about having so much fun in Russia, but in the end settled for making a Filipino bargirl pregnant and leaving her as a single mother.
          The same guy who used to sing the praises of Russian women but is now saying all they want is money…
          He may be a low rent version of a gamer, same like J.T. Tran.
          All they try to do is send a guy somewhere to be some womans’ entertainment…
          Even female PUA’s are cashing in on this idea of being a trainer (Kezia Noble).
          From what I can see, it’s mostly giving the world more players, or cheating men of their money.

        • Yeah, there really are a lot of parallels between the PUA movement and the Truth Movement… Theyr both connected to eugenics agendas, and they both give you all sorts of false leaders to follow, some gurus secretly working for their own profits and gains, mixing good information with lies and bullshit… Just take a look at this article, its about PUA, it applies to both movements:

          http://lifestylejourney.blogspot.com/2010/02/pua-scam.html

          What I am noticing is that all these New Age gurus who claim to be against the NWO, the ones who give the deepest amounts of truth often also, theyr all pushing this Matriarchy shit… And these New Age theosophical belief systems… They just have slightly different ways of packaging their information sometimes. Gurus like David Icke, Jordan Maxwell, Alan Watt, Glen Kealey, Malachi Z. York, Acharya S., Peter Joseph, Zacharya Sitchin, Credo Mutwa, Russel Means, and tons of others.

          In the times to come people will be wise to learn to be their own leaders……

        • The funny thing about these pickup artists is their resumes are actually quite shady, along with their techniques:
          e.g. “Dating ethics”
          1. Explanation of dating ethics (1 minute)
          A. Don’t lie to the girl (I gather misrepresentation isn’t lying then?)
          B. Leave the girl better than you found her (a pump and dump, along with a relationship going nowhere doesn’t seem to do this)
          2. Personal Anecdotes from my life (29 minutes) (which could easily have been made up; Jerry’s (J.T.’s) resume has holes in it)
          A. Describe situations I’ve been in where I could have easily violated either of the two principles, but chose not to. (The resume doesn’t add up…)
          B. Recommend that the students follow the same path. (They’re paying for it, I guess they will…)

  20. Pingback: Kezia Noble Is Proof That Game Doesn’t Exist « Omega Virgin Revolt

  21. Actually there seems to be bunch of these women who have realized that they hold a lot of power over certain guys and who will pay them a lot of money just because otherwise, these guys would never be able to spend time legitimately with a reasonable looking girl. Kezia Noble is one, she now seems to have included her sister in this shit as well, there is a girl called Erika Awakening, Sasha Cobra and then there are a whole lot of random “wing girls”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s