The Great One knows a slew of girls who have been hit by trucks. They must have been hit by trucks. They TOLD ME they wanted to go out! A girl would never lie.
In every case, no matter what the excuse, the rationalization, explanation or theory, in the end the girl just plain didn’t want to go out with you.
Now you have a choice. You can waste your time worrying about it, worse still you can somehow think it reflects upon you personally, or you can follow the Ole Captain’s simple rule;
“The Why Doesn’t Matter, All that Matters is What IS.”
In short, what matters is the reality of the situation – she didn’t show up.
You can rack your brain and burn out a 100 terraflop supercomputer trying to figure out the reason and rationalization “why she didn’t show up,” but in the end all the matters is you wasted your Friday night thinking you had a date. Not to mention calories of energy trying to figure out why she didn’t show up.
And to come up with and opine about outlandishly pathetic excuses for her standing you up is foolish and frankly, self-DISrespecting.
Many a man has wasted untold amounts of time, psychological energy and fret/worrying about the “why she didn’t show up” when the “why she didn’t show up” doesn’t matter (and should be self-evident).
All that matters is what IS.
And that “is” “is that she didn’t show up.”
“Girls always say no.” Yes they do. Because women always look at men and seek reasons to disqualify them. Men look at women and seek reasons to qualify them.
I was pulling up to a stoplight where a homeless fellow — that is the catch-all politically correct term for the group that encompasses beggars, winos, and the ambulant insane — was walking toward the intersection.
Naturally this circumstance provokes mild revulsion because the homeless inevitably ask for money, and while I would hand it over in my younger years, mature knowledge tells that most are looking for beer money, and people like to hand it over for their brief high of feeling virtuous that comes from realizing you have what they do not.
“Hey, you got any spare change?” he asked. Middle-aged fellow, two-day beard growth, dark features.
“Not today,” I said genially.
He looked around, then turned his gaze back to me. “You know, it’s weird,” he said. “My own race — white people — won’t even give me a quarter.”
“Sure seems that way,” I responded, and since the light was green, drove off.
White Nationalism died for the same reason I drove off. White people do not want to be roped into another parasitic arrangement, and when they hear “white nationalism,” they think of something that will force them to support white people regardless of quality.
In their minds, white nationalism is sort of like a union for white people. The thought goes that if whites need preserving, then we should preserve all whites, which goes against what most white people want.
We want the weaker whites to die out so that our race and its ethnic groups are stronger.
We can add this to the list of problems with white nationalism:
Fucking Christ you right-wing children. Are you still whining about YouTube subscriptions? How have you still not accepted that YouTube is fucked up? How have you still not accepted that YouTube (Google) can do whatever the fuck it wants because no matter how much YouTube shits in your face there is NO OTHER PLACE FOR YOU TO GO.
In simpler terms, if a species invests too much in showing off for the other sex, that burden replaces the task of adaptation itself and the species self-exterminates.
This correlates to the human tendency to use social status signaling to raise social status, something to which an egalitarian society dedicates itself.
If we are all equal in society, the only way to rise above is through drawing the attention of others, because actual competence will not be rewarded and is seen as trying to be above the herd, which is frowned upon. This leaves only elaborate displays of interesting conformity to the dogma of the herd.
Individualism produces this state naturally. The individualist, protecting his autonomy at the expense of society, opts for egalitarianism and then becomes enslaved by it when it punishes his individuality, or ability to be effective in some unique role and then be recognized or rewarded for that effectiveness.
Perhaps many human civilizations in the past have exterminated themselves by going down this route, as the accounts of the last days of Rome and Athens suggest. The more individualistic the civilization, the less it pays attention to reality, and the more it focuses on ego-drama, leading to its extinction.
Thus, like every good rentseeking statist, Zuckerberg is now turning to the force of government. He is advocating regulation that would force social media companies to increase transparency on ads and fight hate speech. And ban offensive messages. And vet content. And more.
Interestingly, Facebook is already severely limiting free speech. To voice a non-Marxist opinion on Zuckerberg’s platform is to take the risk of being suddenly banned by his anonymous, unaccountable censors. Zuckerberg employs a horde of rabid activists that roam the site, looking for popular pages that contain un-PC keywords, and will block off any user sounding vaguely conservative if he or she becomes too popular. His biased censorship, which would make the Chinese government proud, is starting to attract attention.
Facebook is actively fanning the fires of liberal hysteria over normal — if disputable — business practices and is trying to convert it into a push for regulations.
Zuckerberg is now advocating regulation mandating similar censorship and content vetting for all social media. This is a clever triple play.
It would raise costs, and thus the barrier to entry, for all potential social network rivals, thereby keeping these pesky competitors at bay. It would absolve him from his anti-conservative witch hunt, since he would merely be implementing a regulation. And it would deprive banned users of a tribune where they can publish their horrid un-PC diatribes.
The latter implies that all censorship would systematically be biased toward statism. Wouldn’t some regulated social media company limit its censorship? It’s unlikely. Think about the type of person who would want to be hired as a “content verification specialist.” Would this censor job attract the average Joe? Or the average libertarian? Or would it be a magnet for vengeful social justice warriors looking for an outlet for their resentment?
Remember when I told you not to take your smart phone out with you where you’re doing things illegal or even simply unapproved of by The State.
But tattoos have a recent benefit, since they became fashionable, of helping the modern man easily identify a woman who is prone to making poor choices. They are called ‘tramp stamps’ for a reason, sweeties. Thus as much as I deplore tattoos on women, I also am thankful for them for providing such an important service.
One day these chicks will be middle aged and then they will be middle aged chicks with tattoos. Which is akin to Saturday at school – no class.
Okay, so now on to the more interesting part of the topic which is tattoos on the modern man.
It is important to note that the modern man is not a joiner, and nor is he a follower. The modern man also understands that something that is fashionable now will by its very definition not be fashionable at some point in the future.
He also notes the permanent nature of tattoos, puts two and two together, and goes and has a nice glass of whiskey while his idiot peers run off and get tattoos.
The premise of #metoo has now been twisted by various degrees to its own complete inversion.
Nearly a year ago, I was told by a County Court in Britain that I owed money to a woman whose sexual advances I had gently rebuffed some years before. Neither I nor the court had any idea why I owed her money or what her claim was, but I still had to defend myself.
A case that would never have come to trial twenty years ago dragged out for months as she gradually patched together a claim (without evidence), which gradually escalated to an allegation of sexual abuse.
My trial was the direct result of her assumption that society would stand behind her in extracting resources from the man of her choosing. I was lucky that she had a legal history of ‘choosing’ other men before me, and the judge sent her howling from the courtroom.
But what if I had been her first shot? What if she’d gone to the Crown Prosecution Service?
I add, for the sake of completeness, that I am a strict adherent of pre-marital abstinence and, in the case of this particular woman, had never kissed, hit on, made a pass at, nor been in any form of romantic relationship with her. #Iwouldnt—and that is precisely what enraged her.
Let the irony of this case serve as an illustration of the extent to which feminine imperatives can now be exercised to strong-arm men into compliance. If you have earned a #metoo assertion like I did, you’re probably doing something right.