Linkage: 30 January, 2018 #TheTriggering
If you are Mortimer Snerd, living in your mom’s basement, Monday Morning Quarter Backing the Manosphere, playing pure academian, never approaching and getting shot down by a girl in your life because you’re too scared, and have thus far used the theories and epiphanies of the Manosphere to excuse your own lack of performance, then no, we’re not talking about you. And the reason why is that you have no value. Sorry to say that, but the Manosphere is the MANosphere not the OPRAHsphere.
We deal with reality.
But if you are a reasonably in shape guy with a life and stuff going on, then yes, your best toll of revenge will come from you removing yourself from the situation.
The reason why is very simple, but one feminists will SCREAM is not true – the most important thing in life is a member of the opposite sex you fall in love with. And if you deny women your (presumed) quality self, that’s how you get your revenge. You go your own way, you only have sex with women, but never date them, or you could even consider marriage, but only to women who are traditional, truly self-supporting, conservative/libertarian, in shape, etc. In short you deny undeserving women what they want as you have standards and self-respect.
But in the next five years or so you can expect charlatans and scum to infiltrate this segment of the internet. Some are motivated by politics. Some are motivated by (ill-gotten) money. Some are motivated by psychotic behavior/egoism. But whatever their motivations are, you need to know which writers/bloggers/podcasters/etc. you trust and who is on your side. And the best way to do that is to read them, listen to them, watch them, and ask the simple question:
“Do they tell me what I WANT to hear or what I NEED to hear?”
And that could mean the difference between a happy and fulfilled life or one of poverty, misery, and suffering.
Any beta males reading this post ought to grab a Kleenex, because there is no God and your romantic ideals are laughable.
James Holmes, the creepy-looking mass murderer who killed 12 and injured 70 in an Aurora, CO movie theater three years ago, has a veritable harem of gushing (heh) distaff admirers on his cell wall.
My personal observations are of course the law of the land, so expect to see more breakups between less unhinged shitlib men and their insane shitlib women demanding total allegiance to their pussyhat religion.
I call it The Fracturing, and I predict three consequences from it:
1. Fewer relationships between ideologically-divergent men and women (which means fewer relationships in general, because there aren’t enough lunatic libmen for every lunatic libchick).
2. More bitter single libchicks, creating a menstrual spiral into deranged anti-Trump hatred inconsolable by any therapeutic means of intervention. Not even kitten porn can save them now.
3. Intensified assortative mating and marrying along ideological complementarity. This isn’t a good trend, because it will also drive deeper rifts between classes of White people and erode citizen fellowship, two ingredients necessary for the outbreak of another civil war.
The fact is that shithole people (shitholies, to morally preening lib Whites) make shithole countries. Just as there’s no magic dirt in nice countries which will turn a Somali into a White Vermonter, there’s no magic dirt in shithole countries that turns them into shitholes irrespective of the people living there.
Which means, the more shitholies you bring to America from shithole countries, the more America becomes a shithole. The people, not the paper, make a nation.
Now I hear that Norwegians are twatting about the US being a shithole, in protest of Trump or something. Nobody virtue snivels like a scandicuck. They are world champions at disavowing their whiteness. NorRRREEgian anti-Trump poseurs who say the US is a shithole are thinking of the black ghettos, not the white parts of america. Or they’re outright lying for a pat on their pussies.
As you can see from the graph, every avenue for meeting the opposite sex is down over the last twenty years, except one. The percentage of couples who met through college is down (partly a result of college becoming 60% female-40% male). Couples who met through family is way down (continuing a long-term trend). Couples who met through Church is down (and almost near zero). Couples who met through work is way down (and likely to hit rock bottom after this #MeToo sex panic burns itself out).
The majority of couples still meet through friends, but that too is on a downward trend, set to be eclipsed soon, if the trajectory holds up, by restaurant/bar, which is the only meeting place that is upwardly trending. Couples who met through online dating appears to have leveled off. This might be a temporary lull as privacy and security issues are worked out, but I suspect it’s the calm before online dating takes a nosedive as a matchmaking facilitator. I predict this because it has dawned on women that men use online dating as a sex supplement to their “real” dating lives, and it has dawned on men that women use online dating to hide their physical flaws (fat) and to aggressively filter out any but the top 5% of men in looks (which is an unstable selection filter utterly divorced from the reality of what women want in men, and which means that exclusive online dating will end badly for women’s romantic hopes of commitment with a good man).
* * * * *
One more possibility that I don’t think is a positive development: ideology will loom larger as a requirement for meeting the opposite sex. I hate this trend, because it elevates the abstract (pussyhattery) above the concrete (blood sugar sex passion).
What this portends is a dire future in which ideologically oriented clubs and venues become the dominant medium by which people meet and pair off. After that happens, it won’t be long before Civil War 2.
Linkage: 30 January, 2018 #TheTriggering — No Comments
HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>