A Review of My Guesses for 2016

goodbye-2016

It’s the start of the New Year again! That means that it’s time for me to speculate on what might happen in 2017. I was more than a little surprised at how accurate I was for 2015. As I’m writing this, I have no idea how well I did for 2016.

So before I begin for 2017 let’s do a review on how well (or poorly) I did for 2016 this was the blog in question

https://theredpillnation.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/my-predictions-for-2016/

1. A Politicizing of the gender issue

I have to admit this one was an absolute no-brainer. After all, it was an election year. By July Feminism was openly hemorrhaging badly. Had this election not come along Feminism would likely be a severely wounded and bleeding entity. Not that it wasn’t a terrible year for Feminism anyway

https://ageofshitlords.com/feminists-didnt-stand-a-chance-in-2016/

This article doesn’t include Gregory Alan Elliot winning his trial. The Idiotic doubling down by Feminists when Jian Ghomeshi was found innocent. Or how bad Feminists looked when they made blatant attempts to prevent the screening of Cassie Jaye’s documentary on the Men’s Right Movement called Take The Red Pill

Suffice to say I’m gonna count this one as DING!

2. Open calls for arrests and harassment of MRA/MGTOW/Red Pill

I hadn’t even finished the blog when there was an open call for the arrest of Milos Yiannapoulos on a morning talk show

Oddly enough when I wrote this I was thinking it was going to be one of the groups mentioned above, man, was I ever in for a surprise. While it did happen anyway via the open call to disrupt an event that Roosh V was going to put on.

http://www.rooshv.com/announcement-the-meetup-on-february-6-is-cancelled

Most of the violence came out either against Milos Yiannapoulos Dangerous Faggot Tour or During Trump Rallies. Men’s Rights and Red Pill ended up fading into the background during the fall

This video doesn’t include Trigglypuff or what happened at DePaul or UC Irvine.

Then we got what happened at Donald Trump political rallies

Gonna give myself a tentative ding on this one. It did happen but not to the people I thought it was going to.

3. Gregory Alan Elliot not guilty

HUGE ding on this one, again not a surprise here. I also have aired an opinion that a group within Twitter may in all likelihood were going to try and use a guilty verdict to come down hard on people like us. What they ended up doing is burning themselves out early with little to no real impact

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/twitter-harassment-trial-verdict-1.3415112

DING!

4. An ever increasing number of attacks by feminists on the GMM (Greater Men’s Movement)

They came out breathing fire at the start of 2016, especially on Twitter. I’m going to bring up a quote from that blog I wrote there

I see feminists becoming very quiet after that. After all, this was their only remaining shot at taking back the initiative they lost back in 2013. When they do come out of the castle again, it’ll get a whole lot nastier. Even more, than it is at the moment.

All that effort and all they managed to do were shut down a couple of pages on Facebook, Halt an Event done by Roosh V and stop a few screenings of Cassie Jaye’s movie. A very pitiful payout for what may have been an outright conspiracy.

Other than the harassment of Cassie Jaye’s movie after July it got pretty quiet it happened enough though that once again DING!

5. Feminism drops the ball on an issue, possibly even more than once

They didn’t even get out of the first day without dropping the ball huge! Look no further than Cologne on New Years Day!

In fact, there were so many of them that when Age of Shitlords did their article, even they had to omit some things

https://ageofshitlords.com/feminists-didnt-stand-a-chance-in-2016/

What the hell can I say here? DING!

6. The Beast that is MGTOW starts to emerge in full force. 

Became official sometime in the late summer or early fall when MGTOW.com first surpassed A Voice for Men and then blew past We Hunted the Mammoth just a few weeks later.

https://theredpillnation.wordpress.com/2016/09/07/mgtow-on-the-verge-of-arrival/

Yes folks MGTOW is here and is likely here for good unless the rules around a few things change drastically, specifically around marriage.

DING! Six for Six so far!

7. Women start taking the Red Pill!

This one was little bit riskier there are already some women that have swallowed the Red Pill, take this woman for instance

https://notesfromaredpillgirl.com/

But it wasn’t until September that I started noticing a trend. It started one night at work when I listened to a video from Story Time With Doge

I went in and did some digging on YouTube what I found was an eye opener! I looked up “Not a Feminist” or “I’m an Anti-Feminist” this is what I came up with

45 of the 53 videos on this list are in the last two years. THIRTY SEVEN of them are in 2016. If that’s not solid proof that Feminists are losing their ability to dictate what women say then nothing else will

I will be doing a blog and/or a video on this topic soon because it deserves it’s own mention all by itself.

Another DING!

8. Threats and Arrests of Men’s Activists

I covered this in number 2, So I may have repeated myself this one though was aimed directly at MRA’s. The activity shifted over to the Dangerous Faggot Tour and Donald Trump and not MRA’s. Therefore I have to give this guess a good solid BUMP!

Roosh V doesn’t count because he’s not an MRA

Damn can’t win them all now, can I?

9. Convention in London this June MUST happen!  

It did happen, and it went off with just one hitch the AVFM page on Facebook was taken down.

https://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/facebook-removes-avfms-page/

Other than this one small hitch ICMI 16 went off quietly without so much as a whimper from any Feminist. Why this happened, and why it went down so quietly as opposed to what happened in Michigan in 2014 can be speculated on somewhere else.

Gonna give myself a solid DING on this one!

10. Another Men’s Rights Group Emerges.

Didn’t happen! What did happen though was MGTOW got a whole lot bigger than it was a year ago. There was also a slow and gradual turning away from Feminism and Regressives in General as things like the Dangerous Faggot Tour and The Donald Trump presidential campaign diverted the attention away from the MRM.

BONK

11. Other media sites start becoming sympathetic to men’s issues.

Not as much I thought! When Cassie Jaye’s movie came out, and the censorship bandwagon started up the publicity became better. Otherwise, I didn’t see much change at all. What I did see was an increase in the rhetoric and lying from the other side.

Very tentatively gonna give myself a ding here and a bow of the head to Cassie Jaye

cassie-jaye

12. Dissention inside feminism.

I didn’t personally see anything. A quick google search turned up nothing as well. I suspect that this might’ve happened because of the need for Feminists to unite against Donald Trump. They were not nearly so focused on the Manosphere this year.

BONK! I underestimated the amount of bile and desperation within Feminism and The Regressive crowd in general.

13. Casualties inside the GMM

I didn’t see anyone walk away and quit! So casualties didn’t happen. Some people shifted their focus or expanded their activities to fighting regressives as opposed to simply staying inside the Manosphere. I have become much more vocal about being MGTOW.

Bonk here! But this is because of a shift in priorities inside society not because anyone got tired and quit.

14. Divorce, Child Custody, and Alimony issue grind slowly back in men’s favor

January 2nd is far too early to see any stats on 2016 anywhere. From what I saw though the trend does appear to be grinding it’s way to a more balanced system. Grind being the main word here because them wheels are moving damn slow.

DING!

10 of 14 were right in one form or another! Not bad when you consider that I’m in no way a psychic, mathematician, remote viewer or any way a practitioner of any kind of future prediction methods, be they scientific or esoteric.

I’m clearly guilty of underestimating Donald Trump not so much because I didn’t think he would win because I always thought that it was possible. What I didn’t see was the profound cultural impact his campaign and election, would have here in North America. In fact, last night while I was writing this I had to listen to one future predictor rant on against Donald Trump constantly as opposed to giving predictions.

2016 was indeed ‘Game the Fuck On’ so to speak. I see what happened with the 2016 Presidential Election especially after Donald Trump won as acts of Desperation. Especially the riots in various places after he won. Those riots were in my opinion about as ‘spontaneous’ as the sun rising in the morning.

On a personal level 2016 was the most difficult and trying year I’ve had as an adult apparantly I wasn’t the only one who had this happen to them though. What will happen in 2017? Well that’s another blog for later this week, so keep watching

7 thoughts on “A Review of My Guesses for 2016

  1. Imagine– a world full of possibilties. Full of equality, and peace, and caring for one another. A world of empowerment and prosperity where everyone is lauded and held in esteem for what they can accomplish.

    And then of course, there’s Feminism.

    Well, a man can dream.

    Feminism is a HATE GROUP. It’s time to call them out now. Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE

    Like

  2. >“Not a Feminist” or “I’m an Anti-Feminist” this is what I came up with

    Virtue Signalling. Works both ways. They’re still feminists.

    ;

    Predictions for 2017?

    Like

  3. Well done for 10/14!

    2. Open calls for arrests and harassment of MRA/MGTOW/Red Pill

    ​​​​​​​You need to add the feminists screaming against equality under the law that was proposed by politician and anti-feminist Philip Davies at ICMI16. Calls for him to be sacked or worse lead to the antimisandry.com counter-campaign to promote him. Philip Davies has now been included on the UK’s new Equalities Committee – a clear win.

    8. Threats and Arrests of Men’s Activists

    You probbaly don’t keep an eye on the UK very closely but Mike Buchannan, leader of the only political party for men in the English-speaking world, was charged with obstructing traffic for a massive 49 seconds during an anti-MGM rally. He was in court for the second time a few days back, only for the prosecutors to ask for an adjournment because they hadn’t gone over his affidavit thoroughly!

    10. Another Men’s Rights Group Emerges

    ​​​​​​I haven’t read what you were expecting but a few new groups appeared during 2016. In India, UK and China consortiums of one sort or another were formed. antimisandry.com is in contact with the group in India but language barriers currently prevent us from developing closer connections. The UK actually had two consortiums form: we are connected with the network4men but the other group, though more powerful, has feminist influences (despite some good individual members) and we cannot be a part of it because in some ways it blocks men’s & boys’ equality to improve society. In Portugal, a new group started but has been rather quiet. There is a new advocacy charity in Argentina. The European ‘Platform For Fathers’ has expanded. Contrasting this, a Canadian site ceased updates, we lost the much-respected Angry Harry (RIP), a French site dissapeared. I probably missed some of the + and – but on the whole, I’d say the men’s rights movement grew, as did the allied anti-feminist movement.

    Like

    1. This is interesting. It’s good to get feedback from someone that’s over in Europe. I generally have to confine my comments to North America because I feel it’s a good idea to write what you know.

      So it’s always good to get feedback from people not on this continent

      Like

  4. Article submission:
    Citations on end – not “pseudoscience”

    Science: Females Judge-Books-By-Covers | by Jessie Nagy

    & what kind of books do females read statistically? Interestingly, the answer was confirmed by a scientist named Anne Moir that females read fiction novels much more commonly than males. Please search for a very important video entitled: ‘Sex in the brain: do men and women think differently?’ with the tags: Dr Anne Moir. The availability of that video itself is beyond my control. I suggest that you investigate that lecture/debate for yourself so that you can make the conclusions on your own without having me to answer every single thing & so that you can notice the pattern of what this article is actually about – how female-hood has a tendency to label whatever they happen to not find aesthetically pleasing as “creepy” & then often call the improbity the apposite. The reality is is that the side of science is already not liked, & when they become pitted against, they lose the entire debate because they appear “pathetic”/”creepy”, etc., because of the fact that the scientific side is insistent on defending their arguments in a completely calm & even nice manner. The delivery of the scientific side is “painful”, etc.. Because of that, they’ve already lost. Females are anti-science, generally, because science does not care for the delivery of power displays. Females are fixated on delivery not the actual content. Or, another way of putting it: females ruin the power of science.

    But let me make a distinction: Are women more visual? Absolutely not:
    Scientist David Geary has done much research on sex-related differences of mathematical ability. He has reported that there’s no distinction of basic/simple mathematical skill, which can even be sometimes tested on non-human primates, but with mathematics that is much more progressive, there are sex-related differences. Males consistently score better with word & geometry problems. Geary suggested that this ability builds on the male superiority in spatial skills. It is secondary benefit to males, which derived from a sexual selection process.
    Sex hormones, which are proximate mechanisms associated with sexual selection, suggest to indirectly influence mathematical skill. Geary has argued that sexual selection contributed to greater complexity of neurocognitive systems that enhance navigation of 3-dimensional space in males, not so much with females. These navigational systems have evolved in 3-d reality. so some info. about the structure of the physical reality is built into these structures. Euclidean geometry is a mathematical analogue of the arrangement of the physical; thus, an implicative realization of forms of geometry is built in the spatial system. Males do better with geometry because the evolution has made knowledge of geometry innate to males. Mathematical word problems can also be solved better by males because of info. being spatially diagrammed.
    Many sex differences are confirmed in interests & social styles; these play into the better mathematics ability. Because of the differences, males are more engaging with logic, which continues ability.

    So because they are generally not visual like the way that it is typed that males are – actually having a much better understanding of 3-d space, females basically start “filling in” from their different observational way that is interpreted just from what is immediate. What they do in these instances is actually very much an aspect of slander. When I say that females can be observational, I don’t mean they’re observational of terms of how a zoologist observes the wild & records it. I think it would probably be better to give them preoccupations on the immediate level. Women are much more visual creatures in a different way; they are observational of terms of the performances, the acting. Think pick-up-artists, etc.. Looks are important to females, but with mien, cadence, style, etc..

    Women are attracted to power, especially the social – how he acts & how others act towards him. One reason for the dismissive “he put me on a pedestal” is because that honesty is seen as less powerful. This is an obstacle to rationalism because the facile displays are the negation of the abstract. Of the modern times, when plenty of men already have plenty of power, females’ craving is running haywire because they think in continuous comparisons combined with their facile/non-abstract judgment. Females don’t like socializing because it gives them a chance to be friendly. Females like socializing because they love politics, having peers to, especially female, to validate what she has, is doing, & what she is, & they love having the comparisons they can use against a male. Try to be more inclusive when you have them. When you have access to her, that just often means access to more rating tests from her. In the modern context, females’ own craving running haywire ,because of females’ inability to integrate consistency, has actually caused women to have less need for men, & then a resorting to the daddy-state/the legal system, etc.. This has resulted in men actually being percieved as less powerful to women, &, therefore, less desireable. Marriage shows to women, from months, years, to many years, the realistic fatigue of masculinity, then he is percieved as less powerful, as humans naturally become more fatigued towards the latter years. This does not make women humble in a marriage. Women have always had these facile interpretations of power long before feminism, so feminism has not “made” them like this or that. Feminism & related has only welcomed more of it.
    The female perception of male power is not as sophisticated as a defender of it would think. One aspect: The more the facile display of it shows, the more attractive he is to women. The more attractive he is to women, the more women will amplify their attraction to him. This is collectivist thinking based on facades, which is completely antithetical to scientific discovery. You know what I mean. This is not an issue of semantics. You could have organizational skills, the goods, etc., but if you, as a male, go to a party, & the other females don’t like the fact that you had something as petty as a smudge of greese on your shirt, the tone of your voice was uncomfortable for ~10 seconds, or things like that, they will then start complaining about you with her, & all that time you just spent was wasted. It’s also the reverse when females don’t like a female because she’s taking a large amount of the attention, even when that male was never sexually percieved firstly, because their greed for power is a corrupting force that would make them want to be instinctively the number one.

    With the bloggers confined to superficial stuff about current events, politics, etc., they will try to argue: “not all women are like that”, (My claim: MOST are like that.) because these guys are pickig something much easier to “fish” from the sea-of-noise so that they can have an excuse of having a tattoo to impress that states “look at how smart I am” & as an excuse to entertain others. They’re still stuck on performing. They will even say that my stuff is not “interesting.” It doesn’t hurt me. It’s not supposed to be “interesting”. What they mean is that it’s not entertaining because the entertainment is their drive. Is the manual that a doctor gives you “interesting”? I type this lazily, scientists “don’t have feelings”, so “interesting” is meaningless.

    The evolutionary-psychological blogger Stardusk, a.k.a. Thinking-Ape made an excellent peice entitled: ‘The Manufacturing Of Love | A Discussion’ on what I have been regurgitating in this sea-of-noise/sea-of-fakery, & will be regurgitating until the day I die with some form or another, although my interest is more from a cognitive/neuroscientific inclination, that, while males interpret reality in terms of these linear photographs, discarding the extra drama – “that is a cute red-head & she’s got an easy personality/good sense of humor”, females interpret reality in terms of archatypes, when she’s the main character of this film that she projects & also the audience, of which she derives roles that isn’t really there & can’t be there, & when these males can’t live these fantasies that aren’t real, we get females ruining males, & we have tons of males putting on these acts for her by instinct. You, as a male, are not an organic entity to her. You are representational of iconographic associations, & because you are not an organic entity, only a sort of day-dream that she has many of to live through, you will be subject to how a day dream fluctuates – recycling of male “novels”. The projecting & delusions are subsets of personality disorders, even though the professionals will not necessarily state that it is because they’re still trying to impress others with the certificates that they got.
    Because of these archatypes, they try to make sense out of the non-acting that I am, & because they can’t actually understand that I’m not acting – I don’t represent any of their archatypes at all, they categorize me as “creepy” to make it easier for themselves. When females interact with males, they interpret of terms of what kind of soap-opera he can give her. Males seek females for the apposite of that; to keep the soap-operas out, & then females call that desire “empty” – the hypocrisy.

    The secrets & truths that I’ve learned about female nature is also, although I still do, why I don’t approach females the same frequency as normal/oblivious people do. When some females notice that, they sometimes project their wrong assumption that I have “problems with myself.” No, actually, the reason I don’t approach them to the same frequency as normal/oblivious people do is because I know that THEY have problems with themselves. What’s on my mind is not what’s on others’ minds, & when you’re dealing with others who reduce most to making themselves believe they’re an authority because they rely on just seeing what’s superficially observational, you’re going to have illusions.
    Emphatically, the hybristophilia/Stockholm syndrome transcends violence itself to other displays, indicated when females enjoy males arguing, calling whichever the loudest one is to be “intense”, or whatever display they deem to be sexier, regardless of the points made. To paraphrase Steve Moxon – social science author of ‘The Woman Racket’: Women like to see men stamp themselves among their peers. Women have a very immature sexuality, & this accounts for females to have ordained this whole “Mtv.” thing, if you will, & if you’re not apart of it (like me), they’ll override you as suspectible, “pathetic”, “creepy”, etc.. Civilization was conceived via ideals, which right now is read as “faggy”, etc.. The “Mtv.” idiot is an obstruction to that because constructing by setting ideals is seen as, to them, “talking out of turn” because they’re stuck on pea-cocking & the effeminate level of not even knowing how to socialize properly: “Oh no,This guy said something real to me……” Women are the most emphatic aesthetes of them all, making negative atmospheres. My body language became weird when sometimes approaching, which females call “creepy”, because I learned that THEY are bascially creepy. Cognitive scientists have already confirmed, quite literally, that females are obsessed with the cosmetic. Neuroscientist: Simon Baron Cohen has even presented a test to evaluate sexual dimorphism: For the feminine: consisting of surface facial expressions, the other is a series of questions pertaining to different hobbies, collecting, etc..

    Women complain that men “don’t know how to be real men”, & then they also expect that men will constantly put on these placating acts for them based on aesthetcis. There is no “right” way for them. Women can’t take real men because they are not sincere women. Women do not even know what it means to be a “real man”, as the political structures have helped the arrogant sides of women show more.

    What’s interesting is that females are actually sometimes attracted to me for the completely wrong reasons; they see me, & I’m not bragging, as muscular, tall, exotic, & I look kind of rugged, they then assume that I’m some kind of rebel, etc., & then when they actually get to know me & they realize that I’m actually the apposite of what they thought they were getting – that I’m actually this “boring” guy with morals & conservations, they no longer want me anymore, & not only that, they also become angry at me because I didn’t police them from making their wrong assumptions, when it wasn’t my job to do that anyway. Is it my fault that they have problems with living in reality?
    So, I’m tired of being treated as if I’m a “creep” on almost a weekly basis for their immature glancing, etc., when, in fact, the things & people that females are interested in is actually creepy, or the reasons for their interest in people – usuary, collusion, soap-opera displays, is creepy, or the things they’re interested in is completely vapid, like spending money, money which is often not even theirs’, on things that is just going to collect dust. Because I have honesty, I’m proper, & I’m rational, that scares people, so they’re going to try to look for something they can use as defense mechanisms against me. “See, he sits at home, reading books on his free time. He has, like, anti-social personality disorder. He likes things that serial killers like. He reminds me of Elliot Rodger.” This is simply just what happens when you respresent the truth; they’ll try to slander you, etc..

    I do not mean this in an immature way, I mean this as a psychological principle: females are like dogs: Dogs “feed,” off of your energy. If you’re calm, they’re calm, If you get angry, dogs become angry. Females are, not exactly, but similar to this. If you approach her in an uncomfortable manner, she’ll become uncomfortable. Even though you can be uncomfortable for reasons like something bad that might’ve happened with your long distance relative, she will not think of the abstraction. What is on her mind is the facile. Then comes the “creepy”, etc., label.

    Scholar, Steven Goldberg has set the record correctly on masculine logic being much different from females. There’s even been modern science proving difference of male & female logic by a new way called “connectome” maps – connectivity of the brain. The typical male brain has most connections running between back & front. The typical female brain shows to have more frequent neural connections going from side to side across left & right hemispheres, which results in different cognition, which the scientists call females being better with intuition & communication, but it’s really just that their cognition operates by entertainment & collectivism, while male brains operate by being much more visual & to industrialize. But that should be given with other articles.
    The stereotype that male is more logical than female is unquestionably correct & its assertion conforms to the reality not just confined in books, & females are obviously going to cause problems. Society’s socializing girls out of professions of harder logic may possibly be an acknowledgemt of hormones. It is statistically unfeminine to deal with difficult abstractions, & social concepts are based on the realities. A women who can deal with high-level abstractions has usually “crossed over” in a hormonal way – generally a tall, masculine woman. The female logical genius will be checked. As was the case with chess, the very best female logicians are more skilled in that department than the majority of men, but they don’t come to the level of the very best logical male genuises any more than the six-foot tall woman comes near the tallest man. The husband will seem more logical because life has introduced a factor that generates the correct assertion.

    Being objective is not “insulting” (not mainly anyway), & rhetoric is not logic. I can’t be with them, & this is not “shy”, just strategic, after & before work because they see my communication as “painful”. Without the foundation of logic, arguments are taken as opinions, of which the most appealing is considered right. From this, opinions are owned, & addressing of the false premise of an opinion is seen as a personal attack. From there, being offended is seen as a legitimate argumentative device.
    Modern journalism maintained by collectivism is used to pacify the mental energy, & delusional words are used to subtly bother the reader. With words like “craze”, “gloom”, “troll”, etc., It’s used (as in ‘1984’ by George Orwell) to create group thickening against a common, false enemy, where most seek emotional bonding instead of thinking by a set of laws by real form.

    Many of us have been pretending, including myself when younger.

    When the new-age-bitch complains about pornographers getting their way in a linear methodology, when everyone gets paid & goes home happy (or most), this is a resentment that they did not put on the peformances, like her new-age act, which is often a mask from adaptation to the external forces of the practical – “I’m a mature, spiritual/virtuous person.”

    Take it from a truly enlightened person: Prabhupada. This is a man who renounced himself a long time ago & obviously stopped caring for the performances. This was during a trend of Feminism. For Srila Prabhupada to speak this way would cause him to become very unpopular with much of American society. He stated such things, even risking slander against him, as females are much more prone to do, strategically stating such things to a woman in an interview, without regarding for tone. Manhood-Academy, etc., is not doing this. They are promoting fronts for the feminine. This is what it means to not be emasculated; that you promote the truth even in the face of popular acts. In fact, Srila Prabhupada’s first name, Abhaya, literally means “fearless” in Sanskrit.

    Prabhupada: It is not that the woman do not like rape. They like sometimes. They willingly. That is the psychology. Outwardly they show some displeasure, but inwardly they do not. This is the psychology. -Srila Prabhupada

    There are 4 main reasons for female rape fantasy, not necessarily in any order:

    1: Greed for sensory experience. This is no exaggeration: There are many secrets of female sexuality, & they are much more willing to experiment without morality: There are literally subsets of females who would rather suck & have sex with house pets before being with a proper, rational male. Not all – consisting of the majority of women – who disregard/use rationalism, but still a subset.
    2:Sexualizing fear.
    3: I have even read from b.d.s.m., etc., forums themselves years ago, & have heard directly from females themselves, that when some females have an irrisistable urge to control everything, she will often seek an apposing force (rape-fantasy) to stop her from herself. Or, much like when an alcoholic knows he/she is a bad person, rather than admitting it to themselves, they’ll “wipe it under the carpet” & block it away by some kind of stimulation.
    4: Trapping = cunning. Cunning is not intelligence though.

    With their menstrual cycles, they want males to act a certain way that females can identify with due to female collectivism. They haven’t learned how to put their passive aggresive mood swings in check. The reality is is that because of the very fact that females have these natural menstrual cycles, females are actually the ones more prone to being disgruntled, yet they will call truthful males as “creepy”,”disgruntled,” etc., for having the truth. The pattern is happening with female m.r.a.s choosing Roosh V. because he’s got the style yet poor articulation over the most truthful.

    Also accounting for the female rape-fantasy is the fact that females are poor with communication. There’s a really important short philosophical documentary called ‘Men Communicate Better’ by a blogger named Kelly Jones, who also manages a good philosophy site called natural-thinker-dot-net. She is not a “bipolar” poseur like the typical female m.r.a., or not as much anyway. One book:
    ( I hate to constantly repeat this so many times, but this was the most important source that confirmed the reality with this brave science much before I was even introduced to m.r.a.s, etc..) ‘Brain Sex’ states that male & female brains are different. Males are more compartmentalized/organizational, females’ are more nebulous. Resulting, females are more “multi-tasking” many topics, but they seldom concentrate into them. Notice the similarity with this type of thinking with Feminism? Similar to babbling, women tumble from one topic to another, splashing emotionally with every little thing without knowing such things well. Due to their emotional inconsistency, they more easily change, which is why children need to be set straight with the man’s foundation that is less fleeting. This is why there are few female philosophers. (There are some male philosophies – the nihilists, & others – still bonded to carry the instincts to perform in their philosophy. Philosophers like Michael Tsarion who are still concerned with performing & impressing that it degrades themselves. What are you doing? you might as well not even speak.) The arrogance of Ayn Rand: “get out of my way, if you stumble, get realistically tired, die” is what her philosophy translated to, & she wasn’t reinventing-the-wheel. She was mostly just a promoter of consumerism, which is actually not that much different from postmodernity. It’s just that her’s differed by the commitment to the fluctuations of materialism, while postmodernity is the commitment to the fluctuations of nebulous, artistic nonsense, & I’m not typing about technical, quality art. I’m talking about pollution. The mentality is retained by a vast percentage of females: “The confident don’t seek validation.” But you ,in fact, need others to hear you to make cohesion & to teach them. That’s also how the scientific method is. It’s only now that the “Mtv.”-losers, as I have dubbed them, have the Nietzche mentality that they’re all important because there’s a market for it, & it’s now become the standard – “I’m coming out with a new album on myspace-shirt”, “I’m a cam-star”, etc.. Others will try to say there was more to Nietzsche’s philosophy. Sure, what was more was like what was typed earlier of splashing extra stuff because he – himself – was stuck on performing. He was more of an anti-philosopher, actually, emphasizing boasting his will. This is one of, if not the most memorable philosophers, so, naturally, the “Mtv.”-people, when trying to make themselves seem smarter, will use him as a reference point the same way that Nietzsche used hyperbole to inflate himself. That combined with the pick-up-artist, etc., performances, is how we have males sparing females the boredome/”creepyness”/”pathetic” displays to do things by intuition. So they don’t want the validation to make commitment because commitment is obviously antithetical to their prerogative to change their minds by their emotional fluctuations, but the females still crave the validation from other females because females are the most prone to the who-does-she-think-she-is/collectivism mentality, & if you can dispaly reaction over thought, of course, the female consenus will be willing to assimilate you as appropriate for their level.
    When I type that the “Mtv.” thing is effeminate, they think of it in terms of making fun of them for not having gym memberships, etc.. That juvenile iconography – that’s not it at all. I type of them being effeminate in terms of psychological interaction of context to female collectivism. The apathy & anti-rationalism, & a list of other bad traits set by the feminine, of theirs is feminine. When something they should be concerned about happens, “it’s funny”, “it’s not a big deal”, “it’s cute”, “it’s novel”, “It’s interesting”, & because they don’t know how to judge, it “leaks out”, for a lack of a better description, of them bickering about the bros-vs.-indies, poseurs-vs.-non – the juvenile or even passive aggressive maneuvers of dogmatism confined to window-dressing & gluttonous dissipation, & we get this in m.r.a. spaces as well who don’t know how to judge human psychology properly as the s.j.w.s-vs.-that, etc.

    Worldwide surveys have found that American women are considered as the world’s worst wives, otherwise why are there so many thousands of websites on the internet trying to arrange marriages between American and foreign women, while having nearly zero websites trying to arrange marriages between American women and foreign men?
    Modern women enjoy being persued by the bad-boys, the ignorant, thugs, stylishly unproductive people – what I have dubbed as the “Mtv.”-losers, & do not usually like the nice-guys. Outwardly, modern women will show some displeasure with bad-boys, as if they are unhappy, but, they are quite satisfied.
    This is the psychology of women, & this tendency may also be with women of any country, not just America. The difference is that women in some different societies & countries have these negative traits only hidden. American women make absolutely no apologies about choosing the bad boys & the ignorant over the nice guys & the proper. Women are with the proper males, but it’s not a real desire. American & western women are not pleasant to be around – they are constantly being arrogant and so on. What sane man would want anything to do with such disgusting women?

    Most American/western/modern women are also incapable of love, & will murder their own children without hesitation. Over 50 million babies have been murdered through abortion during the past 40 years in America. Therefore, the viciousness & un-proper associations is obvious. The maternal drive – largely a myth. Women use that vague plan of child-producing as an excuse to measure for their greed.

    80% of the criminals in the U.S. prison system came of homes where divorce took place, further that heinious men were also raised by a single mother. So feminism not only ruins men’s lives, it ruins the lives of the children as well, turning them into either weaklings, losers, or dangerous criminal/thug types.

    You cannot make a man love a woman by the woman being arrogant & trying to force her way onto the man.

    I will admit, just being realistic, that European man is superior with inovation, technology, etc., but one thing they got wrong was chivalry. Derivatives of the European culture will even agree, because of the chivalry they enact, that you – males – are “creepy”, “weak”, etc., because of the chivalrous attitude that she can sense something. What’s actually happening is that the females of white society are not taking proper men when 18, which would cause a net gain for everyone due to more inovation ( I don’t necessarily believe in the “over-population” thing, but that’s whole other chapters.)The chivalry has allowed these females to waste time clubbing, etc., & to be extra picky, neglectful, & abusive to decent, good, proper, intelligent men, then when they get to their late 20s & towards 30s, they start to become more concerned for familial matters. By that time, they only contribute a minimal amount towards inovation, or none.

    The welfare system in the West, both in Europe & in North America, is one of the reasons of declining economy. Women have become leeches, basically. This is proof of how stupid women actually are.

    Feminism didn’t “make” women a certain way. Feminism simply made females’ traits more obvious, & there are plenty of arrogant, immature, illogical women who don’t subscribe to Feminism. It’s actually more accurate to say that females created Feminism by having the daddy-state, the marxists, etc., perform for them, while female nature has & still remains. Females are collectivists, & this whole article makes it known how females want males to act a certian way.
    The definition of Marxism is compeer preservation contigent of matter.

    When I was younger, there was this female that I half-liked, but she was ruining it for me because of how depraved she was. I didn’t even discover that there are entire terms for her psychology until much later, like hybristophilia, & other terms. She was wanting to get involved with this guy who was a singer of a band. I told her how bad of a person he actually was & how he bullied his way. Rather than her trying to understand what I was saying, she actually reversed it & made it seem like I was a problem because I ruined her good time.
    I’ve known females that called me “trashy” when they were engaged to drug dealers. That’s been the repeating patterns.

    Largely what I’m typing is anecdotal – true, but the anecdotes are consistent with the cognitive & other science, & there is more & more anecdotes from a large sector who were ruined by this feminine nonsense accumulating on the internet – the men who are not being listened to because they were never entertaining.

    The mass culture bounded by the performing can mostly remain on the cosmetic. The female m.r.a. can only see the “bone deep” sociological actions. However, the ultimate realists can understand the CORE, past the cosmetics, past the “bone deep” level – the nature of psychology, sexology, the science, & I’ll dare even type the fuzzy philosophy – the stuff that makes you look “crazy,” & I’ll dare even type the rhetoric that is somtimes useful for motivation. If you have something strong to say & you use metaphors, a female m.r.a. will try to interject. You’re allowed to be the “vicious guard dog” for females. You are encouraged to be a man with a dash of grey hair that females sexualize. Men get grey hair from stress. A vicious guard dog usually becomes that way from abuse. You are encouraged to be a rugged man with scars on his chest, but if you want to use metaphors to express how females put masculinity in an unhealthy state, they’ll call you, disregarding the process, “bad.” I used to do documentaries for a short while previously. I sent one of them to a female m.r.a.. There was a disclaimer on it on the fact that the program I used made the tone of my voice sound annoying. The female m.r.a. only fixated on the delivery. When you get a bunch of females gathering to gossip based on the facile, whether in the workforce, or wherever, you’re going to have disaster. So when you have female m.r.a.s hijacking the m.r.a.s, you’re going to have dilution & mediocrity.
    We all know that women gossip for ~3 hours, even the oblivious culture knows this, over the pettiest little things, & they have Fox-news pumping them to be alarmed by things that aren’t even likely going to happen to her & aren’t even real issues.

    “Citations for life?” See how petty women are? “Do you have a citation for existence?” “Can you provide materialism & authority to confirm what I can’t think about?” Or it’s like that little cartoon meme I’ve seen of a man holding Earth, then there’s a female laying on a couch saying: “You forgot the moon & the stars” – nearly constantly nagging over everything because they can’t actually try to hear male experience. It’s also why females are the first ones to have the attitude that the “internet is for cowards & liars.” Because THEY are actually the first ones to think of a bad “wiki” type of space, but their case, they’d go to an even worse source than that, they’d go sample a lounge, or something. Their projections due to being non-objective – because they can’t check the science, & because they don’t find the delivery aesthetically pleasing, they’ll want to claim it’s false. But how would they know anyway? A projection is when someone claims that another does such-&-such because that person who is claiming is extrapolating via what he or she would do or be limited to, & I have just typed that females are limited to the delivery. They all hate MGTOW & the like, especially the females, because we’re not saying this in a public setting for their fixations on the displays. When Milo Yiannopoulos goes to debate with Feminists in public, the free man that he is from the feminine evaluation of entertainment, which I’m not saying we should emmulate homosexuality, (but that would be funny) all they can do is find a bad-day that he had on Twitter, etc. – no logical arguements, just displays of a stamina with proxemics, kinesics, slogans that sound good, etc..

    Citations: ‘Cognitive Neuroscience – The Biology Of The Mind’ by Michael S. Gazzaniga, Richard B. Ivry, & George R. Mangum pg. 602, ‘The Inevitability Of Patriarchy’ by Steven Goldberg, pg. 204-207, ‘The Essential Difference’ by Simon Baron-Cohen, pgs.:187-207, & ‘The Encyclopedia Of The Human Brain’ by V.S. Ramachandran, pg. 301]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s