64 comments on “There Is No Such Thing As Extremism When Defending WizardChan

  1. While I really don’t mind people campaigning against people with Aspergers, since it seems that many to this day think that Autism is some kind of super power and really need some humillity pills shoved down, and realize Aspergers is a serious condition that needs actual treatment, I always believe that virgin shaming is worse than slut shaming.

    I find Incels disgusting pussy beggars, but unlike sluts, they are not in that condition due to their own choice, society is removing them from choices and then shaming them for it. It’s insane.

    Society over plays the role of recreational sex, which really it isn’t as wonderful as they say it is, it’s a pleasurable experience but it ain’t better than, say, Skydiving, or even playin some videogames, at least in my experience. And that is sex with escorts, who are pros, if we go to romps with random women, it really ain’t worth the effort to remove your belt from your waist.

    I have seen plenty of times people saying that sex is what drives men to do what they do, which I always contend it ain’t the case for most, at least in my observations. There are men out there who are ambitious for thirst of power, there are men who just want to be left alone, and there are men who want to be directed. The only thing in common is a pursue of happiness, but happiness varies greatly from one person to the next.

    So for men who are over their horny eighteens and early twenties, hadn’t had much luck and decide to find a place they can chill together, society wants to deny them of a place to gather and take a break…disgusting. Not even a Gulag is good for them apparently.

    We need to stop this fucking policying people’s lives, and we need to stop it NOW.

    • Bayz,

      I don’t think of incels as pussy beggars. For the majority of ones I’ve met, they are not just desirous of sex…they want relationships, love, physical touch, intimacy, the comfort of knowing someone cares for you. Hell, I have mentioned before that I recently went on a date with an incel and offered him oral sex, but he declined since it would have been a one-time thing.

      There’s a big difference between men who are sexually thirsty vs. men who haven’t ever (or have only rarely) felt truly loved and desired by anyone, in this case the opposite sex. I can’t understand what it’s like to be involuntarily celibate…even when I was terrified of sex and mere touching, I *could* have gotten any number of men to have sex with me, simply by asking or by taking up any of the constant offers. It was my own issues that prevented me from sharing my virginity. For incels, it is a host of issues that are either not directly their fault, or are perpetuated by society as a whole.

      Re: Sex
      Don’t answer this if it’s embarrassing or I’m just asking for too much information, but what didn’t you get from sex that makes you prefer other activities like skydiving or videogames? I’m a gamer myself, so I can completely understand the satisfaction of beating a difficult Boss or hitting an achievement…I don’t skydive, but I did used to go ATVing with my younger brother through trails we’d make in our woods. The adrenaline rush *was* amazing, but neither of these 2 activities are comparable to sex, in my opinion because they can only be shared to a certain extent. Loving sex is, by necessity, an incredibly connecting activity since you’re making a real effort to fully please your partner and they are doing the same for you, using your most sacred of body parts (like the concepts of lingam and yoni in Hinduism).

      I’m not denying your experiences or preferences, just trying to understand where you’re coming from.

      • These men’s desires for intimacy and human connection in a heterosexual union which is long-standing and honorable in regards to its commitment to a legacy of bonding is used against them. Their desires have been weaponized against them. They have decided to forfeit such desires so they can live in peace but those who use those desires to attack them and attempt to imprison them would not want to see their power lost. Thus, they will go outright in their confrontation until they see such men decimated. This is an outright assault and premeditated homicide at best, and near genocidal at worse (depending on the numbers). There is no misogyny in this world..only misandry.

        • I disagree about your assertion that there’s “no misogyny”, but do know that there is *more* misandry. Women truly hate losing their power over men in regards to sex…You can see it in the way society looks down on men who watch porn while calling women “empowered” for doing the same…when a husband doesn’t want to have sex due to fatigue/illness, he’s denying his wife her dues, but if a wife doesn’t want sex due to fatigue/illness, the husband is committing abuse for even requesting it. Male sexuality is demonized. Female sexuality is pedestelized.

          Honestly, the whole dichotomy is sickening.

        • Yeah I totally agree; men’s legitimate desires for a stable monogamous relationship are turned against them, turned into a shaming tactic. Either due to the obvious lack of such in their lives, or because in the eyes of feminism it somehow implies patriarchal ‘ownership’ (of course women’s apparent interest in monogamy is viewed in honorable terms.)

        • Until there comes a time in which such a desire can be respected even at its baseline necessity, men have to painfully forfeit it just to retain whatever freedom of will and self-agency and peace they can muster. As for misogyny, agree to disagree cause you’re not convincing anyone here about the existence of “misogyny”. We’ve had enough of that “the sky is falling” BS about “misogyny” to last us several generations now. So put a lid on that crap!

          Instead of telling men that sex isn’t all that, maybe we can point our verbal swords at the ones who are using a very natural and human desire (once celebrated and respected) as a weapon on innocent men to steal from them, abuse them, and exercise every measure to see their untimely demise. Women, (not even going to say “in general” cause at this point almost 99.9% of you hateful bigots are exactly like this) have an inbuilt hatred towards men, and we are to respond with what exactly? Tolerance, reality-avoidance, rationalization?! Seriously, when the hell are men going to call women out for their damn hate towards us. In what species of living animals considers it a valuable thing to demonize and criminalize its most productive HALF of its own population?!

          Women don’t hate losing power over men, they hate men. Get it right. I don’t give a damn if you don’t fit that mold. BP, the next time some idiot comes on here talking how they are NLT, please kindly show them the door. This is getting stupid.


          I’m glad that you are calling this BS out. This, right here, is exactly what women have inside them and now that the beast has truly shown its ugly nature, the time for men to plead ignorance is long past over. If a man can look at a creature like Sarkeesian and rationalize her atrocious behavior with red herring arguments like “she was abused” or “men do it too” or “NAWALT” then that man is just as hateful and mentally genocidal as asses like Sarkeesian.

          Saying crap like “sex is no big deal”, “it’s not that important” dismisses the very pain that these men have and the criminal behavior that women indulge in by using such pain. If anything, we should show these men that they need revenge and the best revenge is to survive. Because it’ll piss off genocidal maniacs like Sarkeesian and Arthur Chu, which goes to further legitimize the wizards’ suffering and bring real focus in on their need for individual space.

        • Crimson, I agree with you. I was just saying misogyny exists, not that it happens more in Western society, or is worse than misandry, or even that it’s condoned and accepted like idiot feminists say it is. Just because there is sexism against women from time to time does *not* mean that sexism against men isn’t an even bigger problem.

          Why the hell do you think I have 108 blog posts and only *1* (or 3 if you count the ones about the PUAs I’ve dealt with) is about the sexism I’ve encountered as a female-bodied person, whereas 70+ of them are about MGTOW, men’s rights issues, and sexism against boys and men? Because I see it more often and think it’s worth fighting back against.

      • The problem is that incels use female approval as a way to count their own self worth instead of trying tok at what they have and can accomplish by themselves. They would sacrifice all their ideals and what they are for “just a smile” or “holding hands”. That, to me, is pussy begging. I understand having to take compromises, but if only one party is giving and the other taking, it means you are too desperate for approval that that is all you are. It is a parasitic way of life, immature, and in many cases, gives a sense of false entitlement to the person (I am so cool bending my personality to others, I deserve their attention).

        On sex: I’ll try to stay classy

        Thrill, sense of accomplishment, relief or even in many cases plain pleasure. When I had girlfriends they were the ones initiating intimacy, unfortunately I was the one bringing things to the bedroom (or kitchen tab…I said classy), it is not that I have a low sex drive, I am very sexual, but I’ve yet to have a sexual experience that is mindblowing.

        To be honest, I find sex many times to be boring, I like foreplay, especially when I do it (I don’t have much sensibility down there so for the most part I can’t feel things like blowjobs, slidding and that stuff very much) but after that it kinda becomes mechanic, even while changing positions, and my mind tends to wander. I can be stimulating the girl’s clit and nipples, bitting her in the back of the ear or the neck or even whispering to her and my mind will still be somewhere else.

        My first “sexual” experience was horrible, (blowjob + girl with bracers, ended in the hospital having urgency surgery applied, the guy kinda did an amazing job though since at least I can still get hard) so that may be a reason why my brain prefers to be somewhere else, but hey.

        You are free to laugh it up. Hope it sates your curiosity and wasn’t as coarse as usual.

        • I’m off my break now and can’t write an adequate response till later, but please rest assured that I would *NEVER* laugh at you.

      • In other words, from the three things I listed, getting laid is the one that requires the hardest effort, so it is only logical to me to think I’ll get a better experience. What I get is more busywork and other person’s fluids wetting parts of my body…

        Also all the girl’s I’ve been with have the sexual moves of a pillow…you need to do more than lay there, dirty talk and scream to click my buttons at least…

      • Meh didn’t say it in an upsetting way, just that most people I told this (myself included) find it hilarious. Honestly it didn’t produced much pain, I fell unconscious due to bloodloss in about 3 minutes (although to me were like 10 min, but since my brain wasn’t exactly working I concede it may have been 3)

        I saw har crying over me telling me she was sorry with my blood staining her face and the next I remember I awoke in a hospital bed and she wasn’t returning the calls, so it kinda was a bad first experience for both of us.

    • You’re right that sex isn’t nearly as good as its made out to be, but given that everyone makes such a big deal out of it you really have to have a lot of sex to accept this truth. Until then you’ll still believe it.

      I remember I went through a period where I was having tons of casual sex with very attractive girls and didn’t find it as exciting or pleasurable as I had thought it would be, and I thought something was definitely wrong with me. Maybe I had to get even better looking girls, or something. That happened, and it was the same thing.

      Eventually I just accepted the disillusioning truth that sex is good, but on a par with all sorts of other pleasurable activities. The huge deal everyone makes out of it is probably symptomatic of a bored society that in the absence of any larger purpose is desperate to believe that sex, or some other physical pleasure, can be the purpose of life. Sex is good, but it won’t save you from boredom or meaninglessness, and any number of other pleasures can be just as fulfilling and meaningful.

      It’s kind of like drugs like cocaine or ecstasy. The way people talk about these drugs its as if they will completely overwhelm you and blow your mind, then you try them, and its a huge disappointment. They’re good, but nothing as good or exciting or deranging as people make them out to be (and I’ve tried very pure stuff). Its hard to see why they’re illegal. Alcohol is far more potent, and pot, which is about to become illegal, is too.

      • Sorry, above reply was to bayz.

        Tarnished, I don’t think he said that sex is WORSE than these other activities, just no better.

        At the end of the day, analyzing experiences in terms of saying it *should* be more pleasurable because it involves intimacy and connection and truly satisfying another person is futile, because if one doesn’t find such experiences better than the thrill of skydiving, then one doesn’t. There’s nothing to really analyze. There’s no *should*. I’ve had great sex in the context of intimacy and love and it was great, but simply not *better* than lots of other great life experiences like travel, reading, nature, etc. Am I *supposed* to prefer intimacy and love?

        Since the dawn of time some men have become explorers and soldiers or inventors knowing that they wouldn’t have loving, intimate sex for years or decades while other men stayed home at court and flirted and danced and had endless romances. Clearly, for many men, other activities are at least equally thrilling, satisfying, and worthwhile as loving, intimate sex, and for some men, it isn’t, and other men fall somewhere in between.

        • Also, intimacy and affection can be shared among men and the added dimension brought by a member of the opposite sex, while real (jn my experience), may not be as important as our society pretends it is. Ancient Greece glorified bonds of affection between men while thinking lightly, if at all, of romantic love, and many (most?) non-western societies thought this way. Romantic love between the sexes as the highest form of intimacy may not be the universal value we think it is but something very specific to our culture and time, and that is really a product of the specific circumstances brought about by Christianity.

          In my opinion, romantic love is different than same-sex friendship, but not necessarily better or more important. Both are satisfying.

        • I reread my question to Bayz, and didn’t see any part where I tried to tell him that he (or anyone else) *should* find sex preferable…I simply asked what was different about it that he enjoyed skydiving or videogames over it. Personally, I really love reading, traveling, and playing RPGs or videogames. But if I was given a choice to have 3 hours to read a great novel or 3 hours to spend in bed with my FwB, I would take the sex. But that’s just my own preferences. I certainly don’t fault anyone for making a different choice, just was curious about the “why” behind it.

          I absolutely agree that romantic love is spoken of more highly than friend-love, and there’s not any real reason for it. I have not had any same sex friends for many years, but I have wonderful, caring relationships with my same gendered friends…relations I wouldn’t give up for the world.

          You wrote that some men prefer sex, some prefer other activities, and some fall in between, and this is precisely what I believe too.

        • Fair enough tarnished, but it isn’t so simple. I feel you spoke out of both sides of your mouth (I’m not trying to be aggressive or combative and I like your comments)

          You suggested bayz *wasn’t getting something* from sex, then explained that what you get from sex is deep intimacy.

          But why would you think bayz wasn’t getting something from sex? All he said was that he doesn’t prefer it to other activities.

          The only conclusions is that you assume, if one doesn’t prefer sex to other activities, it MUST be because one isn’t getting intimacy from it.

          Even though, on the one hand you clearly state you aren’t judging or setting up your preferences as superior, on the other hand, you are clearly doing just that, and suggesting that only if you don’t get deep intimacy from sex can you find it equal to other activities.

          People often disclaim doing exactly what they are doing, as a form of cover.

          I’m not accusing you of any great crime or being malicious in any way, just pointing out that your POV is somewhat limited – someone might be getting everything you are and more from sex, and still not find it preferable.

          On one level you seem to clearly agree with that, as you explicitly state – but if one pays attention to the entirety of your comment and not just the explicitly stated disclaimer, it seems likely on another level you have your doubts.

          Nor is it unusual for a person to harbor opposite and contradictory positions at the same time, as confusion and dissonance are characteristic of the human mind (both male and female).

        • No offense taken, Rob. I think I see where the miscommunication lies, so let me use a different analogy and perhaps that will help clear things up.

          I prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate by a great deal, whereas one of my friends prefers chocolate by far. I prefer vanilla because I get a taste satisfaction from the flecks of vanilla bean that I cannot from cocoa powder…likewise, my friend doesn’t enjoy the taste of vanilla when compared to chocolate.

          Does this mean I think I or my taste buds are “superior” to his? Certainly not…we are seeking out foods (activities) that gratify us and are finding different ones (sex vs skydiving) because our tastes are not the same. There’s no right or wrong answer.

          Again, I was curious as to the “why”…Why cocoa over vanilla beans? Why skydiving over sex? Bayz gave me a great answer (which I appreciate and will respond to later) but it included reasons that I’ve heard quite often in various manosphere-esque blogs and forums:
          -Lazy partners
          -Bad sexual experience(s)
          -Harm done to ones penis/scrotum

          Any number of these can mean that, yes…skydiving or playing videogames is highly preferable to having sex with a woman who brings her vagina to the party but nothing else. Hell, if my FwB was like that, I’d rather play videogames too! But our dear Bayz could have just as easily said that he has mind blowing amazing sex…but *still* prefers skydiving because he’s an adrenaline “junkie” or relishes the feeling of jumping out of a plane more than he likes to orgasm. These would be excellent reasons to not prefer sex as well! It’s all about what people get out of an experience, not what others *think* they should.

          I apologize if this wasn’t as clear as it could have been before. Hopefully my position makes more sense now and isn’t seen as contradictory.

      • Oh man you’ve no ideam how much I utterly agree with you, 600% correct brother, even in the drug part, but I find that, like drugs, most of the people who overblow it are people who hadn’t tried them, but say it is fucking tastic jus to fit in.

  2. This is truly upsetting. I can’t imagine why anyone would harass or berate people who are already severely depressed…especially a woman who supposedly has depression herself. Hell, she made a game about it. What is the point of making fun of men who are not only suffering from the same issue as you, but are even worse off as they have no significant other to provide comfort?

    That’s just incredibly low and cruel.

  3. Oh well they’re 30 year old virgins and they are men with suicidal depression. Couldn’t possibly be a “connection” there could it?

    Men NEED women. Not just for the production of more men.(How are those artificial wombs coming by the way?), but for simple emotional and intellectual fulfillment. That’s why traditionalism is the ONLY option for the restoration of health to our degenerating society.

    • One of the exceedingly rare few good articles condescending Elam wrote addressed this point. He compared trying to put toothpaste back into the tube once it’s been pushed out-ain’t realistically gonna happen. In a society that gives many women and a few men relatively unlimited choice in some regards, you can’t tell the guys who were “waiting on the sidelines” to “man up” and “marry a slut.” The sand choice for the guys on the sidelines (or to use Mr. Black Pills term-the reserves) is MGTOW. Arguable there are a few “enclaves” where traditionalism may work for some. Perhaps the very wealthy and very religious but for many others-traditionalism is only a path to servitude and financial ruin at best or unfair imprisonment and suicide at worst. Traditionalism and “man up” is quite literally poisonous advice to give most young men.

      • For me traditionalism doesn’t mean marrying a slut. If you can’t find a marriageable woman, than I don’t blame you for going MGTOW. However, the ideal should be traditionalism.

        To get back to traditionalism as a society will be difficult. It will require a literal revolution against the government.

        • the reality of the situation is that the clock can’t be turned back. even with a revolution you can’t change how things are. My viewpoint is if women were “liberated” then (low status) men should be absolved of obligation–that means ending selective service, that means not supporting a woman unless she is the mother of your child, that means not being guilted into provider/protector.

          On a semi related note, I’ve had a theory that feminism primarily rose in a time when there were more women than men and not every woman who wanted a husband was guaranteed one. Even somewhat recently many men were killed off in wars and boys had a higher mortality rate than girls. Ironically, it seems men’s rights is growing now that things have changed and there are more men who feel left out in the mating/dating market.

        • What is it that is preventing the clock from turning back? I think you just need imagination.

          Revolution won’t simply mean running the bums out and then leaving things as they are. No, you’ll need a strong, interventionalist government for a few generations afterwards in order to recreate the conditions that traditionalism needs to thrive. Promiscuous sexual behavior will have to be banned. Interventionist policies will have to be enacted to give men greater economic opportunity. R-selected populations, if they are to remain in the nation will have to be segregated.

          When there has been a war and a significant portion of the male population the culture tends to look more positively on polygamy. Peter Frost wrote about that happening after ww1 in Europe.

        • For me traditionalism doesn’t mean marrying a slut. If you can’t find a marriageable woman, than I don’t blame you for going MGTOW. However, the ideal should be traditionalism.

          There is a severe lack of marriageable women, which means that traditionalism is a failure.

        • No, it means it has been killed by the elite. The servere lack of marriageable women is a historically recent event.

        • Women haven’t changed. The reason why traditionalism died is because women wanted it that way. Your white knighting by blaming the elites doesn’t change that fact.

          Women have always hated the vast majority of men.

        • That makes no sense. If traditionalism dies because women wanted it that way, and women haven’t changed, why didn’t it die back in 1850, or 1750, ect?

          Traditionalism died because of the elite. Even if women did want the end of traditionalism(I see no evidence to assume that they did) they aren’t very smart or competent and could not have done it on their own.

        • If traditionalism was killed by the elites, why was it destroyed when Elites were at a histirocal low in their power, when Elites were elected from the populace by the populace? Whynot when they had the actual power to enforce their authority directly by military might and everyone would have looked at them positively like it was in the 18th century?

          Why would Elites want to destroy the status quo? Family units are proven to be most economically successful for the people in power, a family man has a higher chance to endure exploitation if he was the only one bringing income to the household, more points if he had kids. Why would the Elites risk losing that bargain chip?

        • An armed revolution would pit people with tanks and aircrafts against guys who at best have some automatic weapons in their basement. This is not 1775, we have things like tanks, white phosphorus and chemical weaponry nowadays, and the US has the biggest spending in military of the world, good luck pushing 194,000 marines, many of whom have experience fighting people with tanks and RPG’s in more hostile environments back to the sea, and this isn’t counting how the counter insurgency tactics in the US went from utter shit to some of the best.

          This is why I can’t take the debate about owning guns seriously when people start to spout this bullshit about “taking over the white house to fight tyranny”, that is at best mental masturbation, at worst delusional schizophrenia.

          in 2013 alone the US government spent from $600 to $640 billion on weaponry, soldiers and military programs, tell me how much did you and your neighbour spent on guns and ammo and let’s compare.

          Seriously, once upon a time a part of America tried to secede, it didn’t end well, and there were no Drones, A10’s, F35’s Aircraft Carriers or Nerve Gas back in the time, just imagine how would it go to give the Government an actual reason to begin the cleansing openly.

        • The elite did not impose feminism on society in 1700 because the elite did not favor feminism in 1700. The elite changed.

          Despite all that fancy smancy gear our military can’t defeat a bunch of Afghan hill people, imagine what they would face if it were white people rebelling.

          The revolution will occur when sufficient numbers of white people see the reality of the situation they face and realize our political system cannot fix the problem. Who do you think those 194,000 marines are? White men who probably aren’t too enthusiastic about feminism. Who operates all those technical gadgets? White male nerds(along with a minority of Asian nerds who themselves won’t be very loyal to the regime), also not enthusiastic feminists.

          Of course I cannot say for sure whether or not the revolution will succeed or even whether or not it will occur on a large scale. But I do hope.

        • The Soviet Union had a huge amount of tanks, airplanes, nukes and chemical weapons, but it collapsed not because of defeat on the battlefield but because their people lost faith in the system. When the Berliners ran towards the wall, the soldiers refused to shoot.

        • Women didn’t push for Feminism before colonialism because they didn’t have the technology to actually make their roles easier (meaning they could spend less than 12 hours a day cleaning the house to have it being aseptic, cook the food in less than three hours etc), the technology to make them able to work on traditionally male jobs, and in the time if they had pushed for rights, theyr would have been more likely to be thrown into the meat grinder due to societal attitudes. That being said, Feminism is credited to have started during 1792 anyway, with Théroigne de Méricourt demanding full citizenship for French Women on exchange of being allowed into the French National Guard so…that’s way before 1850’s.

          Bunch of Afghan hill people…trained by the CIA to fight the Soviets in the 80’s…with RPG’s…and still cornered them to a point they managed to kill two of their leaders…yeah no, not exactly the same situation here, I wonder how many “White Warriors” are going to react to having to live in the mountains for years, without electricity, water, internet, or anything remotely civilized…I predict not many would stand long for the glorious revolution. Not all Whites would revolt since plenty of them have it pretty good, a lot have been brainwashed into believing and dying for the system, and another lot just see it as the Mental Masturbation it is and are not going to throw their lives pointlessly over people using White Phosphorus from a mortar thousands of yards from them and burning every single organic thing alive.

          And if you are excluding non whites from your “Revolution”, your numbers of Whites will actually shrunk further, since you are alienating the huge majority that don’t give two fucks about race and built relations with people of other ethnic groups other than “Mighty Whitey” and his coloured sidekick “Convenient Scapegoat”.

          The marines are overall White Knights that can’t see women getting shot in the field because they would launch themselves to the meat grinder to save them, hence a woman just has to cry abuse and you are fucked, they will not listen to your arguments, they are going to kick your ass. Most nerds are sex starved manginas who do compete for female attenttion constantly, neither of both groups are even aware of how feminism is fucking over their lives for the most part. And the Asian dudes are going to be very fazed with a revolution by white people aimed mostly to help white people, even more when you realize that most of them tend to marry people within their own culture, and can actually opt out of the Western World more easy than Whites.

          I can predict pretty well how it would end, knowing how the last attempt for a White Supremacist revolution went, and keeping in mind that they didn’t have the shit they have now. It was rather one sided then, it will be ridiculous one sided now, with a bigger corpse quota on the losing side depending on how much Revolutionaries manage to piss off the Government.

          Yes it did, after most soldiers from countries “liberated” by the Red Army grew up hearing how their grand fathers recount the utter destruction of countries by the Soviets, the mass rapes, the massacres and the gulags. And even then the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, two years after the wall fell, only due the Liberalization of Soviet Policies.

          Oh you thought the Germans were the first ones challenging the soviets?

          Nope the Hungarians tried in 1956, before Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika. It lasted 18 days and costed the country 3,000 civilians dead and 13.000 wounded, and 200,000 going to enjoy a wonderful holiday in Siberia. And that’s not counting the mass executions of the ones being trialed “fairly”.

          You also have the Ukranian and Romanian anti communist militias, who fought a Guerilla Warfare against the Soviets from the 40’s until they were exterminated in the 60’s.

          Then the Baltic “Forest Brothers”, Polish “Cursed soldiers”, Bulgarian “Goryani”, Croatian “Crusaders”, and several other partisan groups, who also got butchered brutally before the 70’s…

          What you need for your revolution to work the way it did for the Germans is at least several decades of liberalization and openess of the Obama and post Obama regime in policies, and public opinion being at least supportive of your position for decades. Neither of which you have in your arsenal. Public opinion see people sporting this opinions as nutjobs, and public opinion isn’t going to return to the 50’s view on gender unless women start to literally starve in the streets to death, and we all know that ain’t happening.

          And even if it worked, you have at best three generations of the trend reversing, then women starting to whine again about being oppressed, and hey, the 70’s all over again.

          Insanity is doing the same shit again and again, expecting different results.

        • I don’t think the revolution will happen tomorrow. It will be decades before it happens, as I said, more White people will have to wake up to the problems and get over their brainwashing. They will have to care about race, which they will when they see the third-worldization of their country thanks to vibrancy. Right now the vibrants are like Lava, heavily destructive(look what happened to Detroit), but you can avoid it if you are smart. However, eventually Whites will run out of area to flee to and will have to confront the reality of the situation they face.

          Marines tend to be from conservative backgrounds. I work with nerds, most are aware of the situation at least with regard to women.(There is more delusion with regard to race) I don’t think Asians are going to be very loyal to the regime because they want the same kind of things Whites want, they want to stay away from vibrancy and they also are discriminated against by affirmative action. They won’t be fighting for us, but they won’t risk their lives to kill us either.

        • Humans don’t have a hivemind of any race, and no, whites are not going back to the 19th centuy mentality because most of us understand how stupid judging people by levels of melanine instead of culture is. Not now, not in decades, not ever again. Race was a fine excuse when we needed to justify colonies to make money, today we have cheaper methods. As do Asians, and others except maybe some muslims.

          So what? My brother is in the military and is conservative, does’t mean he isn’t going to point his M16A4 to my face if I dare to rise inarms agains the state. And I don’t expect him to do anything other than this since it is both, his job, and what he has been trained for. I am a nerd and I also am surrounded by nerds, as it happen some are, most aren’t, most may be in the future but not likely. Really, stop using race as an excuse, makes you no better than the blacks your kind complains so much.

          Asians will risk their lives to stop any movement that tries to remove their liberties, expulse them or make them second class citizens, and in the case of some countries, they may als count with the backing of their country’s armies.

    • “That’s why I don’t waste my time playing video games. I’m a grown-ass man and I’d rather smash chicks than waste my time like that.”

      poe’s law in full effect for PUAs.

  4. http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a32452/antifeminist-site-white-ribbon/

    notice how not once does she say violence against boys and men is wrong. Not once does she say that a woman shouldn’t hit her husband or son, that both men and woman should diffuse arguments non-violently…

    And she cites pigman Fraudtrelle. He’s so defective, he probably gets a boner when a womyn hits him. I don’t like those Sand M weidoes forcing their views on everyone else.

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