Imputed Income Trap

It seems the founder of The Spearhead might be in trouble. Please read Keoni Galt’s article here.

Posted in Manosphere | Tagged | 1 Comment

On slutwalks

I made a few comments here but after a while the next one got stuck with “awaiting moderation”. Funny how this works.

I didn’t want it to go to waste because I think it contains an important point, so here it is:


Ths slutwalkers would have a point if anybody would say anything like this:

If your skirt is too short or you drink too much it will be you who will be prosecuted if you get raped.

The slutwalk is a relevant answer to this non-existent notion. Nobody says this but feminists sure act like it’s in the mainstream or somethin’.

What the policeman in Toronto, and all the others have said is you can decrease your risks of being victimized by following a certain number of guidelines.
…which is basically nothing more than saying:
You can decrease risks by taking less risks.
Which of course can’t be anything but 100% true, it’s effectively self-evident.

What the slutwalkers say is:
1. risks can’t or shouldn’t be decreased
2. taking unnecessary risks should not lead to other people recognising your own responsibility in taking those unnecessary risks.

Both are extremely stupid, and outright harmful to women. It discourages them from excercising caution and leads to more risks being taken. The sad truth is the slutwalk directly results in more rapes happening, because for these feminists their ideology trumps everything, even decreasing the number of actual rapes.

Posted in Feminism | Tagged | 9 Comments

The bleeding heart thought process

I vaguely remember talking about this in a galaxy far, far away, but still, it’s a topic worthy of some reiteration.

The oft used liberal/feminist/SJW/cultural marxist thought process goes like this:

1. Tolerance is a value.

2. I am tolerant.

3. …therefore I am a good guy.

4. If you disagree with a tolerant person you must be intolerant.

5. If you’re intolerant you’re a bad guy.

6. If a good guy and a bad guy argue, truth is automatically on the side of the good guy.

7. A bad guy’s ideas are thus automatically invalid, not even worthy of analyzing or debating.

8. You lose, I win.

9. And I am a tolerant person despite invalidating your opinion out of hand, not even listening to it. Tolerant people do not actually have to put up with intolerant people’s intolerant bullshit, you know. Being tolerant does not mean you should actually tolerate anything. Besides, agreeing with other tolerant people is proof enough of me also being tolerant.

Posted in Feminism, Politics | Tagged , | 1 Comment

The land of what?

Via reddit I found an interesting article about the Snowden incident and its wider implications. I know many of you are fed up with it already but this piece might be worth reading nevertheless. Excerpt:

If Snowden were a criminal, he could have exploited the data. Or sold it to identity thieves. Or, even sold it to a foreign enemy.

But in order to do the right thing — and expose the crime — Snowden would have to give up his own life and throw himself on the mercy of the ordinary citizens of the world.

Yes, the collection of this kind of personal data is illegal in almost every nation in the world.

The right to privacy from electronic surveillance is granted in most national constitutions. This expectation of privacy has been declared a human right by the UN. It is a crime to collect it secretly.

It may be hard for Americans to wrap their minds around this concept because, in their case, human rights are not directly conferred upon them, constitutionally — and can be suspended by the Executive Branch or the high court at any time, if it is deemed (often secretly) to be in the best interest of the “defense” of the nation.

Read that last sentence again.

You are living in that reality. The citizens of other nations are not. Their constitutions declare and affirm human rights that are specific to the 21st century issues.

Americans have have little expectation of general human rights, many of which were circumvented by the Patriot Act. But, right now, the rest of the world is dismayed and outraged that the US has illegally breached their sovereign laws to spy on their citizens and businesses.

The world regards what the NSA is doing as an international crime and a direct violation of their human rights.

If our goal in countering terrorism is to provide for the security of individuals and preserve the rule of law, such practices are… counterproductive,” [UN rights chief Navi Pillay] said.

Posted in Conspiracies, Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Most people don’t know how to debate

When it comes to debating, there are two types of people. One is interested in the topic and wants to know the truth about it. The other wants to win the debate at all costs by proving his moral superiority.

“Clearly I am a better person than my opponent therefore my views are valid and his aren’t.”

Sadly modern education does not give a fuck about the truth, and does not teach students to have an inquisitive mind. In fact it indoctrinates them that being “good” is more important than being honest or truthful. Political correctness is a clear manifestation of this tendency. The schools don’t care if what you’re saying is true or not, the only thing that matters is you don’t hurt the feelings of someone in an officially sanctioned victim group.

Thanks to this 90% of people on the internet can’t debate. They leave school imprinted with the thought that they are good, politically correct people, and they hold the right opinion on every subject. Those who disagree with them are not only wrong but also bad people! And since they can’t actually debate, because they lack the skills to build logical arguments, and since they are trying to defend views that are mostly false (politically correct means it’s not actually correct…) they don’t have any other choice but to attack the other person. Hence insults, shaming, ad hominems. All the other fallacies are just icings on the cake, halfhearted attempts at debating without the support of being actually right backing them up. Hence appeal to authority, to the majority, to emotions.

So, what if I like vanilla ice cream and some social justice warrior thinks vanilla is racist, sexist or whatever? His argument will look like this:

Your hatred of chocolate shows how much of a ****ist you are. My studies show that chocolate is just as good as vanilla because ekvalitee, in fact it’s better because oppression! Your studies are invalid because ****ism. You are morally inferior because you fail to understand that political correctness. I deeply care about designated victim group so I’m a good guy, and if you oppose a good guy you must be a bad guy. If you care about acceptable targets of hate you are taking their side against designated victim groups which makes you even more evil. You can’t be right, therefore it is absolutely unnecessary to address (or even read) your points or to refute your arguments. Everything you say is automatically invalid because I am morally superior.

Most people on the internet follow this pattern and couldn’t argue logically or factually to save their lives.

Posted in Feminism, Manosphere | Tagged , | 4 Comments

A cautionary tale from “Feministhate”

This is an excerpt, read the rest over there. If it’s unclear, he’s talking about men having the only “option” of working full time, women having a lot more choices available to them.


Imagine there’s a party buffet and all the men and women are lined up separately. The women are told they may take any of the items at the buffet. Anything at all, or they can pick and chose some of this and some of that.

The men however are told they can only take cake. Its cake or nothing. They have no choice.

Now its easy to see this represents discrimination against men, not women. No woman is going to demand to be placed in the men’s line! Even if she fully intends to load up with nothing but cake, she’s better off with the CHOICE. Hey, cake isn’t such a bad thing, right? But most people, given the choice, aren’t just going to take cake are they?

All the men of course will take all cake.

Then the feminist hoaxers come along and they decide to complain that women are soooo oppresed by the fact that they have the priviledge to all those choices men don’t have. That’s tough, how are they going to hoax people like that when its so obvious women are better off?

Simple: they only count cake. Nothing else counts. They actually pretend there isn’t anything else going on at all — sort of ignore that and hope no one catches on. They scream loudly “it so unfair that the men have more cake! the women must be given more cake!”.

They prove men have more cake — not by comparing men with the few women (eg single women to pierce the analogy!) who chose to only have cake — those women got just as much cake as the men did. No, they compare the total amount of cake men get with the women, but they don’t count in any of the other stuff the women chose to get instead of cake.

What a hoax! What a good way of making women hate men, and of campaigning for discrimination against men. Soon the government steps in and say women need to be given more cake because feminists have “proven” that they get less.

Feminists have managed to pull of their anti-male discrimination AND blamed men AND pretend they are only wanting equality! Talk about having your cake and eat it.

Posted in Feminism, Linkage | Tagged , | 2 Comments

A gold nugget from reddit

Original posted here as a comment, quoted in full:


  1. Many men have trouble finding physical and emotional intimacy
  2. Men are given terrible advice to fix this

Or, more generally, our society’s plan for men isn’t good for them, personally.

Now, men have never had an easy ride unless they were one of the aristocracy. We’ve always been the labouring sex, the risk-taking sex, the disposable sex. In the world of the past, those burdens came with rewards for the those of us who survived our disposability.

Now those rewards have been called “privileges”, and taken away. (And the burdens have been called “privileges”, too, but have not been taken away.)

Now, when something unfair happens to a woman, her usual response to point this unfairness out to whoever appears to have power. But men, being less submissive, tend to blame ourselves, ask “What am I doing wrong?”, and try to change either our behaviour or our environment (by going elsewhere).

So the first thing we got was a generation or two of men thinking that we, personally, were no good, and was why we couldn’t get laid, or why we couldn’t get jobs, or why we couldn’t pay off our student loans, or why we came home from the war broken and unable to fit back in, or why our marriages exploded and we lost our children, our homes, and our livelihoods.

So we looked to women to tell us what it was we were doing wrong. After all, many of our problems were with them, and even if they weren’t, women seemed to be prospering. On top of that, they seemed to have this mysterious power to love themselves unconditionally. And everyone, everywhere, kept telling us to treat them with kindness and respect, and even reverence, because they could do anything we could do, anything at all, even backwards and in heels.

And when a man sees someone doing better than him, his first impulse is not to stab, but to try to learn.

And women were certainly willing to give us advice. Oh, boy, were they ever willing to give us advice. Page after page, speech after speech, of what we should and shouldn’t do, who we should and shouldn’t be, what they wanted, what they didn’t, exactly what a man’s role was and wasn’t. Women were all too willing to define masculinity for us, if asked. Or even if not asked.

And, of course, when we followed this advice, things got worse.

And gradually we came to realize that when we asked these “new women”, empowered by feminism, what a man should do, they didn’t hear “What should a man’s life be like?”, they heard “What do you want for christmas?”.

No one answering was giving any thought at all to what might happen to us in the process of fulfilling women’s ambitions and fantasies.

We woke up to the fact that women’s lists of what a man should do were the equivalent of a 12 year old girl asking daddy for a pony. She doesn’t worry about whether daddy can actually afford to buy her one, because she’s aware that daddy is older and wiser and more worldly than her, and will figure out for himself if he can do that, and is willing to. She knows he will probably tell her “no”, and if she throws a tantrum on hearing it, that’s just to make sure it’s a firm “no” without any wiggle room.

All this time, the same feminist-indoctrinated women who were loudly and repeatedly assuring us they were at least our equals in every way… were simultaneously treating us as if we were gods who had the power to give them anything at all, so long as we could be persuaded to.

And we fell down on the road to Damascus. We realized that we were still in charge. That we had always been in charge. And we would remain in charge for as long as women looked to us to give them things and solve their problems.

Every feminist lobbying for paid maternity leave is a submissive asking daddy to care for her. Every “men can stop rape” poster is a woman admitting she cannot protect herself. Every woman complaining that we shouldn’t portray women like that in video games is a woman saying “I can’t make my own video games, please consider my wishes when you make them for both of us”. Every woman asking men for a better deal is a woman on her knees.

Feminism was never about female independence. If it were, it would not require men to cooperate or even notice. They wouldn’t need us to give them jobs if they started their own businesses. They wouldn’t need us to give them “equal pay” if they were doing the hiring. They wouldn’t need laws mandating maternity leave and free birth control if they were the ones setting, and paying, employee benefits. They wouldn’t need “no means no” if they were the ones making the sexual advances. They wouldn’t need “men can stop rape” if they took responsibility for defending themselves from psychos.

So all we have to do is stop. Say no. You can have a slightly bigger allowance, but you cannot have a pony.

That’s what the Red Pill is. Not some fool notion that women are horrible selfish bitches. Not the idea that men “should be” in charge. Just the realization that men are in charge, that we will be until the day women stop asking for, or even accepting, things from us. That if we’re in charge, we’re gonna have to take some responsibility for putting the brakes on.

We are the ones who need to say, no, a woman cannot have it all.

She has to share.

Posted in Feminism, Manosphere, MRM | Tagged , | 3 Comments