All women are like that

Women are attracted to arrogant violent men. They are attracted to IQ<80 criminals because criminals are allowed to be violent, while high status males are not, with the result that the status hierarchy as perceived by women winds up upside down from the status hierarchy as perceived by men. AWALT. All women are like that.

Hypergamy never sleeps, a man must always perform, can never relax, is always on stage, can never let his guard down.

When people say that not all women are like that, NAWALT, it is like aging fat feminists saying that different men have different types so you can’t say one type of beauty overrules the others. Not so: Men want to fuck young, beautiful and fertile women. Women want to fuck arrogant, violent, criminal men. That is all there is to it. We may nuance after accepting that, but only after accepting that.

Brad Pitt got horribly burned.

Einstein wound up with a KGB girl friend who cared more about Stalin than Einstein.

Feynman needed to learn game, put on an asshole persona, did pretty much what I am doing.

If not all women were like that, these famous men would have done better. Feynman scored, I scored, but if General Butt Naked had shown up, wearing a necklace of human eyeballs, an AK47, and nothing else, we would have been shit out of luck. All women react to the same stimuli in the same way. It is just a matter of which stimuli they get exposed to.

If Feynman cannot score merely being brilliant, famous, and admired, Brad Pitt gets burned despite being rich, famous, and handsome, Einstein winds up having sex with the KGB and serving as a communist loudspeaker, then all women are like that. The lioness knows which lion to fuck, because she sees him killing her kittens.

To align the crude, cruel, simplistic, vicious, and brutal female perception of the male status hierarchy with the subtle, complex, multidimensional, and nuanced reality of the male status hierarchy as actually organized by males, we need to legalize and socially support domestic discipline by taxpaying husbands and fathers, also husbands and fathers that are members of the military, the police, rentacops, and mercenaries. (McLintock), and back that discipline with conspicuously public state violence. We also need to make it legal to use violence on men who come sniffing round your women, as the law was under King Solomon. Then hypergamy will be eugenic, rather than dysgenic. Right now, hypergamy is massively dysgenic. Hence the character I play when interacting with fertile age women.

Women have a primitive concept of power. And we men are all dancing monkeys. So, the thing we are forced to do is to become powerful as women understand power.

Which unfortunately is anti civilizational and counter civilizational. Hence the need to modify civilization so that high status males get to perform more private violence. It is easier to have more private policing, to make male status hierarchies more convincing to women, than it is to make women have sex with the men that they should, and refrain from having sex with the men that they should not.

When affluent respectable middle class white males beat misbehaving daughters and wives, and receive any necessary public assistance in so doing from police and authorities, while low lives do not receive similar assistance, then IQ<80 criminals will stop being so strangely attractive to women, and the guy in the corner office will find himself receiving hot letters from women he has never met.

But that said, women are quite agreeable to being made to have sex. They prefer it that way. Resistance is a shit test, and they are turned on by being overpowered. So we need to make it the law that the man that they should have sex with, their husband, the father of their children, gets to overpower them.


128 Responses to “All women are like that”

  1. […] neccesity and that it leads them all to want to behave in similar, negative ways. Let me quote from an example that succinctly demonstrates the view I usually […]

  2. […] 1) Penetrating comment by Jim: […]

  3. […] deadliest collection of spiders, snakes, and trees. However, Jim did pen a brief reminder that yes, all women are like that. What are all women like? Glad you […]

    • Mackus says:

      They openly say the though crime for a second only to instantly deny it and (poorly) reassure their readers it cannot possibly be true.

      • Mack says:

        First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

        Some thoughts, once thought, cannot be unthought.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Despite the name Green is Jewish, so I’m sure many here won’t have a problem with this.

  4. S.J., Esquire says:

    Tfw you don’t even care about game-related poasts anymore.

    • Peppermint Butler says:

      Game is love. Game is life.

      Game is all that there is and ever will be.

      Game is who gets what.

      Game is who gets whom.

      Game is the question of existence writ large.

      Who will win? Who will lose? Who will play the


  5. TBeholder says:

    There are several problems.
    1) It IS observably more complicated than “that”. There was e.g. selection for premature graying and male-pattern baldness – as fake status indicators.
    2) The assumption of a simple one-generation household. Which is anomalous on written history scale – let alone cavemen, for rather obvious reasons.
    Extended family is a thing. If we look NOT only at post-Calvinist lands, extended family and its traits and results (e.g. living in an inherited house rather than “new family, new house” rule) were very common until very recently. Which is also where “patriarchy” used to exist – not in the triangle with two angles equal zero.
    Without this limitation, in different peoples with extended family you could see great variety of family traditions – e.g. between Chinese and Mongols, or perhaps much closer to home. Which shows how trends matter more or less in different conditions.
    Any evolutionary (explicitly or implicitly) theory of how things work should look at historically more common and stable examples more than recent and highly unstable ones, no?

  6. Rape says:

    I thought Feynman was a natural.

  7. Mister Grumpus says:

    (I love you man.)

  8. Glenfilthie says:


    Heartiste is telling the fanbois that women act the same way feral dogs do, and you are telling us they act like feral cats. 🙂

    I suppose if your ideas about sexuality arise from the ghetto or the trailer park ya run with what ya have. I say women are more like cackling hens myself, LOL.

    No, Jim, stupid women are “like that”. If you rut and mate like an animal, yeah – you’re probably gonna end up stuck with a bitch or a cougar. Good heavens Jim – Hollywood celebs? Turd brained academics?

    A. Their women aren’t women, they’re skullfucked meatholes
    B. Their men get their testosterone out of a syringe

    You guys are entertaining, I’ll give ya that. But if you are going to take your life lessons from thespians and academics, you are letting yourself in for a world of hurt.

    • jim says:

      If there were significant differences between one woman and the next, Einstein and Brad Pitt would have had better outcomes, and Feynman would not have needed to learn game and pretend to be an asshole.

      All women are like that, for if there were exceptions, the exceptions would be with Einstein and Brad Pitt. Chicks would be visiting Feynman’s lab, because he is smart and famous, instead of him hanging out in bars.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        You are not accounting for culture. In fact, you completely ignore it.

        If you go looking for exceptions in moral and ethical cesspits like Hollywood and universities/acadamia … yes, your pickings will be mighty slim. Those cultures produce the most toxic feminists, pan-gendered freak shows, and manginas conceivable. (I think I was in the supermarket awhile back, waiting in line for the cashier – and I spied one of those tabloid celeb rag sheets. On the cover was a big pic of Brad Pitt, red eyed and weeping over the loss of whoever he was banging at the time).

        Hollywood and academia are bastions of liberal lunacy. Of course they are going to produce flawed people. THAT is your common thread, Jim. Leftists promote shrewish behaviour in their women. Since they own the media and the courts, they are trying to push it on our women too – and they are doing it with some success.

        The fix is obvious for our young men, too. A positive life strategy should have long courtships, possibly involving an informal premarital co-habitation. Keep sex off the table as long as possible. Get to know the person you are going to jump in the sack with.

        Or you can pump and dump anything that comes along and hope for the best. Looking back on it – I got VERY lucky. All I wanted was a humble quiet life, a warm and loving wife, a pickup truck – and I was set. Now in my 50’s I look at those guys that had the fast cars and faster women – and I’ve left them back there in the dust. They’re struggling with alimony and batshit crazy ex’s, hateful kids and all the crap that goes along with broken homes.

        There are good women out there, and there is one for you. She almost certainly won’t be where you expect to find her.

        • jim says:

          I cruise the far side of the back of beyond and centers of tourism. The chicks from the far side of the back of beyond are much better behaved, because of restraints from family and friends, but they are attracted to the same things as the girls in the major tourist centers. Turn them loose in a major tourist center, and they behave the same way as any other tourist chick.

          All women are like that. For some girls, social pressure restrains them from fucking General Butt Naked, but she still wants to fuck Jeremy Meeks.

          Culture has no effect. Zero. Turn a girl loose in a major tourist center, makes no difference what her culture is. Her knickers fall down. What does have some effect is family enforcement. Take them away from family, all chicks are alike.

          The Regency and the Victorians tried substituting culture for enforcement, creating a nineteenth century culture that attributed chastity to women, rather than the eighteenth century procedure of assuming that all women were naturally harlots unless someone was standing over them with a big stick. It was a catastrophic failure. Far too many women wound up giving birth in dark alleys in the mud and the rain, forcing the introduction of the welfare state which made men responsible for the costs of women’s decisions, without any capacity to control those decisions.

          Culture does not work to control women, except it is a culture that allows their families to punish them for misbehavior. The Victorians tried. Disaster ensued: Oliver Twist, Les Miserables.

          Eighteenth century England employed the big stick: Worked.

          Nineteenth century England ramped culture to the max: Failed.

          • Robert Brockman says:

            “Culture has no effect. Zero. Turn a girl loose in a major tourist center, makes no difference what her culture is. Her knickers fall down. What does have some effect is family enforcement. Take them away from family, all chicks are alike.”

            Girls’ desire for dominant men who will pick them up and hold them down is universal. Their tolerance / need for hostility, viciousness, drama, and “intensity” varies quite a bit. Girls who have been “mistreated” (physical abuse, repeated pump-and-dump) seem to be more difficult to handle without exposing them to further mistreatment (which I find distasteful).

            Girls with little sexual experience / exposure to pump-and-dump are much less jaded and HATE abandonment. They want a dominant Patriarch to *keep* them and give them babies and cuddles. Girls who have been worked over a lot are mostly just in it for the thrills.

            Effective punishment for misbehavior is much easier than generally believed, and does not require harshness or meanness, especially for good girls. For example, I’ve noticed that girls usually have more tickle spots than limbs they can use to defend against tickles. This makes misbehavior a losing proposition for them.

            The important thing is that the girls know that the effective punishment is inevitable and inescapable regardless of circumstances. “Robert won’t tickle me because there are a lot of people around” — BZZZT. “Robert’s too busy working on a project so he won’t notice / care that I’m misbehaving” — BZZZT. Even the nicest girls WILL try to get away with things, but if you enforce consequences ALWAYS, they understand that you are a real Patriarch, which is what they want.

          • TBeholder says:

            What does have some effect is family enforcement. Take them away from family, all chicks are alike.

            Which makes perfect sense if we remember that behaviour of in-laws (sex-specific, symmetric) is a co-evolved mechanism.
            Which protects the extended family by keeping out hopeless burden and predators, per Hintjens. Thus a Prospective Bride doing what the in-laws should do anyway would be redundant, it works better if mechanism is counterbalanced. But, of course, it only works better until the whole thing is dismantled.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            I’m a farm kid that grew up near Mayberry. Still ridin’ the tater wagon and loving it, I suppose. So was my wife. We got turned loose and survived with flying colours. A lot of us did, in those days.

            Do you think that unplanned pregnancies never occurred before the Victorian age, Jim? Do you think there were no consequences for it during the Victorian age? You need a history book, my friend!

            Again – liberalism, not chithouse evopsych was responsible for the fall of women. The fact is that enforcement of morals, ethics and female virtue was mostly handled by matriarchs. Now that single motherhood carries no social stigma, our women act like whores.

            The fact is that culture can trump human nature any day of the week. We see it every time some moslem rag head blows himself to pieces in a pizza parlour full of kids to make a political point.

            • jim says:

              I can tell you that fatherless children were not causing major problems before the Victorian age, and that the Victorians dismantled the coercive consequences for sexually immoral conduct by women, and got a horde of bastards for so doing.

              The victorians tried your program, ramping the culture up to the max while abandoning patriarchal authority. Failed catastrophically.

              • Glenfilthie says:

                That’s because prior to liberalism, children worked. Fatherless kids made excellent expendable workers for dangerous jobs like mining, for example. Child labour was a fact of life and those that didn’t work were flogged and even hung if they couldn’t sort themselves out. The poor-houses made sure they were productive if they didn’t have parents to do it.

                Juvies are a problem today because they live in a culture that makes endless excuses for them and their idiot mothers. Because we live in a temporary age of opulence and abundance, the bills can be foisted off on the tax payer with only minor grumbling from the electorate.

                A return to even Victorian cultural values would make a huge and immediate impact on juvie/black/vibrant crime issues.

                • jim says:

                  Bastards are feral. They cause problems even if they are allowed to have legal employment. If bastardy had been a comparable problem before the nineteenth century, would have been noticed.

                • Glenfilthie says:

                  Bastards are the the same as any other boy. Feral behaviour is the acquired result of lack of discipline, supervision and appropriate role models. Again – all of which are part and parcel of typical liberal parenting practices.

                • jim says:

                  Denying the evidence of your own eyes, yet again.

                  Bastards are not the same as any other boy.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Culture’s best seen as a kind of extended phenotype of humans.
              Whatever state the human population in a given area’s in, that’s what’s reflected in the culture of that place.

              This mystical notion of a culture that drifts Plato-like above the receptive masses is a bunch of nonsense. When I was a kid, I was briefly suspected of being a queer (with no real jsutification). I can tell you, I was afraid in very concrete, measurable ways: I knew exactly who the people were who wanted to beat me essentially to death, or at least into candid repentance.

              Those same people now, or at the very least their children, are wearing the rainbow flag for gender fluid otherkin.

              The notion that something ethereal happened to the Zeitgeist that trickled down to these people is completely ridiculous.

              What happened is the people who ruled their world shifted from a healthy disgust at having to imagine people doing ‘love-like’ things to another man’s poop tube, to a lockstep obedience to the worship of the high status Queens.

              The rulers say jump and the masses say “how high”, up to and including administering beatings and throwing apontaneous celebrations.

              • Garr says:

                I think that neurofreaks often strike normies as being somewhat feminine because the male-behavior-game doesn’t come naturally to them (neurofreaks). In a way, though, the neurofreaks are hyper-masculine. It’s like the normies are female in relation to neurofreaks. Because social games are essentially feminine.

            • Starman says:

              glenfilthie said, “The fact is that culture can trump human nature any day of the week.”

              Boomsplaining detected.

        • TBeholder says:

          Hollywood and academia are bastions of liberal lunacy. Of course they are going to produce flawed people.

          It’s another chicken-or-egg thing.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Power is UPSTREAM of culture. We get the culture we’re given.

            • Glenfilthie says:

              If you say so.

              All I know is that 30 years ago people would have laughed at the idea of gay marriage. Corporal Klinger was a joke and not a role model.

              Somewhere, somebody changed the culture, making it more liberal and permissive… and now we have 71 genders, with more on the way. Those big fat hairy chested lesbians certainly do not want to be raped by retarded blacks and kebabs.

              When you change the culture, you change the conditioning of individuals as well – so culture does have a huge impact on behaviour.

              • peppermint says:

                Power -> culture -> politics -> power. How did the heebs get the power in the first place? Through their relationship to the bibble.

              • jim says:

                I absolutely know for sure that those big fat hairy chested lesbians certainly do want to be raped by retarded blacks and kebabs, because when I am running my standard game, they react the same way as other girls in the general vicinity of my target.

                There are very few Gold Star lesbians, and every lesbian that claims to be a Gold Star lesbian defines it as “Never had a relationship with a man” – where taking it up every orifice does not count as a “relationship”, because none of the guys that did her called back in the morning.

                • Glenfilthie says:

                  Wait. What?

                  You go round gaming fat ugly dykes and cat ladies Jim? I’m asking because I don’t understand. As a zeta male I’ve never had the need for game; mind you as a young man I tended to avoid childish women with their head games and endless ‘shit tests’ and married a warm and loving wife who’s never given me any real trouble. It’s always been my contention that if you have to play childish games with a woman… she’s not worth the time or hassle.

                • jim says:

                  Not what I said.

                  I said that fat dikes etc in the vicinity of my target react the same way as my target.

                  See Field Report on A Trans – though she was not fat, but she was unattractive in other ways.

                • glosoli says:

                  You’re asking because you’re a snarky little man.
                  Are you, perchance, Jewish?

                • Garr says:

                  Glosoli, Glenfilthie (as I imagine him, at any rate) looks like Haggard (who is not Jewish or little) from the Harry Potter movies. His affable back-slapping put-downs aren’t “snarky”, as far as I can tell; he says these things while smiling. Unfortunately, facial expressions are invisible on blog-comments-pages.
                  (Yes, I am, perchance, Jewish, or at rate biologically half-Jewish.)

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  Aside from B, I think all the Jews here are biologically half Jewish.

                • Glenfilthie says:

                  Fascinating, Jim.

                  My theory about homosexuality is that the vast majority of it fake – a lot of them are poseurs trying to attract attention to themselves by any means possible. Women aren’t the only creatures that thrive on negative attention – there’s tons of children and several men that crave it too. I think the argument can still be made that much of the behaviour you attribute to women in general only applies to certain specific women in particular. Ancedotal evidence is what it is. (For clarity: I am just spit-balling here and acknowledge that I could be full of shit; I do not and will not willingly associate with sexually disturbed people).

                  Yes, I am a snarky man, Glasoli – but only with those I perceive as morons. Perhaps I do over-play the part of the Devil’s Advocate a little too much with our host sometimes – but this is not one of them. I genuinely feel that the vast majority of bad female behaviour is attributable to a rotted culture and ideology. Our host has some powerful arguments and if he is right and I am wrong – it’s no skin off my nose, I have been wrong about other things too.

                  And no, I am not an eeeeeevil joooooo. Nor am I afraid of them – like women, the worst of that lot are feral liberals that should know better – but get into trouble when their idiotic liberal ideas about sexuality collide with reality.

                  Once again boys – conservative values and a manly disposition will be enough to keep you from the tragedies that go along with low women. That is something that ‘Game’ will not. Women can play the game too – and unfortunately right now the law is tilted in their favour and it is a fool’s game.

                  Have a good Sunday, boys, and a Happy New Year.

                • jim says:

                  > I think the argument can still be made that much of the behaviour you attribute to women in general only applies to certain specific women in particular.

                  If not all women are like that, why did these women who are not like that fail to glom onto Einstein, Feynman, and Brad Pitt?

                  Human nature is unchanging. Culture is unimportant. Human nature differs somewhat between races, but not by much. Observe that upper class blacks act pretty much the same as lower class blacks – they are much more like lower class blacks than lower class whites are like lower class blacks. If culture mattered all that much, why does it not make a big difference to upper class black behavior? Sure, it makes some difference, but the difference is seriously underwhelming. Race makes a bigger difference than culture.

                  Coercion and incentives, yes, that makes a difference, a big difference, a huge difference. Send a black to Singapore, yes, he will behave a whole lot better. But that is not “Singaporean culture”. That is intimidation.

                • TBeholder says:

                  If not all women are like that, why did these women who are not like that fail to glom onto Einstein, Feynman, and Brad Pitt?

                  Why would they?

                  IIRC all Feynman did in his “pickup experiment” #1 was a demonstration that he got balls to not beat around the bush — to the chicks likely already looking for being picked up.
                  But then, he had looks, was generally interesting to be around (considering reactions of the others in different circumstances) and didn’t suffer from excessive modesty (which is why his autobiography is fun to read). So, no surprises there.

                  And for another example, Ed Greenwood was glommed onto. Again, what of it?

                • Glenfilthie says:

                  Upper class blacks vs lower class?

                  You have to remember, Jim, that a lot of upper class blacks are upper class because of affirmative action and tokenism – both liberal hallmarks. For example – if Obama had been judged on the content of his character and not the colour of his skin – he would have been laughed out of the presidential election before he ever got started. Personally I have seen a few middle and lower middle class blacks at our church that are nothing like the niggers that the mainstream normies are infatuated with today. The blacks in my church are just boring middle class slobs like the rest of us.

                  I think that maybe you incorrectly draw your baseline from celebs – who are overwhelmingly liberal – and that may be skewing your perceptions.

                  My personal experience as a farm kid is at odds with yours. I can train a lap dog to rip you open with a dirty look, and conversely, make a lap dog out of a Doberman. Kids I grew up with rode cows because Mom and Dad wouldn’t buy them horses. Culture and conditioning are a huge factor in how people behave just as it is for animals. Done properly, you can make entire nations into sheep – as we are seeing today.

                  Who knows, I could be full of chit. Wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong about life. 😉

                • jim says:

                  I can train a lap dog to rip you open with a dirty look, and conversely, make a lap dog out of a Doberman

                  Dogs will do as their master commands, and soldiers will do as their commanding officer commands. That is not culture.

                  The guard dog will tear your throat out without barking or making a sound if you intrude where his master has taught him to guard, but if his master invites you in, no problem. Did his culture change?

                  If you have blacks in a white church, they would be socially excluded if they started acting black. So maybe they are an unrepresentative sample, or maybe they are behaving better in that environment, most likely both. On the other hand, a black in a liberal environment can get away with acting black – and promptly does so.

              • Mack says:

                > Somewhere, somebody changed the culture

                Yes . . . someone changed.


                > As a result, films in the late 1920s and early 1930s included depictions of sexual innuendo, miscegenation, profanity, illegal drug use, promiscuity, prostitution, infidelity, abortion, intense violence, and homosexuality. Strong female characters were ubiquitous in such pre-Code films as Female, Baby Face, and Red-Headed Woman. Gangsters in films like The Public Enemy, Little Caesar, and Scarface were seen by many as heroic rather than evil. Along with featuring stronger female characters, films examined female subject matters that would not be revisited until decades later in US films. Nefarious characters were seen to profit from their deeds, in some cases without significant repercussions, and drug use was a topic of several films. Many of Hollywood’s biggest stars such as Clark Gable, Barbara Stanwyck, Joan Blondell and Edward G. Robinson got their start in the era. Other stars who excelled during this period, however, like Ruth Chatterton (who decamped to England) and Warren William (the so-called “king of Pre-Code”, who died in 1948), would wind up essentially forgotten by the general public within a generation.[2]

                > Beginning in late 1933 and escalating throughout the first half of 1934, American Roman Catholics launched a campaign against what they deemed the immorality of American cinema. This, plus a potential government takeover of film censorship and social research seeming to indicate that movies which were seen to be immoral could promote bad behavior, was enough pressure to force the studios to capitulate to greater oversight.


                For several decades, a culture war was waged, but in 1968, the Protestants and the Catholics lost to the Progressives and the Jews.

                • glosoli says:

                  Solution: xxx xx xxx xxxx.

                • peppermint says:

                  The Code was heavy-handed and favored ridiculous, viewer-contemptuous morality plays. The poz in the heeb movies was much more subtle.

                  But which side was responsible for that horrible movie making fun of Christmas lights and display contests in which the climax is a thumb-sucking religious fanatic reciting the bibble to denounce decorations? Because of that movie, so many streets are dark now when decorating has never been cheaper.

                • TBeholder says:

                  Progressives grew out of Protestants, and even could take over most campaigns of holiness directly, so why would they not win the next holiness competition? Especially if half the time they could pretend they are not in the game and play it at the same time?

                • Mack says:

                  > Progressives grew out of Protestants

                  First, the Protestants were in charge. Then, the elite Protestants revolutionized the admissions process at Harvard, thereby committing cultural suicide. Next, the Progressives came to power.

                  How did the admissions process at Harvard change?

                  Before, the student body was selected from classically educated Protestant Anglo-American social elites from old families living principally in New England.

                  After, the student body was selected from high scorers on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (an IQ test) without regard to education, ancestry, class, geography, religion, recency of immigration, or social grace; i.e. a bunch of unwashed, uneducated and unrefined German Catholics, Irish Catholics, Italian Catholics, Polish Catholics, and Eastern (non-German) Jews.

                  Is it any wonder that the result was an incompetent cognitive elite hostile to the very essence of America herself?

            • TBeholder says:

              Power is UPSTREAM of culture. We get the culture we’re given.

              So, “culture” or “ideological industry”?
              Quoth Mencius Moldbug —
              «All decent, reasonable men are horrified by the idea that the government might control the press.
              None of them seem concerned at all that the press might control the government.»
              Why separate it from power rather than consider one form of power? They are but different branches of the same oligarchy. And when any of these deviates enough to worry oligarchy, the latter tries to prune the offending branch.

      • TBeholder says:

        the exceptions would be with Einstein and Brad Pitt. Chicks would be visiting Feynman’s lab, because he is smart and famous, instead of him hanging out in bars.

        Exactly why would they? Even if they generally consider
        1. There’s a lot of people with reputation of “smart” who are hair-splitting schizoid bores, or parrots unable to find their way out of an open paper bag. And many places on the slightly lower perches are occupied by the wannabe crowd who pretends to be either, but end up acting in ridiculous ways.
        Summary: reputation of being “smart” at best does not tell anything useful, and at worst has negative value as a compliment used for bores by bores.
        2. “Famous” theoretically is good (as “confirmed” high status), but practically may be tricky to convert into anything real.
        Even when “famous” does attract a crowd of disrobing in public places fangirls, this means the subject is already tricky to contact due to being surrounded by said crowd. And when not… Generally “famous” means “admitted into the uppity crowd” (but not born into it) more likely than “towers above the common crowd”, doesn’t it?
        If this was enough to have no problems and be automatically “glommed onto”, the casting couches would not exist.
        3. Even if they are interested in Feynman, they are not interested in labs. Moreover, going out into bar or another designated “social meeting” place is the required first step for interaction.
        Even the performers who actually are already surrounded by crowds of excited eager fangirls rarely have said crowds actively following them everywhere, rather than meet “in bars” or at least concerts. And if making at least some sort of the first step is necessary even for them…

        • jim says:

          You are rationalizing. Feynman was famous and admired. Did not do him much good. Had to learn to be a player and an asshole.

          If there were any chicks who did not prefer assholes, would have found their way to the real Feynman.

          Chicks will find their way to the guy who is in prison for rape, murder, and cannibalism, because famous. Could not find their way to Feynman despite being famous.

          What do you think the chances are that someone in prison for rape, murder, and cannibalism is unable to find his way out of a paper bag?

          Women find their way to famous bad guys. Do not find their way to famous good guys. If NAWALT Not All Women Are Like That, they would find their way to famous good guys.

          • Robert Brockman says:

            Feynman did not need to learn Game to get Arline. He also stated that he stopped using the techniques he was taught after a while, so it is possible he did not use Game to get Gweneth.

            • jim says:

              My recollection is that his earliest contacts with women occurred after some bros had given him advice on game. Therefore, game the whole way. Naturally one does not say that one gamed one’s wife, since in the current environment that would impugn the character of one’s wife, but everyone does game their wives (or winds up sleeping on the couch).

  9. jamie says:

    ”When affluent respectable middle class white males beat misbehaving daughters and wives”

    A lot of murders of husbands happened as a result of this. Don’t think women would not do this.

  10. Pooch says:

    I’m not sure a country of only Einsteins is a good thing. They would easily get defeated in battle. Women’s natural reproductive instinct is insurance against this.

    • jim says:

      Which is why I said taxpayers and soldiers. If the government wants to win and survive, needs to reward the men on which it depends – which guarantees evolution of the men on whom it can depend.

      • Pooch says:

        Soldiers (and police officers) get more pussy than anybody. Ask any woman and they will tell you a man in uniform is sexy. These guys are the true alphas of society (muscular, leaders of men, take no shit, disciplined, etc) and are rewarded handsomely in pussy for it. The low-IQ tattooed thug you speak of, is not too far removed from the tattooed low-IQ grunt US marine. There’s considerable overlap there.

        • ilkarnal says:

          Lotta families had mob boys and police in the same family. Same kinda people.

        • jim says:

          Sure, we just need to make sure that the marine gets pussy, and the gangster does not. We want the chicks to get hot for the prosocial thug, not the anti social thug.

          We also want the Silicon Valley CEO to get pussy too.

          • jamie says:

            Didn’t the Romans actually socially degrade the criminal that was about to be executed?

            Make them weak, powerless and utterly degraded.

            I mean Jesus himself was stripped of his robe forced to march in his underwear and humiliated in front of the public before being crucified.

          • jamie says:

            I mean an entirely vegetarian diet should be considered for the criminals of society too.

          • Pooch says:

            It’s just not in a women’s nature to ever get hot for a computer nerd. That is definitely a problem.

            • jim says:

              It is not just computer nerds. Females respond to more primitive indicators of status and accomplishment, indicators that were more reliable when we were swinging through the trees, and became less reliable when we attached bits of sharp stone to sticks.

              To get eugenic reproduction, we have to decorate males that are high status in the male hierarchy with the indicators of status that females are capable of recognizing, and deny these indicators to males that are low status in the male hierarchy. And we want to make every male that fights or works for society and the state (or retired after long and honorable service to society and the state) higher status than those that don’t: Taxpayers, soldiers, police, rentacops, and mercs.

        • jim says:

          No, soldiers and police get more pussy than any respectable male, but substantially less than criminals.

          • TBeholder says:

            As a linear combination of “tough” and “servile”?

          • Pooch says:

            That’s not accurate. The delineation between the 2 is not high though. Many criminals would fit in fine in the marines and US Army.

            • jim says:

              If in the army killing enemies of the state, presumably not in a back alley mugging taxpayers of the state. So the state should support their patriarchal authority within their marriage and family, and grant them the kind of status that gets women hot, such as the right to open carry.

            • peppermint says:

              Quit insulting soldiers. Criminals are lazy and looking to get stuff the easy way without caring about the future. Soldiers are disciplined and many of them are in it to get in a better position to get stuff the normal way.

              • jim says:

                We need disciplined violence aimed at long term results.

                We need to eradicate undisciplined violence aimed at short term results.

                And eradicating undisciplined violence aimed at short term results requires the kind of personality and behavior characteristic of soldiers.

                Women cannot appreciate the difference, so we need to artificially make the difference visible in things that women are capable of appreciating.

    • Harold says:

      When has a higher IQ army ever been man-to-man weaker than a lower Iq army?

  11. EdensThaw says:

    Recently tested Jim’s “put your women in danger while protecting yourself” trope and can confirm.

    • Thales says:

      Don’t tease us — expound, please.

      • jim says:

        Don’t expound unless you have more than one passport, with good separation between the identities on the passports, and good separation between your posting identity and any of the passport identities, because the details might connect to your true identity.

        How do you think they kept the truth about women secret for two hundred years when the truth was well known before then, and in front of everyone’s noses the whole time?

        Notice that Roosh is the only Middle Easterner banned from Britain. They fear the truth more than they fear terrorists who drive trucks into nativity scenes.

        Heartiste, who was always more politically aware than Roosh, kept his true identity somewhat undercover.

        • EdensThaw says:

          Fun exercise:

          Compare Elon Musk’s Twitter groupies to, say, Harry Styles’s.

  12. mikey says:

    They really are giant, spoiled children with short attention spans. They happily wander the malls in groups all day buying useless crap that rarely gets used. Most of our erotic effort goes to finance this crap collecting and constructing ever larger houses to keep it in. They protest about pollution, child labor, etc when their own senseless habits create the problem in the first place. If we cannot develop sex robots and artificial wombs before they destroy civilization, it is over for Western civ. They do not even care what they destroy so long as they get attention while doing it.

    • Ron says:

      Enough with the @#$@#$ sex robots. The women are designed to be dominated. They WANT you to own them. They are DISGUSTED with men who refuse to do so.

      Your problem is not the women, your problem is your fellow males who relentlessly sabotage you and every other male around them. If in theory your magical sex robots came into existence with the ability to produce children, you would have the EXACT SAME PROBLEM you currently do, because the males in your society would suddenly “realize” that sex robots have “rights”. They would do this because that IS HOW YOU ARE CONTROLLED.

      Why is this so difficult for everyone to grasp?

      • vxxc2014 says:

        ‘“rights”. They would do this because that IS HOW YOU ARE CONTROLLED.

        Why is this so difficult for everyone to grasp?’

        He’s right.

        There’s no finagling your way out of facing down our women and smashing down criminal stupid men and our Poz occupation Govt*

        And may I add: the taking of America’s Commanding Heights by the poz means there’s no place to run. Not robots, not exit, not space [only America can get there really in Exit/colonization terms], not artificial reproduction…

        You’re pussies and there’s no place to run. May we suggest FIGHTING AT LAST?

        Poz Occupation Government hereafter POG.

        • John Sterne says:

          Fighting Moi? You mean with my keyboard right?

          • peppermint says:

            Yes. First we build the recognition that commies need helli rides. Then the government, not us, gives the commies helli rides. Then the young people who did the actual fighting get all the glory, and we get referred to as late 20th century philosophers, with the implication that we all smoked weed and did hard drugs and had fucked niggers and sucked dicks, but it would be better to be insulted in a decent society than loved in a faggot society.

      • Coke says:

        Correct. Just as nonwhites are fundamentally irrelevant to the political balance of power, women are fundamentally irrelevant to the sexual balance of power. Feminism is nothing but a club with which some men strike down other men.

        “We funded that.”

      • Corvinus says:

        “Enough with the @#$@#$ sex robots. The women are designed to be dominated. They WANT you to own them. They are DISGUSTED with men who refuse to do so.”

        Why don’t you actually prove your theory by posting on YouTube your wife or girlfriend who shares exactly in your sentiments?

        Otherwise, it is an absolute certainty that you are another armchair warrior who has his nut sack in a sling.

        • jim says:
          1. Because no women is consciously aware of sharing his sentiments. They all think they want to rule men, but men that they can and do rule are absolutely invisible to them, they are only aware of men who treat them like toys.
          2. Because if he showed a woman reacting as if she shared his sentiments, as all women do in fact react, given the stimulus, as all women do react when I toy with them, you white knights would indignantly send him to jail for domestic abuse.
  13. Garr says:

    What about ex-wives trying to impose “minimal visitation” on you, knowing you don’t have the resources to hire a lawyer and that the courts would agree that you’re trying to “sabotage” your kid’s education? What about that? What the fuck can you do?

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Nothing you can do. People like us are very much in the world but not of the world.
      We have two choices:

      1. When it seems either reasonable or necessary, do what’s required to achieve your ends in the real world as it actually is


      2. When there’s no way of achieving your end without so distorting it as to make it unbearable to you, bow out gracefully

      ….and alarm bells will be ringing: what about the race, the nation, the civilisation?
      Indeed, that’s an important part of your calculus.

    • John Sterne says:

      You’re fucked only some states default to joint custody and wont permit the mother to leave the school district with the kids. best advice is face reality quickly and start new family this time planning better.Its also the best revenge.

    • glosoli says:

      Kill the ex.

      • Ron says:

        You’re statement was that of an irresponsible idiot.

        This man is being pushed to the breaking point. Ive seen this too many times. Judging from what Ive seen, he is probably willing to do nearly anything, no matter how crazy. And given the stress he’s under he’s probably having a hard enough time thinking clearly.

        Like most men in this situation, he is likely facing a large, well oiled, and experienced machine, that knows exactly how to deceive and force him into a well planeed path. Most married male friends at this stage start abandoning such men, especially if their wives are friends with his ex.

        Meanwhile his ex is being given every incentive and even encouragement to lie and destroy him, as that is profitable for the machine.

        If he so much as looks at her the wrong way, he will be lucky if the worst that happens is not seeing his children again. Other scenarios involve being put into permanent debt, being thrown into a cage at the whim of his ex, being falsely accused of child abuse, etc. this is a very dangerous time for him.

        To Garr: right niw you need support and good friends with good advice. Unfortunately I dont know specifically where you need to go, but i encourage you to find MRA groups online, especially if you can find any resources for men in your local area. The fact is, it s very hard to find such things, but they exist, and you need them.

        Also, i would say that you should focus very serious on protecting your physical and emotional health. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Do not, i repeat DO NOT do ANYTHING based on emotion. Every single act you take must be based on sound reason, experience (whether yours or anothers), you
        MUST do everything possible to keep your spirits up and your health as optimal as you can. That means eat super healthy, make certain to get FULL REST, cut loose ANYONE who is not 100% on your side, I mean ANYONE. Get rid of emotionally compromised people, you are emotional enough as it is, you dont need any more crazy. WORK OUT REGULARLY. Dont miss a single session. Again, you are no good to anyone if you exhaust yourself. And above all DO NOT LOSE YOUR COOL.

        Your ex, the judges, the lawyers, the police, the asshole next door, will do everything and then some to get you to lose it, because that gives the, the perfect excuse to fuck you permanently. Do Not Let Them Get To You.

        You must be smart, you must be resilient, you must be relentless. Understand that you are in the fight of your life. Pray. Then get up and fight for yourself.

        God be with you.

        Good luck

    • jim says:

      Kill your ex.

      Kill her lover. (Who is probably abusing your children.)

      Deus Vult.

      Not a humorous reply. It really is your best option, and smart person, and most people who read my blog are fairly smart, should keep in mind that the police are lazy, stupid, and have no real incentive to pursue difficult or complicated crimes. Unidentifiable stranger death, with an alibi in place, alibi being visible on your credit cards, mysterious no apparent cause death (helium suffocation, unusual toxic agent), or mysterious disappearance with no evidence of death.

      As well as being a pragmatically practical and useful option, it is also quite unambiguously the law of God. Deuteronomy, issued by Moses or more likely the courts and bureaucracy of one of his successors, commands death for such people, and “Proverbs”, issued by the Kings of Israel, or more likely by a committee assembled by the court of the Kings of Israel, presupposes that the penalty is normally carried out privately.

      “Proverbs” was a government issued book whose purpose was to tell ordinary people that incentives for good behavior were in place. And one of these incentives is that it is legal for the offended husband or betrothed to himself deal with the problem.

      Deus Vult.

      • Blah says:

        Dimethylmercury for even stronger alibi, if you can obtain the compound.

      • peppermint says:

        What the hell, did whatever happen to Bannon also happen to you? He’s the prime suspect no matter what happens and everyone knows it, and he’s a nazi since he reads nazi websites, and nazis are suspects no matter what.

        • peppermint says:

          If he does, we look bad and he loses everything. If he walks away and finds a younger, hotter babe who was just going to suck a nigger dick or, what’s worse, get knocked up by a kike anyway, it’s a positive for him and us.

          • Anonymoose says:

            A good life is the best revenge.

          • alf says:

            Nah it’s win-win for Jim, at least if his identity is as secretive as he says it is.

            If caught and gets linked to Jim, Jim will break the internet as Cult Guy Who Convinced Reader To Murder His Ex Wife, which is next level exposure. Makes us look bad-ass,

            But even though it’s probably the correct advice, its advice for a different time. Gigantic win-lose for Garr. OJ got away with it, but OJ was the opposite of a nazi.

            • jim says:

              OJ got away with it despite being very stupid, because he was a black man murdering a white woman.

              If Garr kills his ex wife and her lover, he can get away with it by being smarter than the cops – which is not all that smart.

              It is Gnon’s will that if your wife commits adultery, you should kill her and her lover, unless you abandoned her first. So says the Old Testament and Charles Darwin.

              • alf says:

                In line with your reasoning on the murderer of Kate Steinle I’d say OJ got away it not despite but because being very stupid.

                I can’t argue with the OT and Darwin argument. But even if the police is much less smart than people think they are, getting away with double murder is like.. getting away with double murder.

                • peppermint says:

                  Everyone agrees with the husband doing the double murder on the mother of his child, provided there’s some way it benefits the child. No one agrees if there isn’t a child (no child means the marriage wasn’t consummated, which means the “husband” was mistreating the “wife”) or if the child ends up abandoned to the state.

                • jim says:

                  Not murder.

                  Killing adulterous women and their lovers is not murder.

                • Mack says:

                  > Not murder. Killing adulterous women and their lovers is not murder.

                  The monopoly on the legitimate use of violent force might beg to differ.

                  The question really w/r/t woman is one of credible threat. For Garr, this ship has sailed, so his highest priority is now maximizing his quality of life.

                  There is good news on this front: he is a bachelor again, without responsibilities except a significantly higher effective tax rate. He has already been nailed by the state; he now has significantly less money, but he has been otherwise released from all familial obligations and can start over with a younger, hotter, tighter GF and father some better progeny. He could also choose to find a professional womyn and woo her to his cause. Alternatively, he could sow his oats with abandon. They can only take so much, probably, but consult a lawyer fo sho.

                • jim says:

                  Moldbug thinks the state is irresistibly strong, and in dealing with any one trouble maker who openly and up front challenges the state, it is indeed irresistibly strong.

                  But the state is merely bluff and theater, a ramshackle ship floating on a storm tossed sea of anarchy. The state exists the way fiat currency exists, a shared illusion that exists because we pretend it exists, pretending it into existence for fear of what would be revealed if too many were to doubt. There is no monopoly on legitimate force when each state actor gets to capriciously make up his own version of the law, having far too many laws to choose from.

                  Law works if people believe it, but we have far too many laws, applied capriciously and selectively. Because of this selective and capricious application, state law lacks moral authority. For the law to actually work, has to be believed. To be believed, has to be comprehensible, and has to align with religious authority. Anarcho tyranny is a manifestation of the fact that the state itself has ceased to believe in state law.

                  State enforcement of state law is inefficient, corrupt, incompetent, and negligent. If you lie down in front of the steamroller, then yes, you will be squashed, but not that hard to adroitly dance out of the way of the steamroller. No one seems to be driving the steamroller. White men continue to obey laws because they are white, it is what we do, but no one else is doing it, and nothing bad seems to happen to them.

                  They have efficient means for enforcing some regulations, but these run on autopilot. You have to know what they are and stay out of the way of the steamroller. But there is usually a way around. If you don’t get caught up in these routine mechanical enforcement mechanisms, you will probably not get caught.

                  Credible threat is not an issue. What is an issue is protecting his child from his ex’s numerous and frequently changing lovers, and getting the economic means to replace his ex and look after his child, both of which require the elimination of his ex.

                • Mack says:

                  Like I said, his task now is to maximize his quality of life. You’ll notice that I didn’t say, “his income,” nor did I use the phrase, “standard of living,” a Rothtardian euphemism for “income”. The only thing any of us really have is time. How much is a few thousand dollars a month worth? Is it worth ten or twenty years in a prison cell? Maybe it is; maybe it isn’t. Garr has to make that evaluation for himself.

                • Mack says:

                  *Is it worth ten or twenty years in a prison cell weighed against the probability of getting caught.

                  (Remember, when an ex-wife dies a mysterious death, everyone knows why, so it isn’t a question of figuring out who did it, but about proving that his guilt.)

                • peppermint says:

                  quality of life is masturbation. What matters is whether his kids get the chance to be successful in life, where successful in life means marriage and reproduction, whether he ensures that by having more kids with a younger woman, or by getting rid of the adulturer who would surely try to hurt his kids.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Killing adulterous women and their lovers is not murder.”

                  You’re drunk again. Civilizations nations recognize this action as indeed a crime. It is murder.

                  Given the fact that you allegedly had slept with women who were married, you should be dead by now.

        • jim says:

          If social justice warriors start twittering that he must have killed his ex and her lover because he reads evil nazi websites, not only will evil nazi websites get lots of hits, but people who read evil nazi websites will find themselves getting a whole lot of pussy.

          • Robert Brockman says:

            This is a dangerous attitude on multiple levels. First, we need to once and for all get beyond this idea that we need to “get” things from women: sex, love, companionship, etc. This way of thinking is very weak minded and gives women lots of unearned power — it’s a bad frame. The correct frame, the Patriarchal frame, is that women need sex, love, companionship, etc. from US. Men decide what women are worthy of the gift of our attention. “Getting sex” is not a good goal or measure of progress.

            Second, the messy chaotic drama associated with this sort of retribution is not conducive to reestablishing a proper judicial order — which is what we all want so we can all go back to the business of civilization. Pandering to women’s base desires to watch the “let’s you and him fight” game (even at great risk to themselves) is not something we want to be involved in.

            • jim says:

              But we do need to get things from women. Among those things, we need to get children.

              If we abandon that attitude, if we abandon the attitude that we need to get things from women, whites stop reproducing.

              And we are abandoning that attitude.

              It is the will of Gnon that we should not abandon that attitude.

              Further, women need sex from us the way they need water. There is no shortage of water. So in that sense, they don’t need sex and they don’t need water. While it is certainly true that women need sex, they don’t need sex from me, so the frame you suggest is delusive.

              • Eli says:

                Exactly. There is no way I’m going to lie to myself that I don’t need women — for that very reason.

                Tangentially: Just got sent by my liberal professor friend a fun link, an excerpt from upcoming book “Fire and Fury:”


                My reply was that these men were taken advantage of by the animals that were their wives (in the style of Bathsheba and Abigail, when they manipulated King David). If the animals wore burkas and kept under proper surveillance, it wouldn’t have happened.

                So yes, I agree with jim that women are high-level animals that need to be deeded property of their father/husband, and moreover, that possession of woman/women should constitute a great part of man’s honor, by implying that his children are really his legacy and not products of cuckoldry, be it physical or metaphorical, via the bureaucratic apparatus.

                On the other hand, I don’t see how Trump is playing a multidimensional chess. He’s more like President Camacho than ol’ Americana version of Machiavelli. B was more on point. Alas, there is no one currently in the power structure (in the higher and middle ranks) in the Western world who is better, however. Hence, it’s even more up to men individually to defend honor, and obey G-d’s laws.

                • jim says:

                  Everything I have read about Trump said by his enemies that I could check turned out to be a lie. Why should this be any different?

                  If Trump fucked his friends wives, there would be consequences. If someone fucked Trump’s wife, there would be consequences, so he would assume other men would behave likewise.

                  Really, if Trump screwed my wife I would probably kill him, and I am pretty sure that Trump has double or triple my testosterone level, so I would expect that if I screwed his wife, he would kill me. And even if other men are natural cuckolds, he would project his own behavior onto them.

                  The allegation is therefore improbable.

                  The speakerphone story presupposes that women react like men, projecting onto women the story that women are naturally virtuous except that evil men make them do bad things. Trump has sufficient experience with women that he would know this is not true. If a wife heard over the speakerphone that someone was plying her husband with loose women, this would make her less likely to be unfaithful to her husband, not more likely. And Trump surely knows this, therefore, even if an inveterate seducer of other men’s wives as claimed, would never use the tactic described.

              • Robert Brockman says:

                Collectively, we as men need women to create children to continue the civilization. Individually, men can lead meaningful lives without children *far* better than women can. We have the power advantage over women in this regard – even with Uncle Sugar and the divorce industry women have great difficulty raising the children they crave without a Patriarch.

                “Further, women need sex from us the way they need water. There is no shortage of water.”

                They need sex from Patriarchs, and there is a HUGE shortage of Patriarchs right now. You yourself state that the women are crawling over broken glass to get to thugs (fake Patriarchs, but at least they aren’t whiny and needy). Around real Patriarchs with the proper intent and calibration girls just melt.

                “They don’t need sex from me”

                This belief is *the problem* — you are old (even older than their first Daddy), have access to resources, experience in raising children, are difficult to push around, are wise to tricks and traps of others — an ideal Patriarch. Now all you need to do is *act* like a Patriarch around girls and good things will happen. Understanding that girls need sex from you is a key part of this: it’s a win for them evolutionarily, emotionally, materially, etc.

                Note that for this to work optimally you need the proper intent: you have to be in this for the goal of giving children to a worthy girl through sex and becoming her husband (surrogate Daddy). Sex outside of this context isn’t going to further your race or civilization anyway.

                Doesn’t this seem simple? It IS, but I spent 25 years getting it straight too and purging the femininsm and other degeneracy.

            • peppermint says:

              Socrates had one wife who he took care of properly giving her three children. She is supposed to have complained that he didn’t take money for teaching, but he didn’t want to be a professor. Socrates gave his life for his nation and proved democracy to be bullshit forever.

              Aristotle had two wives and one child by each, so he did okay for himself but neglected them.

              Plato was a weirdo who never managed to marry despite being a cult leader riding Socrates’ coattails. His bizarre superstitious speculations have damaged Western philosophy ruefully ever since. As a professor and pedo apologist, he hated himself and navel-gazed and couldn’t possibly have understood Socrates’ nobility.

              Virtually all actors are all weird, broken people, which is why live action TV can’t possibly portray normalcy.

              Sex is for reproduction. All women understand this and women will be much more attracted to you if you don’t try to take reproduction iff the table like a crippled bugman trans-ageist starfleet faggot.

        • Robert Brockman says:

          For sure. Speaking of which, what the heck is going on with Bannon anyway? A Donald – Bannon feud certainly wasn’t how I expected 2018 to start.

          • Mack says:

            The God-Emperor flourishes with one hand as he quietly pulls puppetstrings with the other.

    • Anonymoose says:

      While it would be terribly terrible if your demon-woman were to tragically die a tragic death, it’s probably best if you don’t kill her.

      The truth is that your child is no longer yours. You are not a father, you are a sperm donor.

      The judge has told the father ‘The only thing that you’re good for is paying the mother’s bills but dad has trouble believing that he’ll never be anything other than an ATM. In a lot of ways the ghetto dads are smarter than my high-income male clients. Ghetto dads don’t expect anything resembling justice from the court system. Ghetto dads try to minimize the financial damage, comply with court orders to pay money, but don’t volunteer to serve as unpaid babysitters of a child that the court has deemed to be essentially someone else’s.” What does it mean to “give up”? “My happiest male clients are the ones who accepted that they weren’t parents anymore and moved at least 500 miles away. They accepted that everything they’d worked for was gone and that, going forward, they were going to have to live on 40 percent of their former income. They didn’t have to see or interact with the plaintiff who took everything from them. If they wanted to be dads they started over with a second wife or partner.” Did they still see their biological children from the first marriage? “Christmas vacations. A few weeks in the summer.”

      Read the whole site; while you do, keep in mind this simple three-step plan:

      1. Sell or give away everything that doesn’t fit in your car.
      2. Drive to Aspen, CO.
      3. Spend the rest of the season (i.e. the next 3 months) as a ski bum fucking ski bunnies.

      P.S. If the Gottführer assumes power, your problems will fade away practically overnight. You’ve held out this long; you can hold out a little longer. And in the meantime…

      I am not a father, I am a sperm donor.
      I am not a father, I am a sperm donor.
      I am not a father, I am a sperm donor.

      • jim says:

        While it would be terribly terrible if your demon-woman were to tragically die a tragic death, it’s probably best if you don’t kill her.

        One is always a father, and it is God’s Will that you kill unfaithful women and their lovers. Deus Vult.

        • Robert Brockman says:

          The Mosaic law governing this situation is much more involved than this. There must be two witnesses to the capital crime (presumably adultery in this case.) There needs to be an established civil authority with a judiciary for deciding guilt and punishment. *The witnesses need to be first among the executioners*. Etc.

          Yes, the collapse of an effective judicial system has caused terrible chaos. However, incitement to personal retaliation will likely escalate the chaos further. Peppermint is right, personal extrajudicial retaliation in this case will likely harm the victimized man even further and make things much worse.

          The victimized man needs to calm down, get to a relatively secure position, and then decide if and how he wants to join the struggle to restore a functioning justice system based on restitution.

  14. […] All women are like that […]

Leave a Reply