It is a sexual recession. Man and women are not getting sex and children.
It is a sexual secession. Men and women are going separate ways (which results in no one getting sex and children)
Surveys show men and women are both hurting — less sex for everyone, though more women are getting sex than men. Women, however, are disappointed in the sex, because not getting love and investment, just booty calls.
Leftists worst hit, libertarians quite badly hit, conservatives doing less badly, reactionaries least affected, though everyone is hurting.
Surveys also show this is most severe on the left, least severe on the right. Particularly for women, with leftist women most severely affected, conservative women least affected, Anecdotal data indicates that this reflects political orientation with respect to sexual sovereignty and female equality, so in this post I am taking the anecdotal data as true, since survey data supports it in a variety of ways, and it is predicted by red pill theory and evolutionary psychology. If you believe your instincts regarding relationship formation are evil, and that the ancestral form of sexual relationships and the ancestral way that they were established is wicked, not going to get relationships.
The apps like Tinder are no longer the problem.
When Tinder first appeared, Miss Average was totally wowed to discover that she could get nailed by a six foot six athlete with six pack abs and six figure income.
Then she gradually woke up to the fact that she was just another booty call.
Men and women on the apps gamified, minimaxed, and optimized their tactics — Which, since the game of players and bitches is a prisoner’s dilemma game, a negative sum game, made the experience on the apps worse for everyone. As everyone got better at taking advantage of the apps, the outcomes were worse for everyone.
So now the chicks are getting off the apps. Which you might think is good news for those of us who are under six foot six, or lack a six pack abs, or a six figure income. But they are not getting sex, not getting into sexual relationships, and in a startlingly large number of cases are remaining virgin, or claim to be remaining virgin. Which would be good news were it not that the way the wind blows they are likely to continue not having sex till their eggs and their faces wither.
Women are complaining men are not hitting on them.
Why are men not hitting on them?
Some men, primarily leftists, thinks that men pursuing women just oppresses women. It is creepy. It is abuse according to the Duluth model. So the leftist male waits for a relationship to “organically” emerge from friendship and political solidarity. And, surprise, surprise, this does not happen. Movies are always trying to depict relationships “organically” emerging and it always feels gratingly forced, artificial, and unnatural. Because over the past six million years, that is not how men and women did it.
The mating dance is that men conquer and women surrender, but men perform and women choose. So you drag her back to your lair and tell her to make a sandwich and warm the bed, and if she runs off screaming your performance was not up to scratch.
One factor deterring men from hitting on women is the Duluth model. “Believe all women”. In practice of course, on matters related to sex and reproduction, women don’t know the truth and do not care. And in any case the Duluth model does not mean “believe all women”. It means that police and courts should believe her if she says a man is being bad to her, and disbelieve her if she denies a man is being bad to her. The Duluth model defines patriarchy as a criminal offense, and if the women is complicit in a patriarchal interaction, then so much the worse for her. It essentially criminalizes the the natural and normal sexual and romantic interaction between a man and a woman.
Women complain men are not hitting on them. But when a man hits on them, and they are sexually attracted to that man, they are still going to give him a hard time. Which under our current laws exposes a man to considerable danger.
All happy families are alike. Each unhappy family is unique.
A man wants sex. A woman wants sex with investment, A man wants investment with ownership.
In a K selected species, nature and nature’s God wants the transfer of resources from men to women, and from parents to children, but, without patriarchy, without male ownership of a woman’s sexual and reproductive services, without what the Duluth model calls abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape, none of that is going to happen, and the result is that the species goes extinct.
Leftists think that there is some other way a family can be happy, that can be happy and not be what the Duluth model calls “abuse”. This does not work. If you are happy with your woman, you are a criminal abuser, and if she is happy that she makes you happy, she is complicit in your criminal abuse. Leftists try to find some other way to make it work, and it just is not working for them.
Men and women can get together as equals for a hookup, just as gays get together as equals for a hookup. But because of reproductive biology, cannot get together as equals for family formation. And hooking up results in girls becoming distressed and crazy.
Women want sex that leads to the establishment of one flesh.
Without male ownership, women do not receive male investment. Without male investment, sex makes them unhappy. They stop engaging in sex, or they go crazy, and eventually crazy and evil. They complain, but in the world of “point deer make horse”, they lack the words to express their unhappiness, and express it in words that are back to front from the reality, using instead the word of patriarchy as abuse, of sex as exploitation, of love and family as exploitation and oppression. They are unowned, are angry because unowned, but instead complain of being owned, their words blatantly untrue, and weirdly disconnected from concrete events.
I see a whole lot of false charges of sexual harassment etcetera.
When a man is sexually attracted to a woman, his natural reaction is to stare at indicators of fertility, such as her boobs, and to be nice to her.
When a woman is sexually attracted to a man, her natural reaction is to hit him with a shit test to see what he is made of. And the Duluth model makes being hit with a shit test quite dangerous for men. Often the only way to pass a shit test is to do what men have been told to consider is assaulting a woman or sexually harassing her. If you are not willing to break the law, it is hard to score with women. And if you fail the shit test, the woman is going to feel you are creepy. And if she feels you are creepy, you must have sexually harassed here, sexually assaulted her, or raped her. Thus, in practice, the vast majority of sexual harassment charges, as near to all of them as make no difference, are actually lack of sexual harassment charges.
Women want men to hit on them, but if you hit on a woman and she is sexually attracted to you, she is going to give you a hard time. You must be unafraid, and it is hard to be unafraid when the consequences can be so dire. If she is not interested in you, will give you a bad time, and if she is interested in you, and very much wants to be approached by men like you, will give you a worse time. She is going to give you a shit test for the same reason as you are going the stare at her boobs.
I know this because of what I have seen in front of my nose. Do you doubt me? Well then explain the strange fact that women in workplaces that are overwhelmingly female are far more likely to complain of sexual harassment than women in overwhelmingly male workplaces. Making the woman the victim and complainant in sex cases, rather than the male who has proper authority over her sexual and reproductive services, results in them complaining about what we do not want them to complain about, and failing to complain about what we do want them to complain about.
the red pill, the reactionary
The reactionary prescribes lifting weights, losing fat, adding muscle, game, and dominance to make a woman submit.
Emotions? What are emotions? A man should be stoic. A man is a rock, and a woman is a storm. The storm does not shake the rock. The only emotions he knows are hungry and horny, and it is a woman’s job to fix both of those.
The bible prescribes that husband should cherish his wife, and a wife obey and fear her husband. That works. Get on with what works, what has always worked.
What the leftist thinks is Duluth model, the red pilled reactionary thinks is the scriptural model, commanded by the scripture, by nature, and by nature’s God.
The reactionary model focuses on dragging a woman to your lair and exercising ownership, so tends to wind up in relationships.
the libertarian
the libertarian interprets the problem as a market failure. Low value women, noticing that they can get high value semen, are setting an insanely high price upon relationships. So, the only male option is to not buy until the price comes down. Eventually women will respond to failure to attain a relationship by adusting their price. Unfortunately markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent So: “Men going their own way”.
A very short analysis — but if you model individuals as rational and sovereign, there is not a lot to say.
This is an inadequate model for men, and a much worse model for women.
The failure in this prescription is that it prescribes that women, being rational sovereign individuals, should respond to market forces. Nothing men can do. But, of course, women are not sovereign rational individuals, and are never going to respond to market forces. Women expect men to forcefully solve this problem for women. For that was men’s job in the ancestral environment of evolutionary adaptation and successful female reproduction.
Women are not setting an insanely high price on relationships. They are setting an insanely high price on casual sex, because they can easily get that price, and because the libertarian is reluctant to exercise ownership, a woman’s pussy is going to perceive living with a libertarian as casual sex.
Women do not agree to ownership — they cannot, rather they react to stimuli in ways that lead to ownership, and a libertarian is disinclined to generate those stimuli, because he models people a sovereign individuals. Back when the marriage ceremony worked, it did not work because of “I do”. It worked because of “Who giveth this woman to this man” and “I now pronounce you man and wife”. Indeed “I do” did not exist until the sixteenth century in Eastern Orthodoxy, and the eleventh century in Roman Catholicism.
Libertarians perceive women as making impossible demands in a relationship, because they are modeling women as rational sovereign individuals engaged in negotiating a relationship, when in fact is they are just unconsciously and instinctively testing for strength just as a man feeling up a woman’s boobs is unconsciously and instinctively testing for fertility. She thinks, and he thinks, that she is demanding a better deal in the relationship, when in fact she is asking for a spanking. If he concedes her demands, she feels he is weak, and abandons him, if he retreats from her demands, she feels abandoned, and abandons him.
In the ancestral environment, females that successfully reproduced were transferred from the authority of nurturing and protective parents, to the authority of a nurturing and protective husband. As a result, the female mind is not designed to operate outside male authority, supervision, care, and protection, and, absent these conditions, goes off the rails. They just cannot handle emancipation and remain entirely sane.
the leftist numale
The leftist prescription is — complicated. The leftist is full of many words that contain little meaning. He suffers from analysis paralysis.
The leftist prescribes a radically different kind of self-work. He believes that the traditional masculine traits the right worships (stoicism, emotional repression, dominance, financial provision) are precisely what repels modern women and makes him miserable.
His action plan to get a girlfriend involves:
- Therapy and Emotional Literacy: He believes he needs to become a safe, emotionally vulnerable, and communicative partner. He thinks women are tired of men who can’t process their own feelings, so he works on articulating his emotions rather than suppressing them.
- He rejects the “Sexual Marketplace”: He refuses to view dating through the lens of “value” or “leagues.” He tries to build connections based on mutual interests, shared political values, and friendship first, rather than treating sex as a prize to be won through performance.
- Feminist Praxis in Dating: He actively works to dismantle his own internalized misogyny. This doesn’t mean he thinks wanting sex is evil; it means he believes sex should be an enthusiastically consensual, mutual experience. He thinks the reactionary’s path (coercion, manipulation, or “imposing” patriarchy) is not only unethical but deeply unattractive to the kind of woman he actually wants to date—a woman who is his equal, not his subordinate.
- A loving, committed, heterosexual relationship is perfectly moral and desirable. He wants that. Provided, of course, it works exactly like a gay relationship. A relationship built on power-over dynamics, financial control, emotional manipulation, and unilateral decision-making (i.e., patriarchy) is what is abusive.
Therefore, his solution to the personal crisis is to build a relationship that explicitly rejects the “patriarchal deal.” He wants a partnership based on egalitarianism, shared household labor, and mutual care. He thinks the only way to get a girlfriend and keep her—while also having a fulfilling sex life and eventually children—is to offer her a deal that doesn’t require her to submit. He offers her freedom, respect, and genuine co-leadership.
Which sounds like it should work, because that is what women believe they want. But, in practice, this works out very like a booty call, because it is modeled on gays hooking up. And Miss Average is not going to attend our leftist’s booty call unless he is mister one in thirty. This sort of sex results in women becoming unhappy, crazy, and destructive.
You will notice that in any leftist sexual relationship, every single one, if there is equally and fairly shared household labor, the man winds up living on the couch and soon after the marriage breaks up. Living together requires that the woman does woman’s work and the man does man’s work, and also requires that household work lands unfairly and disproportionately on the woman. If women do not get exploited, they do not feel owned. If they do not feel owned, they get difficult. Women want to serve. Well, actually they do not want to serve. Who wants that? But they want to feel that their man needs their service and can make them serve. Resistance to household tasks is always a shit test by the woman, and man always has to pass the shit tests a woman gives him. They neglect housework because they rather like being made to do it, and they rather like their man noticing that he needs it done. She needs and wants to be cherished, but she also wants a man who can treat her like a rented mule, and from time to time needs proof that he can and will.
On the one hand, women genuinely do want the princess treatment, and genuinely do need to be cherished. If not cherished, go crazy and evil. On the other hand, I have never seen a successful long lasting relationship with a genuinely equitable distribution of housework. Women ask for a fair and equitable distribution of housework and child raising duties, but if they get what they ask for they become distressed, difficult, crazy, and eventually evil, and eventually move on. Failure to cherish sends them crazy, but failure to exploit also sends them crazy.
In the ancestral environment of reproductive success, in ancestral environment of evolutionary adaptation, a relationship that gave a women secure support for herself and her children involved totally unfair assignment of household tasks. If a woman was in a position to insist on a fair share of the housework, she was in a position to defect on her man, and if she was in a position to defect on her man, he was going to defect on her first.
The leftist is so terrified of coming across as “creepy,” so afraid of violating consent, and so worried about objectifying women that he often becomes paralyzed. He may wait for explicit, written-in-stone consent before making a move, killing any sexual tension. He may treat women with such careful, distant reverence that he forgets to flirt or express desire, and he gets firmly placed in the “friend zone.”
He doesn’t think it’s morally wrong to have a girlfriend; he thinks it’s morally wrong to pursue one the way the right does. So he waits for a relationship to “organically” emerge from friendship and political solidarity.
When a rightist hits on a woman, and she gives him a a hard time, he concludes it is a shit test and he should pass it. When a leftist hits on a woman and she gives him a hard time, he concludes that hitting on women is oppressive and exploitative, and he should stop it.
In summary: The leftist addresses his personal crisis not by withdrawing (MGTOW) and not by dominating (Red Pill). He addresses it by trying to become the “ideal feminist man”—emotionally intelligent, egalitarian, and conscientiously non-threatening.
The fatal flaw in this approach is that: Women are only attracted to men who make them afraid. Any behavior that turns women on is threatening. Which in the ancestral environment of evolutionary adaptation tended to get them into the environment of successful reproduction — that environment being under the authority of a strong man. Going crazy and difficult if not cherished would move them out of the authority of a man who was not nurturing and caring, and going crazy and difficult if not intimidated and exploited would have moved them away from weak men. The telos of this female nature is to get her into the ancestral environment of successful reproduction, by having her act disruptively if not in that environment, but we have a social order that demonizes and criminalizes households resembling that environment.
This problem is more serious for Asian women than white women, because white women have a longer and later fertility window, and indicating that they are evolved for the transfer from parents to husband to take place at a later age than for Asian women, hence Asian women are even worse maladapted for emancipation than white women. Which is why Japan and Korea have been hit harder than the west by emancipation, especially Korea.
My authority for this interpretation of our crisis
The hostility and disruptive behavior we are seeing from women, particularly in Korea, is because they are not getting the environment of their telos — the ancestral environment of successful reproduction.
This interpretation of our current crisis is based on anecdote and personal interaction (I have been studying female nature intently since I was twelve) but is supported by surveys of female self reported mental health and happiness — bad, getting rapidly worse, worse for leftists and postChristians, and worse in proportion as they are soaked in the urban monoculture, the odd fact that self reported workplace sexual harassment is way higher in overwhelmingly female workplaces, and the fact that both survey and anecdote shows a total failure of all households with equitable assignment of housework and childcare — the failure rate does not appear to be merely higher, but total, which is odd and dramatic.
The odd data on housework only makes sense if women need to perceive themselves as the property of a man who cherishes them, as owned, and failing that, go off the rails.
This makes sense if women are mentally adapted to function in the ancestral environment of successful female reproduction, where they were property — cherished and valued property, but property. This is what I see in my interaction with women. The data on workplace sexual harassment complaints, and the data on housework and childcare, only make sense if I am seeing things as they truly and universally are.
“Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status), and be supported by men.” – Why female status limits fertility (2017-06-12)
The moment-to-moment marital consent model was a given in my blue state, local church community. Yet everyone knew that my female peers loved books such as Twilight as we grew up. It was still lost on everyone that women love dangerous men and that dangerous men do not comply with the moment-to-moment consent model.
And thanks to the lack of and opposition to slut-shaming, I was left trying to please female peers who also expected me to have sex outside of marriage. We are now expected to behave like dumb savages from the stone age. I thankfully never did.
However, does anyone else sense that modern Christian marriage is now patterned after gay marriage? The wife is the husband’s perfectly equal peer in everything and can withhold sex. This sounds like a gay union.
Back in the seventies, everyone knew that marriage meant you did not need consent for sex. You needed consent to withhold sex. That is what marriage is: Irreversible and permanent sexual consent — transient sexual consent being horrifyingly and intolerably immoral, and deserving of dire punishment.
If your Church upholds transient sexual consent, moment to moment sexual consent, they is not marriage, it is gay marriage.
The most popular and best-selling romance novel of all time is about a college student who signs her freedom away to become a sadistic billionaire’s sex slave. Yet we are supposed to adhere to equality myths in romantic relationships even within the modern Church.
I think there is another understated problem. In my former church community, my Christian male peers would sometimes parrot the convention that relationships with women require a skill set. And this skill set is trained and acquired with successful romantic engagements with women. This idea of a necessary skill set contained presumptions that are incompatible with true Christian life.
What they did not understand is that this skill set was game. And game is only properly-practiced by having sex with women and maintaining a ready booty call list. Or else the player will “bleed bad game” as Roosh put it in one of his books. A man bleeds bad game when he lacks sex and unconsciously gives off his lack of sex in subtle behaviors that women immediately pick up on.
So as a Christian man, I want to please and attract women. After all, I want to lose my virginity to the most attractive woman I can marry. But in order to please women, I need game, which means I need to practice extra-marital sex, which means I need to have sexual experience before I lose my virginity.
This problem of needing sexual experience in order to lose my virginity would not exist in a culture of slut-shaming. However, acting like a slut is a human right at this point. So the hard social reset (will Atlus shrug?) seems like the only available solution.
“Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status), and be supported by men.” – Why female status limits fertility (2017-06-12)
The moment-to-moment marital consent model was a given in my blue state, local church community. Yet everyone knew that my female peers loved books such as Twilight as we grew up. It was still lost on everyone that women love dangerous men and that dangerous men do not comply with the moment-to-moment consent model.
And thanks to the lack of and opposition to slut-shaming, I was left trying to please female peers who also expected me to have sex outside of marriage. We are now expected to behave like dumb savages from the stone age. I never did, and I am grateful to God that I never did.
However, does anyone else sense that modern Christian marriage is now patterned after gay marriage? The wife is the husband’s perfectly equal peer in everything and can withhold sex. This sounds like a gay union.
“The mating dance is that men conquer and women surrender, but men perform and women choose. So you drag her back to your lair and tell her to make a sandwich and warm the bed, and if she runs off screaming your performance was not up to scratch.”
This is a perfect description of BDSM. So why do you call BDSM gay? It is this plus the camouflage (camoupoz) “this is just a consensual kink, bro”. It is sometimes, often, also owning women with the camouflage “this is just a consensual kink, bro”. OK typically no marriage and kids, but the basic dynamic is there.
Yes it has gay elements. Part of the camoupoz. In fact it was the gays who first made it an organized subculture, because the gays are good at organizing subculture/underground/mafia, they always band together, they have way less of the “lone wolf instinct” as we do. Then we were the entryst. Because it attracted women. And a selfie with a faggot is good camouflage.
But everybody inside the subculture knows the difference and are “in on the joke”. They talk prog, sure. They do not mean it. This is why the symbol of the subculture is the vampire – the predator camouflaged as a human.
We had this discussion already, and you just answered your own question. (again)
BDSM resembles the mating dance as much as a female impersonator resembles an actual woman.
I am dominant. You are merely performing dominance.
Before your marriage broke up, we told you it was breaking up, and why it was going to break up.
The original meaning of the term “fetish” is a word by which western colonizers described the magical objects and rituals of the neolithic tribes they encountered in places like Africa, the New World, and the Pacific islands.
Today we live in a neolithic world to a great extent: the powers that be believe, or claim to believe, that there is a worldwide epidemic of souls being lodged into the wrong infant bodies; animism is back with “furries”, “pups” and such; demon worship of all sorts; and of course the BDSM stuff in general.
Today’s “fetishist” is someone who *needs* a number of magical objects and rituals, in order to be able to imitate things like dominance, submission, arousal, power, hierarchy, and so on. To “transcend” temporarily his inability to be what he wants to be. The linear effect of this “magic”, like most of today’s shades of demonism, is a banal rush of dopamine-frying biochemicals, frequently combined with “chem sex” drug helpers. As neolithic magical rituals are wont to be.
In short, if a guy needs, metaphorically speaking, to sacrifice a chicken and cover himself in donkey piss while wearing a bear mask and high on sacred fungus, in order to be able feel something “real”, and to be able to imitate in a warped manner normal male behavior (including social such in between orgies), this doesn’t make them “special” or “superhuman”, but rather makes them broken dudes, one sneeze away from a nervous breakdown, who have managed to cobble together a neolithic magical formula to stave off said collapse.
Many people find themselves in this situation. And like all “magic” it is addictive in many ways, turbo-stimulating both the lizard pleasure centers and the Ego, but also like all “magic” the time to pay the price always comes. The generic meth-head, for example, may be practicing more imbecilic and linear “magic”, but all dopamine-focused rituals and talismans always lead to one road — collapse, in one form or another.
Find ways to rewire your brain and nervous system in a way that gets you off the dopamine-fracking magic neolithic crap, and allows you to instead fill up all of life’s segments with an undercurrent of subtle joy. Right now it may seem impossible, when the neolithic magical ritual has monopoly on “joy” (not real joy), but little step by little step it is completely possible to kick that demon off one’s back, and the more work on this progresses, the more the other 99% of life will begin filling up with vril. The manic euphoria addict may interpret this as a promise that all of life will become one perpetual burst of manic euphoria — no. Proper joy is a very different and infinitely more nourishing (and sustainable) beast.
Or, in more spiritual terms, constantly feeding vampire entities with your own life energy by undergoing primitive magical rituals in order to lay waste your inner resources so that occasional orgasmic spasms can occur, is a game that can only ever bring stupid prizes.
A man practices husbandry not only on his property, and not only bands together with other free citizens to practice husbandry on their immediate common environment, he above all else practices husbandry on himself. He is himself a planet, an ecosystem. His body’s “soil”, “air”, and “water” need to be clean, not toxic, and his spiritual, mental, and emotional structures also need to be maintained in ways that allows them to be functional and resilient against external and internal threats, neolithic demonic magic and entities very much included.
A whole lot of people are forced to develop coping mechanisms. With maturity comes the time to examine them, and change one’s internal structures in ways that allow to move on to the next level. Being stuck in perpetual stone age savage worship of the coping mechanisms helps nothing. Thank the coping mechanisms for their help in keeping you alive and reasonably functional, and then tell them goodbye and open the next page.
Much analysis. Humungus will define it simply. You are the hunter, the woman is your prey.
You must track them, asses their level of fertility, and harvest their virginity. If the seed you plant yields good fruit, you have found fertile ground and may claim them as your homestead.
Your clock is ticking also. Do not waste your youth on barren soil.
https://www.owleyes.org/text/anna-karenina/read/part-one-chapter-12
Written in 1875, this supports Jim’s assertion that the English lost control of their daughters around 1830, and the same was happening in Russia a few decades later.
I was just reading out loud to a youngster this bit from the start of Anna Karenina, in a bookshop, last week, in order to illustrate to him that reading 19th century classics is a foundation that he absolutely needs. He was either impressed, or was polite enough to pretend.
“Stepan Arkadyevitch took in and read a liberal paper, not an extreme one, but one advocating the views held by the majority. And in spite of the fact that science, art, and politics had no special interest for him, he firmly held those views on all these subjects which were held by the majority and by his paper, and he only changed them when the majority changed them—or, more strictly speaking, he did not change them, but they imperceptibly changed of themselves within him.
Stepan Arkadyevitch had not chosen his political opinions or his views; these political opinions and views had come to him of themselves, just as he did not choose the shapes of his hat and coat, but simply took those that were being worn. And for him, living in a certain society—owing to the need, ordinarily developed at years of discretion, for some degree of mental activity—to have views was just as indispensable as to have a hat. If there was a reason for his preferring liberal to conservative views, which were held also by many of his circle, it arose not from his considering liberalism more rational, but from its being in closer accordance with his manner of life.
The liberal party said that in Russia everything is wrong, and certainly Stepan Arkadyevitch had many debts and was decidedly short of money. The liberal party said that marriage is an institution quite out of date, and that it needs reconstruction; and family life certainly afforded Stepan Arkadyevitch little gratification, and forced him into lying and hypocrisy, which was so repulsive to his nature. The liberal party said, or rather allowed it to be understood, that religion is only a curb to keep in check the barbarous classes of the people; and Stepan Arkadyevitch could not get through even a short service without his legs aching from standing up, and could never make out what was the object of all the terrible and high-flown language about another world when life might be so very amusing in this world.
And with all this, Stepan Arkadyevitch, who liked a joke, was fond of puzzling a plain man by saying that if he prided himself on his origin, he ought not to stop at Rurik and disown the first founder of his family—the monkey. And so Liberalism had become a habit of Stepan Arkadyevitch’s, and he liked his newspaper, as he did his cigar after dinner, for the slight fog it diffused in his brain.”
I recently had a friendly in-person chat with Hossein, his real name, a devout Muslim who tried to convert me. I remarked on the modest beauty of the slender girls walking by, each wearing, in one bright color, long pants, a long dress with long sleeves, and a scarf half-covering her long, lustrous hair. He said, oh no, that’s terribly immodest, a Muslima’s hair must be completely covered!
I told him too much about my personal life, and asked about his. He’s 28 years old, lily-white, short, overweight, clean-shaven, and speaks Russian well, no English. Not poor, having just spent fifty dollars on some frivolous amusement. He said that a few months ago he told his mother and aunts that he’s ready to marry, and they’re presently working their social networks to find him a bride 16-19 years of age. He said that money and looks don’t matter, just good character and Muslim piety.
What chance would this kid have of finding a wife in the West, or in any Westernized country? I’m sure his mom will find him a nice girl and he’ll marry her straight away.
Even liberal-minded people who’ve lived in English-speaking countries have arranged marriages; that’s just how it’s done here. Way less damaging to the parties involved, especially the girls.
Yes, Jim’s model is how instincts work but instincts are fine tuned for the Paleolithic. In a Neolithic society, instincts are channeled in productive manners to produce monogamy. I copy my comment in other blog:
For many years, an outrageous idea slowly grew inside me. The idea is that the Western civilization committed a huge mistake by abandoning arranged marriages. Once this was unthinkable to me. I quote from “The Culture Code” by Clotaire Rapaille.
“The man [who decides who to marry] is young?” the Japanese questioner will say. “If he is young, how can he possibly have enough experience to make a decision of this type? Only his parents can know what kind of marriage is appropriate for him and will allow him to raise the best family. […] “Love is a temporary disease,” they tell me. […] This all might sound terribly harsh to American ears, but there is at least some logic in it: while nearly half of all American marriages end in divorce, the Japanese divorce rate is less than 2 percent. [Take notice that the Japanese culture has changed since then]
You can have the benefit of maturity if your parents have a say about who you are going to marry. As scientific studies quoted in “The Art of Choosing” by Sheena Iyengar show, arranged marriages are happier than love marriages in the long run.
The “marriage for love” has deep roots in Western civilization, beginning in 12th century (see “Roman de la rose” and “the Story of the Grail”). However, some kind of influence of parents and grandparents in the marriage of their children remained for many centuries. This is repression in our modern world. “Follow your heart”, “I only want my kids to find love and be happy”. We waste so much time chasing a fleeting feeling.
I like the system of some Orthodox Jews. The family contacts a matchmaker to get a good match. Once both families agree to explore the possibility (they consider all the aspects), the boy and the girl meet each other and talk. If the boys don’t agree, the families go back to the matchmaker and start again. A system like that prevents the fact that you marry somebody who is repulsive to you. At the same time, families see that the family is stable and they support the marriage because they have approved it. No wonder Orthodox Jews have stable marriages and don’t waste so many years in search of “the one”.
Males have been subject to selective pressure to make wise choices in the Neolithic society. Women have not. Their software is not just ten thousand years out of date, it is more like four million years out of date.
To get appropriate behavior out of women we need either flat out drastic horrific coercion, or to create a society that, as perceived by females, simulates the Paleolithic in the same way a garden simulates our beloved Savannah.
Female peer pressure and moral suasion can do quite a bit, but that velvet glove needs the mailed fist. But if we make the mailed fist look, to females, as it would have looked in the Paleolithic, we are likely to get sufficient compliance that it almost never has to be actually used.
Right. Women have never had the decision who to mate with. This was done by their parents and relatives, especially the male ones for the reason you mention. This is why women have not evolved to make good mating decisions for themselves and for society.
The society we see is the consequence of women making free mating choices, following their primitive and outdated instincts. But I guess you have said this way before me.
I found the RooshV quote. It is the last two sentences in the quotation below. He talks about how a man needs to maintain a booty call harem to keep his game sharp like we are silverback gorillas:
“Women are a fickle bunch. One minute they want to fuck you, the next minute they won’t bother to return your calls. Placing your bets on one girl is a poor strategy because the conversion rate to sex is extremely low.
The temptation for some guys is to sit back and take occasional shots at the girls they especially want. So a guy has no prospects, gets one, fails with her, and then goes back to having no prospects. This strategy has two consequences: his game remains in a state of rustiness and he gets overly excited at the prospects that do come his way. With no harem to keep his cock golden and ego elevated, he devotes all his mental energy into one girl at a time. Bad, needy game leaks out as a result.” – Best of RooshV, Chapter 2
The lesson is that if a man does not behave in an anti-Christian way, he will not optimize his attractiveness to women he especially wants.
So slut-shaming protects K-Selected species from stooping to the level of lesser creatures. Slut-shaming makes women too afraid of sleeping with players like RooshV. This is necessary, because players will always have better game than good Christian men on the straight and narrow.
Not so much the slut-shaming itself as just not having opportunities for women to ‘explore their sexual identity’. If a women goes to a nightclub, she is going to get banged by some player.
pick-up artist ‘afc Adam’ really perfected the art of game imo. He figured out that gaming each individual girl is a lot of effort. Pre-selection is king. So he got into this thing where he’d arrange promoter girls for nightclubs, essentially making sure that whenever he was in a nightclub he was surrounded by hot models vying for his attention. Yeah, that’ll work.
That’s all predicated on the assumption men need sex with real women and can’t live without it. We’ve reached the point where that’s no longer true – the juice ain’t worth the squeeze.
Hey, I need sex with real women and cannot live without it.
“The juice is not worth the squeeze” is said by those who fear to squeeze; Grab them by the tits and their hearts and minds will follow.
Did that, she spread (lied about birth control), got pregnant, forced me to become a dad, sued me for child support. Still paying. Kid won’t talk to me. All my fault, obviously.
Pick-up artist Owen Cook recently said something interesting. He said that youtube quietly removed ALL videos of real life interaction between pua’s and women from its platform. Rather dramatic for those involved apparently, Cook says the ordeal was a direct contributor to the suicide of Tom Torero, who saw his entire income model go up in smoke.
The censorship move feels very Jimian, in that in one fell swoop an immense source of red pill information on sexual dynamics has been erased. Cook argues, and I am inclined to agree, that this in part helped to contribute to the current trend of looksmaxxing: since no one can show what actually works, young men instead flock to what they think should work.
Thank you for this information. I’m still stunned how much the availability of good information on pickup and female psychology has reversed since 2010. I though the internet would foster a new permanent era of better knowledge of the truths of these topics. It’s just crazy how wrong I was. The best writings are already largely forgotten, and little new is replacing them.
Crypto under assault
https://freeromanstorm.com/
A namefag who develops software that supports liberty is going to be arrested, and going to be imprisoned. What do you expect? Look what happened to Pavel Durov for failure to backdoor Telegram.
But, unless crypto currency supports liberty it is not fungible, if it is not fungible it is not money, so every namefag in crypto currency should realize that they need to pseudonymously support liberty.
Phones and SIM’s in the USA are going verified REAL-ID KYC/AML databased forever, Internet cable/fiber plans are next, no one asked for this, they’re just fucking us all… ACT NOW!
Comment periods and protest petitions are up!
https://blog.lopp.net/call-to-action-stop-the-fcc-kyc-regime/
https://nt4tn.net/FCC-17-59-gmaxwell.pdf
This is insane 1984!
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
In the Matter of ) CG Docket Nos. 17-59 and 02-278
) FCC 26-27
Enhancing Know-Your-Customer )
Requirements )
I. The Security and Privacy Harms of Mandatory Identification 1
II. Harm to Vulnerable Populations 3
III. The First Amendment Right to Anonymous Speech 4
IV. Routing Around the Fourth Amendment 5
V. The Commission Lacks Authority to Impose Such a Requirement 5
VI. The Commission Is Not a Law Enforcement Body 7
VII. The Cryptocurrency Payment Red Flag 7
VIII. The Forfeiture Penalty Will Drive Over-Compliance 8
IX. Safe Harbor Would Worsen the Problem 9
X. The Proposal Would Be Ineffective 10
XI. Conclusion 12
Ukraine doesn’t even have KYC for phones, in the middle of a war where there have been concerns that Russia could use the cell phone network to fly drones. Many people have advocated for it, fearing Russia, and famously Ukrainian government ministers (on twitter and telegram!) have explained how they want to continue having a free society. There’s also a practical benefit: cellphones are potentially extremely dangerous tracking devices. Making it impossible to have a cellphone without KYC is very dangerous. Again, in Ukraine, I’ve been asked repeatedly by soldiers to buy them AML/KYCless SIM cards for their burner phones, to reduce the chance of their location getting leaked. Very disappointing to see the FCC moving in the direction of AML/KYC for something as fundamental as having a cellphone plan. This needs to be stopped. Far too much of Europe has already mandated this.
Allowing this concern trolling through, but you are still on moderation.
Phones have had ID for a long time, this is just formalizing it to make the countermeasures illegal.
Know your customer requirements would i think ban burners for cash except via totally black market sources…
> Phones have had ID for a long time, this is just formalizing it to make the countermeasures illegal.
Much of ex-USA, yes, with lax countries easier, either from no verification, or poor collection controls.
This is USA law, ex-USA is not the subject.
USA… No…
– postpaid sims… generally hard to get, but pointless because prepaid is cheaper and more flexible anyway
– prepaid sims… still fairly easy to get, though places to get them have begun to mysteriously vanish over the last 5+ years
– phones… still easy to get
– land internet, power, etc… varies by provider, most are not easy
This law must be fought because it effectively mandates hard collection and hard verification everywhere.
This fully builds the surface political/corporate panopticon and lockdown. For most people in the USA, their phone is their only internet, bank, voice, tv, and messenger.
This has nothing to do with what we know the NSA already knows.
That’s not the subject above.
NSA knows who Satoshi is.
NSA knows who you are.
Telecoms share all their logs out the back door.
NSA buffers the entire internet.
Which isn’t too far from everyone knowing, regardless of one election away or not.
> Know your customer requirements would i think ban burners for cash
They don’t care how you pay, they ultimately want the SIM hard linked to your DNA-ID, verified back to the issuer, filed and stored and recorded forever.
> except via totally black market sources…
Not talking about workarounds, which they’re also trying to stamp out… from homeless drug addicts, to cash and crypto.
This type of hard lawfare shit is also partly why crypto hasn’t bounced back yet… people know what’s coming.
VPN’s are getting persecuted and lawfared.
NSA knows every VPN user.
NSA knows every VPN user who is not using wireguard. I have reason to believe wireguard is secure, if your host is not co-opted. There is compelling evidence that all other vpn software is backdoored.
> NSA / VPN
Most all western international links are USA influenced companies, consortiums, and hardware. The NSA influences taps and buffers almost all those links, and almost all traffic inside the USA. Snowden et al revealed it, now its 10x worse.
Doesn’t matter what VPN software you use, or what country you hop through, NSA does traffic pattern analysis following your mouseclicks and keystrokes and streams around the globe… end2end pattern matching, hello AI.
CIA knows this, which is why its USAID cutouts are biggest funders for Tor to NOT implement fulltime chaff fill.
Tor’s trannies love the State, so they take the check and quietly do nothing.
Others are now doing something.
If there are a lot of packets going in to a vpn server, and a lot of packets coming out of it, the NSA cannot reliably tell which packet going in relates to which packet coming out.
The VPN needs a log that tells the server “x packet inbound from y goes out as z packet to q”. VPN providers tell you that they don’t store these logs, and maybe they don’t, but they can be telling the truth on that technicality if they are also streaming that log live to the NSA, who does store it.
“Therapy and Emotional Literacy”
An example: attend therapy to ensure women can accept you.
https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/the-spoliation-of-man
Wisest words I ever heard from a black person: “Therapy is evil because it attempts to re-create the Christian confession, but instead of a priest, you’re talking to a white woman who voted for Joe Biden.”
https://x.com/AutismCapital/status/2070574738251071857
Trump is almost calling on the Moderate Democrats to purge their left-wing and make a deal, but none among them could pull that off.
After 2020 and the Biden administration any Democrat who can be saved has already left, its only helicopter candidates now.
The radicals are purging the moderates. For decades I predicted civil war or democide 2026, unless interrupted by World War Three. The way events are shaping up, I might well be wrong, but not wrong by a whole lot. Obama purged the military, the FBI, etc, and Pete Hegseth is reversing the military purge. The current lot of Democrats are planning to purge the USA.
You seem to have grossly overestimated the willingness of leftists to fight in the streets without police protection and judicial immunity, or even march peacefully when George Soros isn’t paying them. That video from Long Beach astonished me — faggots can’t even be bothered to show up for a pride parade? It looks like an ideological collapse as swift, total, and bloodless as the fall of Communism in 1989-1991.
There’s much more Trump could do to make sure liberalism stays dead, like flooding urban polling places with ICE agents and replacing Democrat TV commercials with file footage of their candidates calling for more immigration and praising BLM. If Trump wants token opposition like Russia’s minority parties, I’d suggest the Libertarian and Constitution parties play that role instead, while Democrats and Greens are treated like terrorists.
The 2040 election should look like this, with someone named “Trump” getting 92% of the vote, and the second- and third-place finishers not even getting Wikipedia entries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Tajik_presidential_election#Results
Greetings,
Movie time, “Citizen Vigilant”
https://m.vk.com/video-230153488_456239573?ysclid=mqwn86llh2424194163
enjoy
“Women are complaining men are not hitting on them.”
These days, women are so flooded by sexual attention online that they are generally desensitized to male interest. The typical relationship path for a young man is to spend months in what us older
men would call the “friendzone” before “things just happen”. My advice to young men today is to make a lot of female friends and then rape the one you like the most.
Trying to move quickly, at least online, gets you put in the same mental box as ten thousand brown men flooding her inbox with “open bobs and vagene”, and hitting on them in person is a little better, but only niggers hit on girls in person today, so same mental box as niggers.
The pickup squad of happy young warriors still works, and leveraging local social status and violence still works, but not all men have access to that. I am a competing amateur athlete, and when I go compete, I get endless fuck-me eyes from the girls who hang around as groupies and the girl athletes who do the girl division of the sport. The girls are very, very undersexed, but have very hard walls around them in most circumstances.
Never been though the friendzone, don’t see that relationship path working for anyone.
Maybe it works for some people. I am not saying it never happens, just I am unaware of it happening.
Has it happened for you? Or are you just reporting on what people are trying, rather than what succeeds?
Maybe readers can give us field reports — not field reports of men trying it, I know that no end of men are trying it, field reports of getting someplace with that approach.
I observe from those around me that most relationships today are formed via social circle, with man knowing woman for quite a while before something happens, and I observe that when couples do meet online, the woman expects the man to talk to her for quite a long time, as in weeks, before meeting in person. That used to be a shit test, where if you did not meet a woman soon after contacting her on an app, she disappeared, but now that seems to be modal.
I am married, and haven’t been hitting on women in public for quite a while, at least not with intent to bang them, but I do notice that far more of them walk around with bitch shields on max, and won’t even make eye contact with you.
Really? Really? Really?
I decided to put the question to the test, and headed to the nearest spot where chicks were likely to hang out. I pass a coffee shop near chick central, and in the shop is a hot chick way younger than myself who I can instantly tell is there for more than coffee. Eye contact, friendly smile, awkward hello.
Hey, back when I was cruising for a new wife, it was way harder than this. And back then I was jacked and heavily cycling on anabolic steroids. Plus the nearest spot is always hard mode, because chicks make long expensive journeys to locations intended to filter out most men — white water rafting expeditions in an expensive and distant international tourist hot spot, etcetera, rock climbing base camp, or just the expensive international hotel, you know the drill. All the base camp chicks that never go uphill of the base camp. We have all been there. Plus, now I was solo, and doing it solo is hard mode, you need a wingman or two to act like you are the alpha male of the group.
Oh well, sample of one. Maybe I just had extraordinary and improbable luck, never to be repeated. Would not be the first time I had a way crazy fluke of luck that would break your suspension of disbelief in an Isekai anime.
So I kept on going: six chicks, two with impenetrable bitch shields set to max, four eye contacts, three warm and pleasant smiles, three brief awkward conversations. Hey, did the universe get reset to easy mode since I got married? Back when I was cruising for a wife I did everything I could to load the dice in my favor, and it was still mighty hard.
None of that matters. What matters is how easy it is for a conservative college student to find a wife, preferably at Harvard or Yale etc. How are the kids who get the highest grades in school doing? Why should we care about LARPing as Chad or Tyrone or Mahmud?
And why does any man over 21 at the oldest want a “wingman”?
In order to get the highest grades in school today you have to be sufficiently stupid that you can wholeheartedly and sincerely believe a thousand points of left wing doctrine, each of them more absurd than each of the others– that men can get pregnant, that there is no genetic difference between blacks and whites, and so on and so forth.
The stupider it is, the lefter it is, because “point deer make horse”, and you have to be lefter than everyone else in order to get into Harvard these days. So no one can get into Harvard or Yale these days unless they are far too stupid to be allowed near a McDonald’s fryer.
Since all of them believe in the outrageous absurdities that I listed in this post under “the leftist numale” none of them will ever get near any woman. Which is the eugenic outcome.
What do you think of Ben Shapiro’s advice to remain as a conservative at college, suck it up, and pretend your way through the humanities classes?
And do you need to be sufficiently stupid to get good grades in STEM?
Getting an elite degree is still a huge career advantage — but primarily for government, quasi governmental, and similar jobs. A very short time ago, it was still a a huge advantage for genuinely private sector jobs, but that advantage is collapsing before our eyes.
I’ll defer to your observations over the feeling I get from women in public
The bitch shields maxxed out from late 2022 till late 2025 its been a bit easier since though plenty still have max bitch shields.
When Tinder etcetera lost eyeballs, irl pickup had to gain eyeballs.
I walk out to check, and irl pickup has. A lot.
> bitch shields on max
Beware the Man hating woman, for trouble surely doth lie there.
Tis best to forget about those, and seek the better kind.
Four toxic groups one should generally not waste time on
– Divorced who are still fighting with the ex
– Women who own dogs, unless you and your dog fit
– Bitches, especially the expensive ones… handbags/shoes/clothes/pearls
– Smokers and drinkers, unless you live that toxic lifestyle too
Also, the old PUA videos… game is real.
Practice = Win.
Nuts
Hate is not the opposite of love. Indifference is the opposite of love.
You will always get trouble from women. Just have to deal with it.
Female hatred has a striking tendency to flip on its head.
But when their bitch shields are up, cannot make eye contact, in which case no much one can do.
Tinder and the rest are suffering from collapsing use, and women seem a lot more open to in-person approach than they used to be a quite short time ago. This was first reported by The Cominator, but I recently confirmed it.
“My advice to young men today is to make a lot of female friends and then rape the one you like the most.”
Should he also murder her?
The main problem is that beta males on the straight and narrow cannot attract women. Maybe they can if they settle hard. Hopefully the kids do not inherit the mom’s looks.
But I am not sure how acting like a lesser creature is supposed to even be workable for a K-Selected species. I must have misunderstood your advice.
That would be a terrible waste of loyal and obedient pussy. On the other hand, it is probably helpful if she feels that in the event of her seriously misbehaving, she might well be murdered.
So stop being beta and step off the straight and narrow — or create the appearance that you are apt to step off.
Think about all of the stories in European history where a warlord breaks into a fortress, and forcefully abducts and ravishes a beautiful woman against the wishes of her family. Sorry, I meant “knight rescues princess from a tall tower”.
You take a woman out on a boat at night, where she can’t escape you, get her drunk, and rape her. Sorry, I meant to say a “romantic outing with a bottle of wine under the stars”.
The preference of women is for rape, and all female fantasies, everything they think is romantic, is rape dressed up in pretty words. If women hated rape, and cared about their bodily integrity protected by consent, they would have evolved to insist on only having sex with their friends and kin present and observing, who can beat you up if you do anything to her that she doesn’t like. But that is the exact opposite of what women like. Women like having sex far away from other people, preferably in places that are completely under the man’s power and control.
If you haven’t been completely brainrotted by feminism to the point that your fantasies are about women choosing you without you doing anything, and getting your bones jumped, your normal male fantasies about being Conan and throwing women over your shoulder while drunk and laughing are a good guide to how you should actually treat them. Even if you are very young, and fantasize about gentle teenage romance, that is still going to involve taking a naive young woman to a dark or isolated place and taking her in a fit of passion. Even if you are a good Christian man, your wedding is going to be followed by a honeymoon in which you take your new wife far away from everyone she knows, where you can do whatever you want to her, and she knows it, and is very excited for it.
There is no need to compare yourself to a nigger jumping out of the bushes with a rusty knife in one hand and his dick in the other. If you rape a woman the way you already know how, the way the white man does it, she will not get indignant about it. Women complain about rape when you chicken out in the face of last minute resistance, or when you make yourself scarce immediately following the act.
“That would be a terrible waste of loyal and obedient pussy. On the other hand, it is probably helpful if she feels that in the event of her seriously misbehaving, she might well be murdered.”
The way they act, it almost seems like they are attracted to terrifying men. Very strange.
What do you think of Roosh’s advice that gaming women must be practiced while getting regular sex? I assume this is what you mean by stepping off the straight and narrow.
“The way they act, it almost seems like they are attracted to terrifying men.”
Yes.
A fascinating story I just heard backs that up. This dating study was done with a group of men and women watching a video of a man doing some everyday things. The women were asked to rate the man on a 1-7 extremely unattractive to extremely attractive score. The men were asked to rate the man’s ability to handle himself in a fight, 1-7. Then 6 months later they followed up with the man from the video and asked him how many sexual partners he had been with in the past 6 months. The women’s ratings had no predictive power, but the men’s ratings of his fighting abilities were predictive of his ability to get laid.
You know how Ted Bundy was flooded with love letters…
work some gains on your amygdala.
your pixels smell of fear.
the best way to build confidence is rock climbing. the fear never goes away at 10m in the air; you just learn to work while afraid.
this is why basic military training always has “confidence” courses; to build confidence.
I climbed antenna towers for years. huge confidence booster.
If a woman smells fear on you, it is all over.
Or do a martial art, or ride motorcycles, or anything dangerous that spikes your adrenaline. Need to function when your brain is flooded with adrenaline.
Just be cautious about chasing the dragon. I’ve gotten to the point where I truly thought I would die more than once when chasing the adrenaline high. The first few times are thrilling. After a while I felt nothing, and maybe something in me is broken, but this likely won’t end well.
As long as you keep in mind what you’re doing is for conditioning, you’ll be fine. Just don’t cross over the line of doing it solely for the thrill.
hence, rock climbing.
perfectly safe; yet utterly fear inducing.
everything else I’ve done; the fear goes away.
I suspect the fear of heights is buried deep in the lizard brain.
> Rock climbing
> Safe
Really… like what do you mean by rock climbing show videos. If you mean hiking up rocky uneven surfaces not unsafe but not fear inducing either… if you mean climbing cliff and mountain faces with mountain climbing picks… terrifying and i can’t imagine its safe at all.
Safe if highly skilled — or done under the leadership of someone highly skilled (which is expensive, but the more expensive it is, the more chicks are hanging out in the base camp hoping to be hit on).
While it is great to have a couple of wingmen who will pretend you are the alpha male of the group, fearlessness will get you far.
Just go to a climbing gym.
you can get your fear on there with padded floors.
this is from reddit the redpill
I would like jim and other comments
Every unhappy wife is a rape victim
“There’s been a good bit of debate over what should and shouldn’t constitute rape, and what should and shouldn’t constitute consent. For example, modern “enthusiastic consent” laws require a woman to not only verbally agree to sex, but to be damn near visibly excited about it, and to provide ongoing verbal affirmations that it is okay to continue during the entire encounter. We often complain that the definition of rape is slowly being expanded to include “sex I regretted,” but that’s not entirely accurate. A more accurate ideal definition of rape to most pro-woman advocates would be: “sex I may have agreed to but didn’t really want and kind of felt coerced into.”
Many pro-woman advocates will tell you that rape is about power, and that’s not entirely false. For women, sex is a source of power. If you take away their ability to choose who to have sex with and who to reject, you make them feel powerless. A large portion of the psychological trauma and damage experienced by rape victims relates to that feeling of being helpless, powerless, and taken against their will. The physical act is bad, sure, but that feeling of complete powerlessness – one minute you’re strong, independent, thinking about what you need to get done at work tomorrow and that silly thing your boyfriend said, and the next minute, some guy much stronger than you are is showing you that everything you are, everything you think, everything you feel – none of that matters. You’re just weak flesh in a caveman-ruled world, and the stronger caveman is taking something by force that you’ve guarded fiercely from unworthy men your entire life.
Changing the subject for a minute: a staggering number of marriages and long-term relationships are unhappy. We’d all be old and dead if we took the time to count and review all of the unsatisfying marriages in the world, where nagging, overweight shrews emasculate their timid, underachieving, out-of-shape husbands on an hourly basis, while grudgingly agreeing to missionary sex once every six weeks just to keep the marriage going and the paychecks coming. You can change a few of the adjectives in that previous sentence here and there, but sadly, that general concept applies to a very large number of marriages and relationships.
One of my good friends from the town where I used to live is in that kind of marriage. We still talk via text and e-mail, and he told me how recently, things came to a head in his marriage. He’s been married seven years now, and has been having once-a-month duty sex the whole time, and true to his blue-blood-beta roots, he finally came unhinged, gave his wife an ultimatum, and thinks he won. Now he’s getting more frequent sex.
So I’m visiting a couple weekends ago, we’re having drinks, and he’s acting all mighty, alluding to sex, smirking, and generally being an awkward ass about things. Later that night, I’m chatting with his wife while he’s out making a beer run, and she says something kind of odd. “It’s hard being more sexual with [husband’s name.]”
I know what she means, but I decide to see if she knows, so I ask her, “What do you mean? What’s so hard about sex?”
“Huh?”
“What. Is. So. Hard. About. Sex.? People do it all the time.”
“I dunno.”
“I mean, it’s physically easy. Not difficult to do at all. It’s not intellectually challenging. It doesn’t take all that much time. It doesn’t cost any money. I don’t see what’s so hard about it.”
“I guess it’s just hard to make myself do it.”
I smile. Because that’s exactly what she meant. She gets it. When she says it’s hard to be more sexual with her husband, what she really means is, “It is very difficult for me to force myself to have sex with my husband. I am viscerally repulsed by the thought of being sexual with him on a level I don’t fully comprehend. I don’t want to. I don’t want to so badly, that it takes all of my emotional strength to push through that and force myself to do it.” The physical acts aren’t hard. But making herself do them when her subconscious is screaming at her not to? That’s hard.
So many women are in marriages like this. They don’t want to have sex with their husbands. They pretend to be asleep. They pretend they’re on their period. They feign illness. They go as long as they can, doling out as little sex as they can. Not because they’re evil hags who delight in denying their husbands enjoyment. They really and truly don’t want to have sex with their husbands. They figure it’s normal for a marriage to cool off like that and eventually turn non-sexual, and about once a month, give or take, they finally give in to their husband’s badgering just to shut him up. And it’s hard for them each time.
I couldn’t find any studies on this, but I’d be willing to bet that women in unhappy marriages that have sex with their husbands, again and again over a long period of time, begin to exhibit the same psychological traumas and damages as rape victims. Because in a sense, these women are being raped. Not legally, obviously. And not really. But it’s not hard to imagine that their psyche may perceive these sexual encounters and process them in the same manner as a rape.
Take my friend. His wife doesn’t want to have sex with him. But there is an implied threat there, even if it’s not overt and at knifepoint, that her marriage may be in jeopardy if she doesn’t have sex. She might lose her financial stability and the financial stability of her children. Her children may lose the stability of his money, a two-parent home, a house zoned to a good school district. He might as well be holding the kids at knifepoint and forcing her to fuck him. When a woman feels like she has to have sex with a man, even though she doesn’t want to, due to some kind of perceived threat, her mind processes that like a rape.
Every wife in an unhappy marriage that has sex with her husband when she doesn’t want to, because she believes she has to in order to keep her financial stability, is a rape victim. She’s essentially being coerced into sex she doesn’t want. And over time, these unwanted sexual acts take a toll.
Often real rape victims will act out sexually. They’ll go on a fucking spree, ride a bunch of random cocks. Therapists call this “reclaiming their sexuality.” They felt so helpless and powerless when they were raped. It was out of their control. So something about having a bunch of stupid, irresponsible sex that they choose to have makes them feel more powerful, like they’re in control of their sexuality once again.
We see this same behavior in unhappy wives. For years, they’ve been trapped, forced into having sex they don’t want, their sexuality and their power taken from them under threat of losing their marriages and financial stability. So they go out on girls’ night and fuck a random cock to reclaim some of that lost power. To feel in control for one night.
Is it any wonder that feminists want to define sex-by-coercion as rape? It’s not enough that a woman says yes and agrees to sex. What if she agreed to it but didn’t really want it, because she felt like she had to for some reason? If your live-in girlfriend fucks you because she knows she’ll be out on the street if you break up, but she doesn’t really want to, your average feminist would consider the lack of her enthusiasm when she consents to be rape.
Take the alpha man pick-up scenario. Our hero Chad saunters into a club and starts chatting up a girl, touching her, escalating, and she really likes him. But she never has sex the night she meets someone. However, during the night, it quickly becomes apparent that Chad wants to fuck her, and that Chad has six other women in the club that want to fuck him. She likes Chad and she wants to see where things go, but if she wants to keep her chance with Chad alive, she needs to fuck him. She doesn’t really want to, but under the perceived threat of losing her chance with Chad, she feels like she has to.
So she has sex that she verbally consents to, but didn’t really want, because she felt coerced. Then Chad doesn’t return any of her texts. Her psyche processes this encounter like a rape. She literally feels raped. Obviously, she wasn’t actually raped, but she feels raped, and in girl world, feelings rule.
If you aren’t building attraction to the point where a woman is begging and pleading you to thrust your cock into her, you’re doing her a disservice. Because to a woman, anything less feels like rape. So hit the gym, be hot, be confident, be successful, social, interesting, and awesome. Be a 12 out of 10 who’s so unrealistically badass that women beg for your dick. Because in a few more years anything less than that will get you 5-10 years in prison, rapist.”
anyone interested in the original thread
also note if reddit become stupid add old instead of www in the link
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3fpefe/every_unhappy_wife_is_a_rape_victim/?share_id=ZLqorf5OjSCfa_ua6ejaZ&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1
Rape victims do not suffer psychological traumas and damages. Look at all the rape tourism. You see a whole lot of women, late twenties, early thirties, deliberately going into locations where they are going to be raped. Look at all the rape fantasies. Look at female porn.
The ancestral environment of evolutionary adaptation, the ancestral environment of successful reproduction by females, was an environment in which she had no say in it. Because if she did have a say in it, she could defect, and if she could defect, he would defect harder and faster. Everyone longs for the ancestral environment of survival and successful reproduction.
Successful reproduction requires that they be stuck with each other, thus is incompatible with moment to moment consent. And everyone is descended from peoples with arranged marriages, because peoples without arranged marriages died out. So women are adapted to a sexual environment in which they do not get to exercise sexual choice, and any other environment is unnatural, and thus stressful.
From the one hundred percent failure rate of marriages with equitable distribution of housework and childcare, we may conclude that women just will not stand a long term relationship in which their man fails to subjugate them. If moment to moment sexual choice, not very subjugated.
It is difficult to know what is going on in the bedroom, because female consent is opaque, and most opaque to the woman herself, but we can know what is happening with housework — and what we can see happens with housework would suggest that women are not traumatized by their husband forcibly insisting on sex — they are traumatized by their husband failing to forcibly insist upon sex.
No woman was ever turned on by being told to mop the floor, but if women are not assigned an unfair share of household duties, the marriage breaks up one hundred percent of the time. Which is odd and striking. Maybe it is not the housework, maybe the housework is an indicator of something else harder to know or define. Maybe the marriages are breaking up as a result of strict observance of leftist consent in the bedroom, and the housework is a more easily observable and easier to define indicator of this.
Maybe it is that equitable housework and childcare duties are an indicator of persistent failure to pass shit tests, and we can readily observe that women do not stick around with men who fail to pass shit tests. But one can easily imagine a marriage where the husband does pass shit tests, but nonetheless equitably shares the housework — it is not apparent that the the two would be so tightly linked.
This meme even kind of got the Jimian truth through to normies.
https://x.com/PlisskenPatriot/status/2061636551826661796/photo/1
Seventy million views and two hundred thousand likes of a post belittling rape. There are hordes of women in that thread posting that we (red pilled males) are horrible horrible horrible people for saying this, that we are horrible horrible horrible people for laughing at this.
Did not see any posting “This is not true, we women are not like this”.
Typical female comment: “You people are seriously psychopaths who don’t deserve any love if this is how you treat victims”
Notice that she does not deny that “victims” of rape do act like this — just complains that noticing it and laughing at it is seriously psychopathic. No, we are supposed to believe that the reason that women act like this is because rape is so horribly horribly horrible, and women are so horribly horribly traumatized by it.
at jim
if you want to marry a young girl but this girl want to “complete her education” by going into University or she is about to start University and you know University are whore factory, how you go about dissuade her from going and instead marrying you.
do you do ultimatum either marry me or go to university? you marry her then prevent her from going despite she made it clear she want to go and put it as a condition for marriage, and her family are backing her.
it seem hopeless, everyone, people and Culture are about strong independent women and going into university is a central pillar of their strong female faith.
to extract a female from these conditions and brain washing is just seem impossible.
From your point of view, the problem with her attending university is that she will have opportunity and encouragement to fuck Mister One in Thirty till her eggs dry up and her beauty fades, while pursuing a career.
This, however, probably does not sound nearly as bad to her as it does to you. She thinks you are her backup plan. After she is thirty five, established in her career, and has fucked thirty Mister One in Thirties, doubtless they will all fall to their knees and beg her to marry them, and if they don’t, then she will graciously allow you to marry her, with her face faded and her eggs dried up, and her count in the stratosphere.
But since chicks do not allow themselves to think that they are motivated by alpha dick, she will talk about her career.
University is for the most part, a Ponzi scheme. It generates large numbers of degrees qualifying people for well paid jobs in the elite — far more such degrees than there are such jobs. Naive children, and to a lesser extent naive parents, are told lies by the education system.
So, what job does she have in mind? — Probably a Ponzi fairy tale. Research the options in ways that she probably is not.
Make the counter case, kids first, career later. Women have plenty of time for a career, very little time for love and family. And expose the lies the education system is probably telling her about a career.
Women do not know how much they are influenced by dick. They think they are just reluctantly putting up with a dicking, after they have crawled nine miles over broken glass to get in a situation where they are going to be dicked.
If she goes to university, probably not going to continue her relationship with you, because so many exciting sex options she will be encouraged to take advantage of. So, after adequately researching her career options, tell her to marry you and pop out a baby, or if she goes to university, you will find someone who will. Given a choice between the bird in the hand and the bird in the bush, a woman is apt to go for the dick in the hand.
That is a poor way of framing it. She is planning to go to university for a reason. Probably her actual reason is alpha dick, but she does not think so and her family does not think so, so the purported reason needs examination. University is everywhere becoming a worse deal.
As for “ultimatum” — the question is does she go to university with you as her backup plan, or go to university without you as her back up plan?
If she goes to university with you as her backup plan, as her plan B, that is unlikely to benefit you, so you don’t offer her that option. Tell her if she goes to university, you will find someone else. Because you will probably have to. Pronounce it as an ultimatum — “marry me now and pop out babies, or I will find someone who will” But it is just practical realism, just you optimizing your choices given her choices. If she goes to university, she is going to defect on you, so you defect first.
It is all about survival and reproduction, and university immediately reduces her reproductive utility to you. You never want to be a woman’s plan B.
She thinks she has lots of options, and wants to keep them all open. Don’t be one of those options that remains forever open while she bangs Mister One in Thirty.
She thinks she is going to university for education and career, but has probably not particularly thought about education in what or career at what. If she has not thought about, going there for the smorgasbord of alpha dick, even if she thinks she is going there for career options. If she has thought about it, probably been bombed with misinfo from the educators. Go over these options with real info, because that will focus her mind on the boring and unpleasant aspects of university and career, and thus increase the attractiveness of popping out babies with you.
That’s basically what I did. Well not ‘marry’ specifically, but drop out and come live with me or else we’re over. I did not make my case as calmly as Jim advocates and there is definite merit in that – my wife hated her university studies but like all women felt compelled to stay. But also, ultimately it comes down to how much she is into you. How much does the fear of losing you mean to her? The one thing I remember that helped was that you must absolutely be prepared to lose her. Don’t show doubt if you walk out of that door.
“…but if women are not assigned an unfair share of household duties, the marriage breaks up one hundred percent of the time. ”
Is my understanding correct that “an unfair share of” is an euphemism for “all”? If not, I advise to err on the side of caution.
Off topic, posting here because it feels too important to get lost in the comment section of an older post.
Pseudo-Chrysostom said:
I recently drove several thousand miles through small town heritage America during my PCS. Mostly in the South. Hopping from home to home of the families of my friends I made in the military while on the East Coast. VFW posts prominently doted many small towns. Banners of their fallen in the streets, town halls, courthouses, small stores. I remember the media mocking the Russians for doing the same.
They take pride in their patriotism and they made sure to point that out to me as I talked with them. They welcomed me, an outsider, into their homes and places of worship. These people are not bitter, nor angry at the state of affairs. They largely seem, not ignorant, but sort of in a strange trance that they are still living in a long past republic that still loves them. They are, in Yarvin’s term, the very definition of Hobbits. Good, moral Christians, who are being abused and don’t realize it. It is horrifying and depressing.
The big blue cities don’t honor their fallen, their VFW Posts hidden away, their veterans keeping to themselves as private individuals, and often I see foreign flags more than my flag. The heritage American is by far not the “deplorables” they are portrayed as. Their sacrifices derided and insulted. It burns in a way I can’t really describe well.
I don’t really have a grand point with this post other than vent. I’m powerless regardless of what little authority has been delegated to me. It seems like all I can do is stand my post like that one Roman soldier at Pompeii waiting for terrible things to consume all that matters.
I will caveat what PS said. In the blue tribe, that I’m terribly familiar with, all the fighting, death and destruction that is happening with heritage America is ‘not out of sight, out of mind’, but gleefully enjoyed and deridingly jeered at. These people deserve the wrath of God upon them.
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved. -Matthew 10:22
Same as it ever was here in the South. We have a history of bloody and stubborn endurance. Hobbits are hardy folk.
If heritage Americans want to throw away their dumb hobbit lives away against Russians or Muslims then that’s their own stupid fault. Blue elites have every right to laugh at them,[*deleted for all the usual reasons*]
It has become apparent that no one will bear arms to defend the European elites, and it was becoming obvious that no one will bear arms to defend the elites under Obama.
If the Blue elites laugh at them, at time will come when the blue elites die.
Fuck you. I used to laugh at you being the the fool Jim kept around but now I hope you die the most excruciating shameful death imaginable. These people have sacrificed immensely for people like you, and you people laugh at them. That they have the virtue of believing in a dead republic as misguided as it is shows they are far better than you’ll ever be.
“I really wanted to put a bullet between the eyes of every endangered panda that wouldn’t screw to save its species and every whale or dolphin that gave up and ran itself aground.”
I know they’re our people, and in many ways they’re the best of us, but witnessing their hideously misplaced faith in and devoted service to a system that wants more than anything to wipe everything they love from the face of the earth wears me down. I understand the impulse to say they deserve what they’re getting and I wash my hands of it. Sometimes I give in to it. But it is wrong, both morally and strategically.
John McCain, the most admired military hero the right ever looked up to [*deleted*]
In my universe, the right has always despised, hated, and loathed John McCain, and the left have always been unsuccessfully boosting him against terrible head winds, in the same way they have been unsuccessfully boosting trannies in the military, gay pride, the supergirl movie, and all the other stuff that has been pissing off what became the Maga coalition.
I would have brought up the modern manly neocons [*there are manly neocons?*]
You persistently post from a universe where leftist views emanate not from the left, but from the right.
Even those few neocons who are not Jewish look and act Jewish. They don’t exactly act gay, but they look and act unmanly in the same way that Jews look and act unmanly.
“John McCain, the most admired military hero the right ever looked up to”
Now you’re just trolling.
“If heritage Americans want to throw away their dumb hobbit lives away against Russians or Muslims then that’s their own stupid fault. Blue elites have every right to laugh at them”
At last the mask comes off. Not that it hasn’t been transparent for years, but it’s nice that you finally admit your true allegiance.
The Left aspires to nothing because it rejects God, the Left says that the Left is all there is, which then rapidly devolves and descends.
It only takes a decade to abjectly perma-ruin a Civ.
And at least two generations to build one, and that’s after whatever time it took for the builders to gain control of whatever came before.
The Great White Culture the NorthWest European Civ took 10k years to build.
It’s biggest foes were the SouthEasterns, much were simply Islam, which ruined it and threw it into the Dark Ages.
It took 1000+ years of Crusades just to get back to the point where the Culture could start making Civilizational Advancement… a largely white-type high-trust Civ again, in power and with high degree of broad cultural purity and compatibility again.
Seljuks into Byzantine Anatolia 1068 started the panic, resulting in Clermont declaring formal Crusade in 1095.
However Byzantines were also spanking the Arabs back in 863.
“All the kings of Rūm give Harun jizya unwillingly, perforce, out of hand in humiliation.” re Anatolian Byzantia panic in 806.
In reality, the underlying Crusade started in 629 with Islam’s first real invasion out of Arabia against the Byzantines at Mutah.
And kept going through 1699/1713/mid-1700’s largely in SouthEast Europe re Russia. Example: Islam effectively owned Azov for 300 years.
And kept going up through 1917 WWI, and beyond.
In fact, the Crusade has never stopped, nor successfully been won, which would be defined as shoving all of Islam back into Arabia and sealing them in there for good.
That needs to happen.
Because now the Mahometans Islam are retaking all of Northwest Europe again.
And because we can’t afford to waste another 1400 years of resources, time, and lost opportunity cost dealing with these fucking sandniggers and their woman-demon inspired “religion” (yes, it’s possible to blame Islam on Kadijah).
He saw many forbidden and wicked things occurring there… so he sought out the patriarch of the holy church of Jerusalem and asked why gentiles and evil men were able to pollute holy places and steal away offerings from the faithful, using the church as if a stable, beating up Christians, despoiling pilgrims through unjust fees, and inflicting on them many sufferings.” The frustrated patriarch threw up his hands in exasperation: “Why do you reprimand me and disturb me in the midst of my fatherly cares? I have but the strength and power of a tiny ant when compared to those proud men. We have to redeem our lives here by regular tribute payments (jizya) or else face death-dealing punishment.” — Peter the Hermit
One of the reasons the Muslim Invasion of the West is succeeding in force again is because the Leftism has figured out how to command its Universities and the Church to stop teaching the History of the Islamic invasion. So during the brief period of more benign Islam in the West… 1915-ish through 1988-ish… 1.5 generations… they managed to wipe out and neuter all effective knowledge of Islam. Painted over all that necessary military history with false rainbows.
More on Leftist proxyism later.
for anyone want to see the left devouring theirs own
https://x.com/i/status/2070677434845077698
Been a while since I lurked here. Make women property again. Negroes are genetically inferior. God is three and is one. Im not a demon but I am kind of a weirdo scumbag.
I am gen zyklon been an incel for long time. Seen a lot of hookers. Had one girlfriend that was hot but was literally from a mental hospital. Weird thing is I am actually not fat disgusting. Not really bad looking am in good shape. Have been in a few fights and won. People have said that I am intimidating. Point is I check a lot of red pill boxes in that I am not actually a pussy I have no problem asking girls out. Problem is they say no. Online stuff never works out. And i have niche interests that never overlap with whatever crap girls my age pay attention to. Im also just cant get myself to enjoy gabbing about npc bull with hot girls. Girls that can have a real convo not as hot. Partly i am probably autistic.
I have no problem just grabbing a woman and fucking. In fact that is exactly what I want to do. I care very little about what comes out of her mouth. Would like to skip that stuff as quickly as possible.
Am I just cooked?
Ive raped a prostitue and she did nothing. Have thought about doing it again. Possibly to non prostitute. Have considered mail order bride since I actually have money. Even integrating into primitive tribe so I can get some arranged poon. Im just done with faggot ass game. Did Genghis Khan have game? Did vikings have game? I envy the time a man in America could literally go into town and buy a bitch. Like BAP said chatting at bar over drinks is what queers do.
At this point bout to start just grabbin ass when I see it and only thing stoppin me is prison. Am getting mighty close to just sayin fuck it
You should be doing great.
How often do you hit on a chick? I suspect you may be somewhat deluding yourself about “no problem asking chicks out, problem is they say no”
Have you tried a pivot — open with any chick, even if unattractive, with the intent of later opening with a better chick?
How often do you talk with a new chick? How often do you make eye contact, smile, get a smile back, and say hello?
Of course there is a lot of additional stuff you have to get right after hello, but are you getting to hello?
Which is not going to matter if you are not getting to hello, but if you have a problem after hello, every chick is endlessly inte4rested in talking about herself.
Talking to women far removed from you in IQ is painful and annoying. I’ve had dates where very little was said, until I invited her somewhere private and fucked her. If you are the alpha male in any given environment, you often need not say anything at all, you can beckon or pull women over to a closet or whatever. If you have a high IQ, the pool of girls you can tolerate conversation with is very small, and if you want a wife, need to enjoy day-to-day conversation with her or marriage will make you want to kill yourself. That doesn’t mean you need to talk about deep topics or anything gay like that.
It gets easier.
A woman can be intellectually simple and its not a problem talking to her if she has a sweet and humble nature though talking to her is perhaps a bit more like talking to your dog than an actual conversation it isn’t painful… the problem is that with women of today particularly in the US (maybe some other countries are worse) its rare they have a sweet and humble nature.
Then you are facing a shit test, which is irritating and stressful, but passing it yields great rewards.
Were you replying to someone else your response seems to make little sense in context..
What Jim is saying makes sense. What he is saying is if she is not acting “sweet and humble” then she is shit testing you. Such shit test are irritating and stressful, but passing them yields great rewards.
Talking to simple women, like talking to a dog or a child, is fine in small doses, and it is even enjoyable if she is cutesy and energetic, but doing it day in and day out is not something I can tolerate, which is why that comment is specific to relationships.
Every time that I have ever asked a woman out she has said no. Have never heard a yes. Few times I ever had a woman without paying she just kind of latched on to me without ever having to ask out. They are usually batshit crazy though when that easy but its nice. Its weird its like everyone misreads me. Every where I go I am invisible. Sporadically I will do something unmistakably alpha and girls will make eyes at me. But it never turns to anything because I am Clint Eastwood type. I hardly fucking say anything. Am just not good at acting like anything other than myself but whenever I am myself I end up pissing everyone off. Evolas retarded son has been asked to leave many job, high school and college no like him. People spread rumors that he is creep. And then weird thing happen. Meet megahot 10 pornstar escort who say “ at first i thought you were shy quiet like a lot of guys but you seem really tough. I want to shoot onlyfans with you and please cum in my pussy over and over again no condom. Btw you should start channel you could totally do porn.” Had best time in his retarded life. Another time hot druggie chick starts hugging me out of nowhere doesnt care what I say just wants my cock. Another hot blonde out of mental hospital locks eyes with me and grabs my hand. Not long after we make out and fuck. Sometimes things fall into retarded mans lap. And then retarded man goes out and asks cute blonde girls out and they give weird look and say no. Back to invisible again.
NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY SENSE
The only pattern I am noticing is that healthy good girl normie church pussy NEVER wants me. Severely abused, addicted, mentally ill, and third world girls occasionally want my cock like its gold.
I have to be the weirdest incel that ever happened.
LOL you sound like me except I only used to really have money but the Biden years after the 1st one were hard… I do have girls who agree to go out with me and some do but lots of them flake.
BTW my opinion is that girls who fit the profile of what headshrinkers call BPD get a bad rap and are generally superior to normie women, and the only bad thing about them is you have to put up with getting chewed out every once in a while.
Are you asking a woman out? I asked, and you failed to answer, “How often do you talk with a new chick? How often do you make eye contact, smile, get a smile back, and say hello?”
The most common blocker is fear. If a chick smells fear on you, she is always going to say no. And. also, if you are afraid, you are not going to make eye contact and smile.
What I conjecture might be happening is that you are acting alpha in your interactions with other males and not acting alpha in your interactions with females, so the only time you score is when a chick, seeing you performing alpha with other males, comes forward and aggressively jumps your bones, disarming your fear of chicks.
It is difficult for me to diagnose the problem, because when someone has a problem, self perception of what is going down is often wildly inaccurate.
Back when I was looking for a wife a few years ago, making contact with chicks irl was grievously difficult, even when I massively loaded the dice in my favor, but now it has very recently become a whole lot easier, correlating with the collapse in Tinder usage. If you are not doing anything terribly wrong, you should be cleaning up. Therefore you are doing something terribly wrong, which would be obvious to another red pilled male, but not necessarily obvious to you.
You are right Jim. I gave up after a while. I have not had many positive relationships with almost anyone throughout my whole life. It has been sad and rough ride. Nobody respect retarded son. No dad. No positive personal influences. Few friends. Years of virginity and no girlfriend. Have had girls be brutal with me about being inferior beta. Bullies give me shit. Everytime I try to fix social life I come across forced and awkward. Girls smell fear because I am never comfortable chit chatting. Hardly comfortable around anyone since most humans have been threat to Evolas son. Went through Eric Harris Dylan Klebold phase. Just want everyone dead. Over time turned into a kind of dark evilmaxxer. Rough life made me tough but also not approachable. I know I can be their dark rape fantasy but not much else. Actually I would be willing to invest and cherish but the initial talking stage is always the mine field I die in.
In case you thought that wasnt straight answer yes I periodically try out being flirty. Smiling eye contact. Just never can seem to pull it off. Conversation always turns into ummm……….so…………okay ill see you later.
I believe it is something called learned helplessness. But I do know that it will not be that forever. Retarded son mighty thirsty and very tired of girly filters. If hiding in a bush with a knife is what it takes to have what should have never been this difficult to have then I am willing to do. I resent the fact that I have to be comfortable acting like talky texty negro. Not natural. Gross. I am American with German ancestry. I go to Germany and men no do small talk. Dont talk about Arbys and McDonalds like actual fucking retards. Idk maybe I am just the problem. Btw hope this didnt come off as me just arguing or something. I appreciate the advice. Love you guys. Keep speaking truth.
That sounds like fear and learned helplessness showing through. Both of which are deeply unattractive to women.
You will never get anywhere until you stop being afraid. There is no alternative to the virtues of prudence, fortitude, temperance, and hope. You just have to be the man you should be.
Regrettably, women are profoundly unimpressed by the virtues of justice, faith, and charity.
But they are impressed by confidence and fearlessness — which are the external manifestations of fortitude, temperance, and hope.
Nor are women impressed by prudence, but prudence makes fortitude, temperance, and hope easier.
Try being a wingman for someone better than you are at picking up chicks — meaning that you act in ways that present him as the alpha male of the group. Then, after you have been of service, and watched how he does it, you ask him to present you as the alpha male of the group.
Also, when hitting on a pair of chicks, at some point he is going to want isolate the target, in which case the wingman gets the leavings.
A nerd can really benefit from a big scary handsome wingman acting beta to him. You sound pretty scary. You would likely be a great wingman. Picking up girls solo is hard mode — you need to do easy mode first in order to learn how to do it. The wingman just has to smolder seemingly waiting for the alpha to summon him as backup, just looming. You would probably loom and smolder quite well.
You don’t look alpha by acting alpha. You look alpha by someone else acting like you are alpha. This is why wingmen work so well. So, start out as wingman, then swap roles from time to time. While you are winging, you are being led by someone who is presumably better than you at confidence and fearlessness (if you both suck, not going anywhere) and therefore are likely to learn fortitude, temperance, and hope from him.
The wingman follows the alpha, at least when you are in location where chicks are likely to go for pickup, the wingman keeps looking, or at least glancing, at the alpha, while the alpha is looking around at everything else. It is wingman’s job to emit the subtle signals of which of the group is in charge. Female alpha radar is super duper sensitive. The wingman should not overdo it, keep it subtle, and the alpha male of the group does not need to do anything at all to present himself as alpha male of the group, and should not himself do anything to present himself as alpha male of the group, because female super duper sensitive alpha radar will pick up on that as insecurity.
You need to start in easy mode, and winging is the easiest easy mode.
Perhaps a simplistic take, but here it is: the chicks which sense that you see them as attractive animals you would never try to build a legacy with, react like animals in heat; the chicks that sense that you see them as simpie’s little goddess react like you’re a beta weirdo.
Additionally, obviously and self-consciously damaged chicks have the tendency to seek out someone with whom they can be damaged together, who can preferably treat them like a fatherly pimp, so that they can both slowly go down the drain together in a fog of dopamine. A sort of self-destructive fairytale fit for a chick with cutting scars on her forearms and traumatic disorders from being banged by sadistic jailbirds.
Simpler still: it’s “can I save her?” vs “can she save me?”
Unfortunately, the “I can save him” instinct mainly tends to kick in if you are a sadistic jailbird with no redeeming qualities, and very rarely kicks in for basically decent chaps.
Thus the deal “I am looking for a good normie woman to dot on while in return she saves me” is unlikely to work out. And if this vibe does attract one, it’s 50/50 that she herself is maybe a predator good at showing protective coloration when it suits her.
The basic advice for the 21st century holds: create and maintain a life that fulfills you, and save a space for someone who chooses to participate. Fill this space up with chilling and hobbies while she’s not around, let her in when she tries to enter, but do not under any circumstance instantly restructure your life to revolve around her. That’s mental suicide. Let her exist in that space you’ve saved for someone like that, and enjoy it. Fellow travelers who in best case treasure each other. If she bails — the overall structure of your life does not take a hit, simply the space is empty again, to be filled once more with chilling and hobbies until the next one comes along.
Pretending to be a sadistic jailbird type may at some point help attract a damaged woman, but to attract a reasonably functional one you have to be really (not pretend, but really) self-sufficient and reasonably happy.
It’s like with controlling one’s weight. The “shortcut” is to ride the fad diet carousel + fancy gym crap, while the solid, basis-building approach is to fix one’s metabolism, nervous system, endocrine system, etc, plus a healthy routine that maintains basic tone, so that the body perpetuates a healthy weight on autopilot, without the need for hands-on steering. Same with women. Construct a healthy and reasonably happy and self-sufficient life, with a space for someone else, and this will begin attracting chicks automatically.
Lastly, on sex. Let’s say every person has on average 2-3 times a year during which they lose their shit from sudden horniness, and later look back and are like “jeez, was that really me?” In any town or city, every single day, there is say between 1% and 10% of the single female population undergoing a mental breakdown like this, hardly able to breathe from psychotic horniness. Simply doing a bar crawl at night, and knowing what to look for, will inevitably lead to one such crazed creature giving head in the nearest toilet or bushes, not to speak of motels etc.
For some of them this is a lifestyle, some of them pretend this didn’t happen, and some of them would be most willing to save their ego by grasping the chance to interpret events as the start of a whirlwind affair and love at first sight — should they be given this straw to clutch.
The above is just generic info for any sex-starved lurkers reading this. Finding a future wife like this — catching her in a bar when she is in heat and insane — is possible, but very very unlikely. Building a self-sufficient and reasonably content life, with a space prepared for a wife should she appear, is the better way.
Dieting and obsessive muscle-sculpting is a game of pretend; fixing the body’s subsystems and maintaining a toned figure and basic fitness is working with the underlying foundation, which then produces positive results on autopilot. Likewise with chicks — memorizing a bunch of tricks and playing bad boy roles is a game of pretend; fixing your life and being open to relationships but not reeking of desperation (again, not due to pretending to be aloof, but actually being fine with where you are), is what makes you a prize.
Now, some phallic shit can’t hurt. Be it playing the electric guitar, or being on high-fiving terms with a local DJ, a wearing a belt which may or may not hint at kinky shit. But these are optional details added to an already existing foundation of health, chill but real confidence, and contentment.
When I go to a bar and get deep into conversation with a dude I know — then and only then do chicks start throwing themselves at us in absolutely ridiculous waves. Because from their point of view they see two happy, confident men who absolutely do not need some strange chick to come and ruin their vibe. This works like a bloody magnet it does, and always at times when I really don’t need no damn strange chick.
Find buddies. Form bonds. If you’re socially awkward — read books published before the year 2000, and watch films and shows aired before the year 1990. The writers back then understood human nature. Carefully note how people react to each other, what the dynamic is. Gradually try out this knowledge irl. Once it clicks it works like magic. A black and white drama or crime flick can teach you more about humans than a building full of self-help books.
My comment is basically what Jim said , with different word choices and examples. Everything he said I affirm completely. Everything I said is more or less the same (personal detours and musings aside), but perhaps can help anons and lurkers get it, because you never know what the “ping!” sentence or example is for someone.
Sometimes the same thing said in a different way helps drive the point home. Good luck man.
I interpret this event somewhat differently — as wing man plus pivot girl, which is to say alpha male of group plus pre-selection.
The wave is not unleashed by two guys not being needy. It is unleashed by two guys not being needy plus the first female providing pre-selection for all the others.
Her degree in law, so go figure, some bullshit about justice.
Female in law are the worst. They are exposed to the scum and gangbangers.
I figured as much, and made the case not gonna wait.
She is young and naive and sheltered.
I probably fucked some way, as she dropped this 1 month in, I figured it a shit test, because I made it clear I a needed some time to be financially stable at least a couple of months, so I could marry her.
I think she smelled fear/desperation on me.
Which triggered this.
Dead ender. There are vastly more law degrees than there are jobs for lawyers.
A law degree is a total waste of time and money — and while she thinks she is doing it for a career in law, she is just going to university for alpha dick.
Research her career prospects. Explain them to her. Then deliver ultimatum, and, without waiting for her response to the ultimatum, abduct her, attempt to get her pregnant, and set her to doing housework. Chicks don’t find housework hot, but they find the exercise of ownership implied by assigning housework hot.
The successful (private) female lawyers I know work 60+ hours a week for their law firms. The public (government) lawyers work less, but are paid much less.
“ without waiting for her response to the ultimatum, abduct her, attempt to get her pregnant, and set her to doing housework.”
Would love to do this, but we met through family, females in both family arranged it, so abducting her would have result family problems. Antagonizing her males relative father and brother.
the family expect it will happened “naturally” and relationship / marriage will come from it and drastic measures like abduction is out of the question. Which needed to overcome the shit testing.
I think it will come down into ultimatum and force her through family.
Then, point out the gross and extreme disparity between the number of new law degrees issued, and the number of actual new jobs for lawyers, and deliver ultimatum.
Ultimatum likely to be more effective is she sees competition. Preselection will lead to her taking decisive action — such as getting pregnant.
SCOTUS ruling worse than expected, I thought they would at least punt to congress…
The silver lining is that it seems to have broken the last remaining cuckservative programming on a lot of right wing accounts even me. I didn’t really viscerally hate the US constition until now…
The supremes did punt to congress, preemptively ruling that Congress could regulate state mail in ballots.
No I mean on birthright citizenship, birth tourism is now explicitly a right
A few months ago, the New York Times wrote a story about a pregnant Honduran woman who was deported from the country and then traveled 1,700 miles to commit felony re-entry so her child could be born in America. The Supreme Court just ruled that her baby is as much of a citizen as you and I.
It’s moments such as this that reveals just how precious the art of satire can be:
https://babylonbee.com/news/scotus-rules-invading-xenomorphs-who-hatch-on-earth-are-officially-citizens-of-earth
Buffalo,NY, Columbus,OH, and a bunch of other cities have officially hoisted the Somali flag on official Govt poles to “Celebrate Somali Independence Day”, many canceling July 4th fireworks.
And the pedo-faggot PRIDE flags are out in full force again, along with “Naked PRIDE Bicycling” days in public, and people masturbating in public all over the place now.
This Color-Marxism+Islam collaboration is getting worse.
These treasoning Politicians should be dragged out, tried and found guilty on such high crimes, and hung in the public gallows.
Same for the treasoning Supreme Court Five who just voted for Permanent Infinigger+Muslim Birthright Babies.
There was a post on here about “Civil War”.
The Left has already put into place and been deploying the Cause-Bellum for about 20 years now, ever faster.
Such that no one can any longer blame the Right if it goes to war to preserve and restore all that is Good.
When it happens, which it will, I shall give them Food+Quarter in my home, provided they demonstrate they are Minarchists of course.
> Same for the treasoning Supreme Court Five who just voted for Permanent Infinigger+Muslim Birthright Babies.
These Five are on crack.
1) Chief Cuck Roberts, administrative HR head of the court
2) FOUR WOMEN… this is KEY here… three Brown activistas, and one crazy white lady. All four of them ganged up and voted with their ovaries to let women plop babies on whatever lands give them the most free shit, which is currently the USA.
Free-range Women will always collude to destroy the Civilization, they used to be called Witches.
This is why you must never give them any real authority in anything other than homemaking type things inside the home.
Everyone should read some of these bullshit rulings, they’re that bad.
Thomas is the only fairly consistantly based guy on the court.
> seems to have broken the last remaining cuckservative programming on a lot of right wing accounts even me.
Good. Maybe that will make someone based, on the “alt-right”, decide to stand up and run for President-King.
All it takes is a tour bus, and some guys on guard duty, driving around with podium and megaphone for a year.
Total cost to do that: $1M to $2.5 Million, max, per candidate launched on tour.
Even a small group of crypto people could fund that.
> I didn’t really viscerally hate the US constition until now…
The US Constitution main flaw is that they were blinded by their own times and selves, the possibility that something called “Progressiveism” “Democrats” “Leftism” “Marxism” would not just come along, but reign supreme… was simply out of their universe of forseeable potential problems.
Thus they encoded absolutely ZERO anti-Progressive measures in it.
The best they thought of was 75% to change it, but even that was based on their presumption that it would be changed by people nearly exactly the same as them, to do some honorable thing/fix such as they themselves might do.
> Minarchists
What we call that today, is essentially what they were getting closer to encoding, but never could. They never quite could grasp that you don’t need a Govt, so they created a Govt. Not least because they were effictively mostly Nobility themselves, and thus coded for Nobility-type enshrinement via “voting” and “Laws”. Which began spiraling out of control no less than 25 years later, and especially by 1900.
But they did get one thing right, in their letters about at least a common “Faith” being required for any of it to work at all for any length of time.
Which is why the Left is flooding the public streets and TV with Faggots, Trannies, Pedos, dye-haired lesbian Karen’s, criminals, Haitian/African tribesmen and Mohametans… to destroy the cohesive mono-Faith, and thus destroy the country and turn it Communist with those sorts of extra evils sprinkled on top.
>”to destroy the cohesive mono-Faith, and thus destroy the country”
These days I’ve been musing along similar lines about the wave of destruction of heritage pop culture pillars in films, comic books, TV, and video games. These were the last remnants of the old culture, containing in themselves strong DNA of the monoculture code. They tried hacking it, it’s failing; letting them dissolve is probably a good second best outcome in their opinion.
Dr Who, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, James Bond, Marvel and DC, and so on — these franchises contained in themselves an imprint of the 20th century monoculture (in turn still connected to centuries of culture before that), which could be reconstituted from them. Like, cough, dinosaurs from a drop of blood inside a mosquito in amber.
Carriers of the “wrong”, the “dangerous” cultural DNA. Better they be destroyed, if they can’t be hijacked, from their POV.
“All it takes is a tour bus, and some guys on guard duty, driving around with podium and megaphone for a year.”
No, it takes a lot more than that. The problem cannot be solved by campaigning for votes.
As soon as the man with the megaphone says something interesting, he’ll commit a crime. Some guys on guard duty cannot prevent him from being arrested or shot like Kirk.
Certainly they would just destroy James Bond… as Ian Fleming’s Bond in the books especially is about the most heart attacking inducing character to woke leftists ever concieved being “toxically” masculine and sexist, explicitly racist too (though not a zealous racist and he seems in the way modern racists do but not so many people in the mid 20th century did to regard east asians as another high race like whites), may I add on to sexist that he will beat women (Tatiana in from Russia with love asks him to beat her if she gets fat when she goes to England and Bond says that of course he will) and is dubious about what modern feminists would call “consent”. I guess the only silver lining for them is that Bond isn’t portrayed in all that complementary a way in the books as he clearly has psychological problems that he basically deals with via lots of alcohol pills and chain smoking.
Oh looking up why leftists would hate Bond apparently it goes so far as Jim in the Spy Who Loved Me novel apparently there is a part with a female narrator that says “All women love semi-rape. They love to be taken.”
So yeah the Bond novels are a real horror show for modern leftists.
The US constitution wanted to provide a foundation for the US to larp as Rome but
-explicitly forbade nobility
-explicitly forbade a national church
-was schizo on slavery
-allowed foreigners to become citizens (something Rome didn’t do in large numbers till the Social War in 91–87)
The Founders tossed the load bearing features the Romans had because of their Enlightenment faith and the result is the Romans managed to have a Republic that functioned for about 300 years before running into escalating internal fighting while the US only functioned for decades before a civil war and decadence hollowing out the nation.
The Roman Republic had almost constant civil problems whenever they didn’t feel like they were under existential threat by foreign enemies if you read the primary histories of it, there just wasn’t a long period where it internally harmonious and functional. Having the patricians be a super privilged class initially was not exactly a source of stability if you read them I mean maybe you can argue that but if you read the primary sources about how much trouble the conflict of the orders caused and the rule of the Decemvirs and that the conflict of the orders literally went on for centuries of the republic etc etc its very very hard to argue that…
Republics if very well designed can punch above their weight as small states due to motivating more men to make their name… but they don’t scale and once they go off the rails there is no course correction measure except having the un republican resort to putting one man in charge (which the Roman Republic allowed but the US theoretically doesn’t).
I’m using ‘doesn’t undermine patriarchy’ and ‘not descending into internal civil war’ for benchmarks. The Roman Republic was founded in 509 BC and the first internal (Roman and Roman military units fighting) civil war was 88 BC. Rome was falling apart before that, but 300-400 years is significantly different then the American track record.
If you don’t like Rome, you can use another republic. While the only one with a rock solid political system are Venice or the Swiss, they don’t tend to use imported foreigners to win elections immediately or start a death spiral in less then a century.
For what it is worth, Germany lost its first ever penalty shootout in the world cup ever. Germans were considered the Gods of any high pressure situation, cool, calm, collected and seemingly unflappable under pressure. This was across sports. Even in Hockey, where they used to encounter India. It was considered as something of their national character. England, France and Argentina will attest to this nature of the German team
I looked into the details. That team wasn’t really the German team
“Transport operators in countries such as Spain, Germany and Lithuania are increasingly sourcing drivers from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Turkey, West and Central Africa, as well as other parts of Asia and Latin America, with recruitment now organized through long-term international “pipeline” systems that screen, train and certify workers before relocation, according to Trans.Info.
Rather than short-term hiring, logistics firms are building structured recruitment channels that prepare drivers abroad through language training, licensing processes and compliance with EU working-time rules. Migrant drivers are now being described as a structural backbone of European freight transport, with some companies heavily dependent on non-EU staff.”
https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/71613/migrant-truck-drivers-fill-europes-labor-shortage-but-face-risk-of-exploitation
The drivers working in Lithuanian fleets most often come from Belarus, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Tajikistan, India, Kyrgyzstan and the Philippines…
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/lithuania-logistics-cos-allegedly-subject-migrant-truck-drivers-to-abuse-incl-passport-confiscation-payments-below-minimum-wage-wage-theft/?__cf_chl_f_tk=XtWz0uFhlFfTt4BUNSJn0sRQO19kFAIHp4trbvgIwoc-1782940336-1.0.1.1-plNHqKOfPwC3yuIJp_Goh3JFC7CWJJhE_r9gpH3t0xQ
Let’s see how European, including EE road accident statistics get massaged in the coming months and years.
In my part of the world folks were complaining on social media how a Hindu city bus driver ran through three red lights in a row, prompting everyone to disembark in a panic.
I want to ask people here,
if you are messaging a girl, and you are always the first to message and continue the conversation, she participate but as response to your questions or comments, but never initiate. I now girls genrally are talkative but her she is very timid. she is young 20s , so is this sign of not interested, because if so maybe she will not respond or cut contact.
And down goes Konstantinovka.
If Russia isn’t winning the war with the speed we thought they would, nonetheless winning it at slower pace.
At this point it’s Pyrrhic victory or outright loss. For either side.
Ukraine might theoretically have a shot at a non-Pyrrhic victory, but Globohomo is gonna fill their population losses with jeets and nigs, so I count it as Pyrrhic.
How is this not looking to shape out for an actual victory for Russia? They’ve stopped eastward expansion of NATO and retained the sovereignty they have been losing since 1989.
Adding Finland to NATO doesn’t seem much like stopping eastward expansion, nor has it yet been guaranteed that Ukraine will not join in the future.
As for sovereignty, I don’t know what you mean. What were they losing before that is in a better situation now? It’s not like anyone was meddling in Russian elections other than Putin’s own faction. The leverage they have prevented the West from taking has mostly been given to China, and India to a lesser extent; China now basically runs border towns that are theoretically Russian, and the fossil fuel trade deals are so bad their main benefit is to keep wells from backing up and freezing over. Belarus has recently acceded to Ukrainian demands and stopped assisting Russia. Armenia is seeking Western alliances after the CSTO utterly failed to be worth anything against Azerbaijan. And while it’s too soon to say this for sure, it does seem like their hold on Chechnya is weakening also.
They have killed too many of their young men, and the most that can be said is that they’ve made Ukraine do the same. Children are the future, in a more literal sense than most things people refer to as “the future”. The children Russia has taken from Ukraine, if they exist at all, will not suffice to replenish the Russian population, even if they all grow up loyal to Russia.
And finally, there is Crimea. Putin took Crimea and it was a fine thing for Russia. Aside from its value as a vacation spot and propaganda win, it was the warm-water port in the West that Russia has wanted for basically its whole history. And at time of writing, they don’t have use of it, and the main factor keeping Ukraine from retaking it properly and holding it permanently is that Ukraine is prioritizing mainland regions.
Ukraine was the prize, not Finland. Finland is as far east as are the baltic states. Ukraine stretches not only much farther east, it is much closer to Moscow.
nuts. Navalny was an obvious globohomo funded tentacle.
They got rid of all of globohomo’s NGO tentacles.
> Ukraine stretches not only much farther east, it is much closer to Moscow.
By about 100km, and then only if Finland doesn’t regain any of its former territory when this war ends. Plus Finland is close to other important locations like St. Petersburg. I’ll grant you that Ukraine stretches farther east, but either way NATO is on Russia’s border and will remain there for the foreseeable future, which was not the case before they invaded Ukraine.
> nuts. Navalny was an obvious globohomo funded tentacle
Obvious or not, true or not, he seems to have been dealt with easily.
> They got rid of all of globohomo’s NGO tentacles.
Since they didn’t need a war to do this, I don’t credit it as a war gain.
Why do you lie about something so easily verifiable? The difference is 300 km. Plus of course, from Finland to Moscow is traversing swamps and forest, whereas from Ukraine to Moscow is traversing flatlands – the classic route of invasion.
Yet the reality of the situation tells us they obviously did. Russia dealt with Navalny and Western NGOs after the war started, not before.
In 2125 the lands formerly known as Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus will be populated by swarthy folk who greet each other with “salaam aleykum”, speak a mixture of Uzbek, Tajik, and pidgin-Russian, and remember nothing of the Russo-Ukraine war.
I live in that future now — children everywhere, modest attire (men don’t wear shorts even when it’s 40°C), no flirting, no nightclubs, no dating culture at all.
Thought I heard that most central Asian countries and most not really really fanatical Muslim countries did have some kind of nightlife.
In places like Malaysia or Indonesia, if you want to casually date or hook up, you steer clear of the Mohammedan women, and go for the local Chinese minority chicks. For identical reasons, in 90% of Central Asia you steer clear of the Mohammedan women, and go for the local Russian minority chicks. Every capital city has a nightlife, but chill dating and hooking up — choose the ethno-cultural profile with care.
Things to do with “don’t look like a slut, girl, you bring shame to your family”, and “put on long pants, buddy, what are you, a toddler?”, and “you’re 25 already where are my damn grandkids” are not necessarily manifestations of “Islamism” but rather of a generic paternalist society, or in this case societies trying to reintroduce social paternalism.
Three of the post-soviet Stans are 100% like this, and I suggest we do not zero in any further on where any specific commentator is posting from, unless they specifically state where, and of course this should only be done if the anon in question is a westerner living in a place full of westerners, such as Bangkok or Prague or Rio, and zeroing in in this way would not be assisting Sauron’s eye.
The major loss of healthy and productive men for Russia is the hipster exodus that kicked off with the start of the war, and is today responsible for the GDP growth of Tbilisi, Yerevan, and Belgrade (since only these destinations would accept this wave of hipster refugees from ebil mordor). In 2025-26 the highest per-capita number of startups outside of the Silicone Valley is in Armenia and Georgia, precisely because of this phenomenon.
The actual war itself is grinding up the prison population, the down and out proletariat, and the middle-aged who made bad financial and health lifestyle decisions, and decided that instead of simply dropping dead at 55, saddled with debt, they will try to turn things around in the last second, or at least make sure their families get the juicy 5 million compensation for death on the front.
It is very true that in today’s world any significant population loss is forever, unlike prior epochs in which high fertility leads to a bounce back in a generation. It is untrue that Russia has used up the flower of the nation in the war, at leas thus far. It is, however, true, that a significant chunk of the flower of the nation is swilling craft beer in Serbia, Georgia, and Armenia. To an extent in Kazakhstan.
Evacuating children from a warzone was described as “mass kidnapping of children” by globohomo media — doesn’t mean we should perpetuate this view. The Ukraine or globohomo were at that moment unable or unwilling to evacuated these children, and would of course have preferred them to all be killed, so that they can use their corpses for another tantrum. There are no corpses, and the tantrum became a tantrum about “kidnapping”.
We live in a time in which every wordchoice by globohomo is suspect, and you let one or two fly under the radar, they instantly deposit their reality-distorting poison pill payload into your brain.
> The major loss of healthy and productive men for Russia is the hipster exodus that kicked off with the start of the war, and is today responsible for the GDP growth of Tbilisi, Yerevan, and Belgrade
Either way, Russia has lost them and they won’t be coming back. If anything, becoming an economic and demographic boost to other countries is probably worse for Russia than if they had simply died.
> The actual war itself is grinding up the prison population, the down and out proletariat, and the middle-aged who made bad financial and health lifestyle decisions
This was true for a while, and I would add that they were also disproportionately using Muslim ethnic minorities as cannon fodder, which helps stave off the skinsuited Muslim Russia future. But now they are failing to meet recruitment targets, and the size of the Russian army is trending downward. They have pretty much come to the end of that particular runway.
> Evacuating children from a warzone was described as “mass kidnapping of children” by globohomo media
It will of course be difficult to say whether it was truly “kidnapping” until they are shown to exist and are not voluntarily returned by Russia in the end. Hence my word choice intentionally did not take a position on the matter.
>”voluntarily returned by Russia in the end”
A straightforward solution is frequently impossible in our complicated world. Firstly, you spend as a kid formative 5-10 years in society A, low chances you’ll want to suddenly move to society B. It will be impossible to prove how much of this is “authentic”. Secondly, if the kids were evacuated from the bits of the Ukraine in which fighting occurred, and these bits are now oblasts of the Russian Federation, will returning them to these oblasts count as “returning the children”? Of course not. Globohomo will insist they be “returned” to some other place they have no connection to. Thirdly, with every passing year a chunk of the “children” become “adults”, responsible for their own decisions. And so on.
We’ll just have to wait for the competing memoirs, interviews, and video essays by these children once they’ve grown.
You lie.
Russian Ministry of defense says they are increasing.
And Ukrainian sources also say they are increasing:
In April 2025, Oleksandr Syrskyi, a Ukrainian four star general, said that Russian troops in Ukraine were now 623,000, increased fivefold since the start of the invasion, and they are increasing by 8,000-9,000 soldiers each month, which is roughly in agreement with Russian Ministry of defense figures.
Meanwhile it is obvious that Ukrainian troops are rapidly diminishing, that the press gangs are unable to keep up with the casualties.
The claim that Russian forces are decreasing is based on the obviously ridiculous claim that Russia is suffering casualties comparable to, or even greater than, Ukrainian casualties.
When Nato expanded east, it acquired a thousand years worth of ancient grievances and never ending troubles.
One of which is now being resolved in the Ukraine. One of a great many.
Nato acquired these ancient quarrels with the intent of expending Easterners against Russia. The Easterners signed up with the intent of expending Nato against Russia.
Sooner or later, it will be decided which it is to be. And whichever side it is to be, the other side is going to suffer considerable loss of enthusiasm.
Everyone is watching to see how this one is settled. At the end, either Nato sucks it up, and falls apart, as the new Nato countries see that they will not get a hand in resolving their issues, or else Nato escalates by activating some other issues, in order to pressure Russia on the Ukraine issue. In which case nukes, and no more Nato.
Either way, no more Nato, the question is how much radioactivity gets released.
If Nato accepts the defeat of the Ukraine, the barking chihuahuas will realize that they are being lined up to be expended, and will lose enthusiasm for Nato.
If Nato does not accept the defeat of the Ukraine, nukes.
When the Ukraine war is lost, it is likely that Nato will cease to exist.
It has issued too many guarantees to too many barking Chihuahuas. These guarantees will either prove empty, or lead to nuclear war. Either way, no more Nato.
Pull the other one, it has bells on it. The greatest Ukrainian counteroffensive was an all out attempt to recapture the Crimea, now Nato has fewer weapons, the Ukraine has fewer men, Russia has more men and more weapons, a second attempt would go worse than the first.
This ends in Russian victory or nuclear war, because the Russians do not perceive themselves as having any alternative.
Since they don’t like the nuclear war option, they are pursuing a policy of containment till the west collapses. That the Ukraine has been retreating, and continues to retreat, is that policy working.
The Atlantic council has a less optimistic account of these events. The Ukraine gave a military ultimatum to Belarus, threatening invasion unless the relay equipment was dismantled. Belarus, threatened with invasion, switched off the relay equipment. And immediately set about preparing for invasion. It seems likely that once preparations are in place, they will turn the relay equipment back on again, resulting in direct participation in the war.
The greatest Ukrainian counter offensive was a catastrophic failure, and every counter offensive since then has been a catastrophic failure.
There will likely be a Ukrainian offensive against Belarus, and it too will be a failure.
The barking chihuahuas signed up with Nato with the intent of eventually adjusting their borders to Russia’s disfavor. Win, lose, or draw, their continued barking and snapping is going to result in trouble.
The greatest Ukrainian counteroffensive was an attempt to recapture the Crimea. Now Nato has vastly fewer tanks, Russia has more tanks and more men, the Ukraine has fewer men, a second attempt to recapture the Crimea is likely to go even worse than the first.
Normally when cities fall in the Ukraine, the troops defending them are lost, held in place by retreat blockers.
The Ukrainians, however, retreated from Konstantinovka. This represents a change in strategy or policy. Or their army is just no longer obeying orders.
The Russian Ministry of Defense has been known to be a bit “optimistic” in announcing captures, so I looked into it. The Russians have for some time been posting videos of themselves raising flags in Konstantinovka, starting in the east, and the Russian Ministry of Defense announcement followed them raising the flag all along the north westernmost boundary of Konstantinovka, though not however the south westernmost, which is still within range of Ukrainian drone operators.
These flag raisings followed the Ukrainian army retreating from Konstantinovka, and I suggested that the Ukraine is now trying to preserve its manpower. However the Ukraine is now vigorously attempting to re-insert troops into Konstantinovka, so the retreat looks more like the Ukrainians running away in defiance of orders.
Have the Russians captured the southwestern fringe of Konstantinovka? Well, we can be pretty sure there are no Ukrainians in there, but there are not necessarily any Russians in there either. All the rest of Konstantinovka, however, there are Russians and no Ukrainians.
Notice that in the age of drone warfare, one side fleeing a city does not immediately and automatically result in the other side capturing the city. It took the Russians a while, and it cost them.
What is a gray zone? Well, it is a zone that is dangerous for both sides. But in modern warfare, just about everywhere is dangerous for both sides, so that is not a very useful definition.
So, let us define control: a zone as controlled the side with the greatest willingness and capability to put people into it. In which case there are no gray zones, but there are zones in which it is not clear who controls them. And since the Ukraine is right now trying very hard to put people in Konstantinovka without success, Konstantinovka is Russian controlled.
If you won’t post Pope Leo saying what I’ve been saying [*deleted*]
What you are saying presupposes that Russia’s “special military operation” has been revealed to be a mistake by the terribly costly events that have unfolded.
And that I agree with this, that everyone agrees with this, that Putin agrees with this, that Russians agree with this, that it is entirely uncontroversial.
This is an illegitimate method of argument, and I am not going to allow it through, and normally I am going to silently delete it on sight.
I don’t think so, and most Russians do not think so. Rather the lesson is that Russia should have attacked earlier, harder, used more destructive measures, and take greater risks earlier of triggering World War Three. That by failing to step close World War III early, they emboldened the Globohomo empire to step close to world War Three early. Putin needed to convincingly persuade the Globohomo empire that he was bloodthirsty madman, and failed to do so.
Had Putin earlier persuaded Globohomo that he was willing to kill every Ukrainian, he would not have needed to kill every Ukrainian. Now he does need to kill every Ukrainian. Which is a horrifying outcome.
If this war ends with Russia losing, you will have been right, Putin will have been wrong, and I will have been wrong. If it ends with Russia winning, I will have been right, and Putin should have attacked earlier, harder, and in a more dangerous and destructive way.
And ever since the Greatest Ukrainian Counter Offensive failed, Russia has been winning. Of course the nature of war is changing as we watch, so past performance is no guarantee of future performance.
It’s not charitable to call it a mistake because it certainly looked to be the right move at the time, and it was rational to believe based Russians would be greeted as liberators from the tyrant clown. And crucially, the pope had not yet condemned holy war and just war theory at the time. We live, and learn, and live more, God willing.
But for a nation to become so decadent to inspire aggression from warrior-priests, in our modern time this means it is already so terminally pozzed that it cannot stand up by itself, and will eventually fall if left alone, but like a drowning man might bring down anyone trying to either help or ironically even attack him, not even knowing that he is already doomed no matter what. And those willing to join with the based Russians have already done so, probably well before anyone noticed. Information and migration potential are both greater than ever before and our attitude towards war has to change in response.
Superhero media (capeshit) is our default worldview. We grew up on it. We have a hard time avoiding a virtuous fight. The leftist do-gooders don’t even try to avoid it. But we are called to now.
If we’re going to be cynical and realistic we should encourage Hindus and Muslims to move to Ukraine and get enriched by the culture there and bring it back home with them. Horrible for Ukraine, but they deserve it and there’s no saving them at this point, and we might as well make something of it.
The Pope is a gay (probably literally as the vast majority of catholic clergy are homosexuals) race communist and Rome (well not so much the Italian part of the city but the Vatican) is way past due to be sacked.
Leo is ghey. He just excommunicated a bunch of conservative real Bishops who didn’t like being told to preach gay. So now we’ve got some more non-gay Bishops and a Cardinal who forked off. Probabaly enough out there to challenge.
With luck an anti-Pope will appear and shove the gay church in the trash.
The Roman Catholic Church has just schismed again, this time over buggery.
Last time around, it was because the Pope wanted that which is Caesar’s, this time around, assholes.
The first schism was a tragedy, this one a farce. The congregation of the Papacy aligned churches will disappear like the congregationalists and the puritans. The Vatican will become a museum for worship of Gaia, Ishtar, and Covid.
Unfortunately Catholics are generally very very brainwashed NPCish people and a real schism the way they had in the middle ages needs political sponsorship (in the late middle ages schism France and its allies backed the Avignon popes while all others backed the roman popes)…will different countries forcibly recognize one side or the other… i doubt it.
So Rome will unfortunately linger on though increasingly seen as the gay race communist force that it is.
The postChristian churches are all rapidly dying, while the Christian churches are growing.
If you attend a postChristian, postModern, church, there is no one left except those with one foot in the grave.
Pretty soon the Pope speaking exCathedra will be yet another letterhead owned by Harvard.
Old Ways worked best…
The minute a Father’s Daughter starts looking and acting like an Ahegao Girl in public, it is the Father’s responsibility to…
1st) Marry her off without delay to an eligible suitor, she or her father may pick, but her father must approve.
2nd) If she refuses to be married off, via herself refusing to pick, or by refusing to marry any of three of her Father’s picks, then until she decides to marry someone, her father may [*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*].
Sometimes this right of preserving the raised wealth of the family against falling into general whoredom was extended to Uncles, or to surviving elder Cousins/Brothers/Tribals.
The general rule being each woman to only one man.
I think the policeman inside garbled what you intended to say. So I edited that part out with a reminder to look up the moderation policy. Try rephrasing.
What you intended to say, or what part of you intended to say, will get you white listed.
What do we do about stubborn female misconduct? And because women will always pull a shit test, they are always going to be stubborn.
The extension of the franchise to women is undesireable.