Monthly Archives: October 2013

Lightning Round – 2013/10/30

Shattering the delusion; a must-read for Christian men. I’ve come to a similar conclusion in the last year.

SMV is real; the data supports Rollo’s chart.
Related: The deeper economics of the sexual marketplace.

The single father deficit crisis. Related.

Related: Defeating the demon of entitlement.

Rollo on NAWALT.

See a woman how she sees herself.
Related: Using “good girl”.
Related: Sadly, shallow communication is where I am the most weak.

A follow-up to the Daily Beast article of last week.

Wives and denial of sex in marriage.
Related: Lazy housewives.
Related: The love and caring of submission.
Related: Bored housewives: women need struggle.

On the proper division of housework.

HUS goes off the rails in her criticism of the SMV graph.
Related: HUS goes further off the rail in regards to rape stats.
Related: A bit more on Susan’s intelelctual failure.
Related: Man, Susan has taken a lot of criticism this week.

Jack Donovan on the 20/20 piece, the KKK, and Salon.

Basic girl game: how to land and keep a boyfriend.

Defining tradcon feminism: Theory, Principles,

The insane anti-female ideology of modern feminism.
Related: Pope Pius XI on women.

Courting, marriage, and busting rates. If she’s not happy with a very basic ring, she’s not worth marrying.

Women are either equal or they aren’t.

Can stupid, young women be held accountable?

A good post on the victim culture of the “rape culture” movement.

Now that is cynical.

Fecundophobia.

On modesty.

Maybe I should use less foul language here? “Evil words for evil things”, but is that just self-justification for using degenerate language? Hmmm…

I wonder how long until some of these divorced men start murdering the judges?

On being friends with women.

ABlack spade (cards)’s story.
Related: Francis’ journey.

Dicipres returns after a couple months to advocate spanking your wife.

“It is the OBLIGATION of any man who wants to better civilization by promoting intellectual endeavours, learning and civilized behaviour to ALSO be attractive to women.”

The distinction between the good of groups and of individuals.

Neoreaction research priorities
Related: Questions.

The underlying problem of the anti-reaction FAQ.
Related: The decline frame.
Related: In response to claims concerning Chang Hsien-chong
Related: Jim on crime against the anti-reactionary FAQ.
Related: The problem of measuring the decline.

Neoreaction is anti-utopian.

Monarchy, Schelling points, and Japan.

The necessity of propaganda.

Democracy is rule by idiots who vote for things that sound good to them at the time.”

Brian Leiter, philosopher and Brahmin paragon, wants to lock you up.

Defectives deserve death.

Why have major technological changes stopped since the 1960s?

A bleak view of the church’s immediate future.

The iron laws of pedagogy.

Half of newborns will see their parents split by 15.
Related: A divorced friend or relative greatly increases odds of divorce.

How to fight the welfare bums.

Looking forward to our future of eating beans.

America Inc. and the trouble with Texas.
Related: A book review and a good discussion of immigration.
Related: Immigration and female coders.

Race, crime, and the creation of banlieus in America.

The outrages of public school are not a failing; they’re the goal.

The curse of the middle class: the ambiguity of status.

The pill and the doctrine of double effect.

Hehe… Steve Sailer with a great little quip.

Secular theism.

25 reasons for Trinitarian scepticism.

Against ADHD.

Advice for preppers.

“The whole purpose of politics and hence of government is to reward failure, if people succeed and prosper, the they don’t need government. Politicians* promise unearned rewards, and the more vicious ones promise to penalise success. Some set out to penalise success and promise reward to those who set them on their way.”

The seen and unseen in Sweden. I noticed similar in Norway; a pizza was about $30-40 and a McD’s cheeseburger meal was about $10.

The problem of the 40-hour work week.

The government wants to start tracking your car, at some point.

Armed citizen prevents mass shooting.

Wow… That’s one awesome 10-year-old.

Pepper-spraying cop awarded $38k in damages.

Gays: the creation of a voting bloc.

A great post on healthcare.
Related: Obama knowingly lied about people not losing their insurance. I’m surprised.
Related: Once more, those in pain must suffer to protect the failures from themselves.

Just another example of the institutionalized lies of the left.

France: A warning on the self-limiting nature of government.

Why should banks be able to blame the victims of identity thefts for the banks’ errors?

The philosophical failure of modern science.
Related: Science has lost its way.

The changing politics of public sector pensions.

Food stamp enrollment increased by 70%.

(H/T: Phantom Soapbox, Rex, CC, Foseti, Instapundit)

Omega’s Guide – Women

We come to the last part of our guide, learning basic interaction with women. I left this for last on purpose; being attractive to women is primarily about demonstrating value to them and the prior advice will turn you into a (more) valuable man. (Game, or at least outer game, succeeds by mimicking the traits that demonstrate value; better to be than to mimic). If you’ve been implementing the previous parts of the guide, your value will already have increased, and you may have already noticed more success (or at least less failure) with women.

Before I begin, I’m going to be honest with you, as I’ve been rather uncomfortable about writing this part. I am mostly a failure in this area; I’m not sure if I’m even qualified to write this, but I have to, because this part is essential to any self-improvement guide for awkward males.

So, you should know that I’m not a player, a master of seduction, or any such thing. I’m not even all that successful with women. In fact, my romantic efforts have proven mostly fruitless in finding myself a wife and I haven’t been in a relationship in about four years. Everything I write here is stuff I’m still working on implementing (theory is a lot easier than practice).

What I do have is experience from being a total loser who wasn’t even in the dating game to having some success. I went from, literally, not being to speak with most women to, a couple of years later, having a couple short relationships. Now, I get occasional dates (one every few months) with moderately attractive women (6-8s). A vast improvement over the nothing I had prior.

So, the advice given here is not about game, it is not about becoming an alpha male, and it’s not about becoming king of the club. This advice will not help you find a smoking-hot 9 for a girlfriend or keep a rotating harem of 8s. I do not have the knowledge or experience to help you with that. If you’re looking for something like that try Roosh or Greene.

What this advice will help you accomplish is to go from being the loser who hasn’t had a date in three years (or ever for that matter) or is forced to date fat or unattractive girls to being a normal, socially well-adjusted man who can get the occasional date with a cute girl and, maybe, a moderately attractive girlfriend. If you’re the kind of person I’m making this guide for, that will be a large improvement over whatever you had (or more likely didn’t have) previously. Even if you’re not as total a loser as I was, some of the advice still might be useful to you.

This advice will not get into game in the sense of gimmicks, tricks, or “mind-games. It is simply about building yourself the social skills to be the kind of man a women of decent value might like to be with.

It will take a lot of work, and it will be a slow, grinding process. Don’t give up, keep trying. Simply remember how psyched you have been and will be in the future when you find yourself doing something you never thought you’d be able to do.

****

Before we being, we’ll talk on the friendzone, a trap many men near the bottom of the socio-sexual hierarchy fall into.

The friendzone is a self-inflicted misery; stay out of it. If you value a woman as a friend, and only as a friend, be her friend and expect and desire nothing else. If something happens, it happens, but do not work towards it, do not look for it, do not desire it, and do not expect it.

It is highly unlikely you will get a relationship out of a friendzone friendship and it is very costly in terms of time and emotional effort. It is simply not something any reasonable person would pursue.

So don’t.

If you are friends with a women because you want a romantic relationship with her, then be forthright. Next time you see her, tell her straight, “I desire a romantic relationship with you. I can not remain friends with you because of my romantic emotions towards you.”

Maybe you’ll get a romantic relationship, maybe you won’t, but it is far better for you (and her) if you are rejected and end the “friendship”

If you don’t get the relationship, simply cut off the “friendship”. Stop spending time, resources, or emotional energy on her. You have better things to do with all three than waste it on a forlorn and pointless hope. Do not try to change her mind (you won’t); simply accept the rejection and move on.

If she asks why you cut her off, tell her the truth. You want a romantic relationship with her, not a friendship.

You can be friends with a woman, but only if the friendship is the end in itself. If the friendship is a means to a romantic relationship, it’s not a friendship; end it.

****

The next little trouble many men who are are socially maladapted fall into is that of “nice guys finish last” while jerks get the girls.

The problem with this type of thinking is twofold: “nice” and “good” are not equivalent and the underlying factor is not jerkiness/niceness but rather a combination of manliness, charisma,and desperation.

Whatever their other flaws, the jerks who get women exude masculinity, which attracts women and often charisma (of a sort); they also rarely exude desperation. “Nice guys” are generally deficient in both, as rather than assert their own purposes, they defer to other’s, particularly women’s, purposes. This is decidedly unmasculine. Nice guys often also lack charisma, it’s boring to have someone who is always nice and agreeable with you and never challenges you.  Being nice often gives of a vibe of desperation as well. As with the friendzone predicament, if you’re willing to do many nice things for a woman, she will see you as trying to “buy” her affections because you are desperate for his attention.

You want to avoid that, but that does not mean you have to become a “jerk”. Simply, try to be a man with your own purposes and make those purposes good ones.

Be a good man dedicated to good causes; don’t be a nice guy willing to defer to everyone else.

****

With that friendzone and nice guys nonsense out of the way, we’ll get to the actual meat of the issue.

The first thing you need to do is decide, “what kind of woman do I want?” and “for what purposes?” What kind of woman or women do you want to invite into your ideal life?

“I’ll take whatever I can get” is the wrong answer. It shows both that you are low value and that you are desperate for female attention, both of which are inner failings on your part which will repel women.

Women want a man of high value; what type of high value each woman will care for will depend on her particularity, but all women want a man of high value. The type of women you want to date will likely be of high enough value to be able to demand that.

Also, every women wants to feel like she was chosen because she’s “special.” If she thinks you stuck with her because she’s the only one you could get, she’ll reject you (unless she’s such low value herself that she thinks you’re the best she can get).

So, now be honest with yourself, what kind of woman do you want in your life? What kind of relationship(s) would you like to have?

Think on it a bit.

****

Now that you have an idea of what you want, picture the type of man who has what you want. Look around at your friends, your church, your neighbourhood, your social group, etc. What type of men have the kind of woman you want?

Be that type of man.

Success with women starts well before you even say hi to any women.

It starts by being the type of man the type of woman you desire would desire.

This is nowhere near as easy as the little phrase makes it sound, but it’s the goal. You may never reach it, but work towards it.

I’ll repeat it, because I can not stress this enough:

To be successful with women, you should first be successful with the other areas of your life. Success is attractive to women.

There is no secret to attracting women, there is no shortcut, there is no magic technique; to attract a women simply requires

So keep on improving in all the other areas I’ve already written about.

****

One last piece of theory before we get to practice.

Know your value on the dating market and act accordingly. If you are a short, ugly man, you will likely never get a “9” (barring becoming a billionaire). On the other hand, with enough self-improvement, social skills, and value-building you might get a nice “7”.

If you spend all your time pursuing those 9s who will always reject you, but ignore that sweet little 7 with a crush on you, you will die alone.

Shoot for something attainable, but don’t settle. You want to work on finding a women on the upper edge of what you are able to obtain.

Look for a winning hand, not a perfect hand. If you hold out for a royal flush, you’ll almost surely lose, but that three of a kind will let you take the pot.

****

Theory is over, now for more practical advice.

The first thing you need to do is to talk with women. You’ll never get any romantic success if you don’t start talking with women.

Start with that girl you’ve been mooning over for the past 6 months, but have been unable to talk to (you know full well who I’m talking about). Next time you see her, go up to her, say “Hi, how’s your week been?” Then simply follow along, nod your head where appropriate, and ask questions or interject with your own stories (if you can). Let her carry most of the burden of conversation.

Your first time will probably be pathetic and you’ll probably be scared the whole time.

Good; face the fear.

Next time you see her, do the exact same thing, but a little better. The next time, do the same thing. From now on every time you see that girl, go up to her, ask her how her week (or day, or month, or whatever) has been, and try your best to talk along. (Remember your Dale Carnegie).

After a few weeks have gone by and you’ve talked with her a few times, ask her out. It’s simple: “Would you like to go for coffee (or in summer, ice cream) with me this Friday at 7?

She’ll probably say no because you didn’t interest her enough with your pathetic attempts at conversation. Accept that she’s going to reject you before you ask and don’t worry about it.

She’s rejected you: that’s great. I know it hurts, but what is far more important is that you tried, you asked her out.

Accept her answer, accept that she doesn’t like you, hurt for a few days or a week or two. Then get over it.

One woman rejected you and there are millions of cute girls out there. Go find another one.

If there is a women you moon over, who you already talk with regularly, just ask her out. A simple, “Wanna go for coffee with me Tuesday night at 6?” will do. See my advice in the friend zone section above.

****

So now we’re at the point where you don’t really have any girl you particularly like, because “she” rejected you.

Good. Time to meet some women.

If you’ve been following along in the guide so far, you’ve probably been meeting lots of new people at your new social activities; I’m sure at least a few of them are pretty girls. Talk to them.

Do exactly what you did with the first girl. “Hi? How has your week been?” Nod where appropriate, ask questions about her (remember your Dale Carnegie), and talk when you can.

Your conversations with women will be awkward and painful at first. Don’t expect success right away. Simply talk as best you can. Every conversation you have will make you slightly better at it. Over time, without even really realizing it, you’ll become proficient. Just keep at it.

Talk with as many girls as you can. The more practice the better.

If you develop a particular fondness for a girl after a few conversations, simply ask her out. Same as above: “Let’s go for coffee for Sunday afternoon.”

You’ll probably get rejected a number of times before you get success. That’s fine, simply accept it and move on.

Don’t get too attached to any particular girl. If you find yourself getting attached to a girl, ask her out. From personal experience I know it is far less painful to be rejected immediately then to drag it out.

Keep talking to the girls in your social circles and keep asking out the ones you like; keep getting rejected.

As you do this, remember what you learned about body language and try (as best you can) to observe the body language of the girls you talk to. It can be a great help to pick up on her tells of whether she’s attracted to you or not.

Then, at some point one will accept your offer of a date.

****

So, now you have a date. Here’s how to go about a first date.

Depending on where you and her live and your transportation systems, you can either pick her up or meet her. Either works, but if she doesn’t have a car and you do either pick her up or meet near her. She will not appreciate having to bus or walk long distances to meet you.

Arrive on time, but do not arrive more than a minute or two early (wait in the car or around the corner if you have to). Arriving early makes you seem desperate and is rather awkward for her. If you’re picking her up, get out of your car and get her; don’t just sit outside and honk.

A good general idea for first dates is gelati/ice cream in the summer or hot chocolate/coffee in the winter for a few reasons:

  • They’re cheap, this avoids the “who pays?” awkwardness. $4 coffee won’t cause you much fiscal pain and she won’t feel bad about it. Simply pay for both of you; don’t ask her, don’t consult her. Simply tell the clerk you’re paying for both of you and ignore her “objections”.  Pay in cash if possible; little will be more embarrassing than your debit not working because the bank is undergoing maintenance.
  • The atmosphere around these is relaxed, unlike dinner dates which are more formal, and ideal for talking, unlike movies.
  • Girls love ice cream; I’ve never met a girl who didn’t like ice cream (or a vegan alternative). Go for gelato if you can though. It’s enough like ice cream that everybody loves it and it won’t be off-putting, but just foreign enough that a lot of girls haven’t tried it, giving you a tiny amount of “worldly man” edge.
  • Everybody loves hot chocolate on a cold day; it just feels right. Most places that serve coffee serve hot chocolate and vice versa. Order the hot chocolate, and let her choose whatever drink she wants.

When choosing an ice cream/coffee place choose one that is either near a larger park or is in a “walkable”, attractive neighbourhood, preferably a place you’ve been around before.

Once you have your beverages, don’t sit down, instead, go for a walk through the park/ neighbourhood. This has a few advantages:

  • You’re doing something. Awkward pauses in conversation are far less awkward when you can both simply walk and admire the scenery.
  • Walking lends itself far easier and more naturally to playfulness and energy than sitting at a table or on a couch.
  • The scenery lends itself to creating conversation topics. Point out the cool looking dog, laugh at the garish colours of that odd house, remark upon that beautiful tree; whatever. There’s a lot more to talk about when walking around then when sitting down.
  • If you know the area, if lends itself well to telling stories showing you have a full life (which is attractive to women). You can talk about the great pizza you had with your friends at Luigi’s, about the soccer game you won at the field over there, about that amusing story with your friends at that pub, or whatever other experiences you’ve had.

Note: If it’s winter or a blustery day, make sure to mention to her that you plan on going for a walk either when you ask her out or when you pick her up so she can dress appropriately. The walk will not happen if she’s not dressed for it.

Now that you’re out walking, what to talk about:

  • Do not talk about politics, economics, religion, or other controversial issues unless she brings it up first or you know (for certain) that she’s really interested in them. If you both share the same core religious beliefs, you can talk about that, but avoid deep theology, unless, of course, she brings it up.
  • Do not talk about your hobbies that women find boring (ex. video games, science fiction, Warhammer), unless you know she shares those interests. You can mention them if she asks what you like to do, but don’t spend any time on them. Nobody cares about your lvl 17 Orc Paladin.
  • Avoid talking about your job, unless it’s very interesting. If she asks mention it, but most of use have relatively uninteresting jobs; don’t bore her by dwelling on them.
  • Do ask questions. Ask about her about herself, her family, her hopes, her dreams, her hobbies, etc. (remember your Dale Carnegie), but avoid it being an interrogation. After you ask about her family, tell her a bit about yours or remark about . If you find yourself asking two questions in a row you’re probably doing it wrong.
  • Talk about yourself. Let her get to know you. Talk about your (interesting) hobbies, your sports, your family, your recent trip, what you read recently, your friends, etc. But make sure to include her in the conversation; if you’ve been talking for more than few minutes without her saying anything (unless it’s a long, but good story) you’re doing it wrong.
  • Talk about stuff you see or stuff going on around you.

All these conversation “rules” are solely to help you get conversation started (or restarted after an awkward pause). Once it’s started, let the conversation flow naturally. If you’ve got a good conversation going don’t ruin it by trying to hard or trying to stick to a set of rules. Simply go with the flow.

End the date at the right time. If things are going well and conversation is flowing, keep going, let the date continue, don’t cut it off when things are going well. On the other hand, if there’s a natural end point and you’re running out of things to say, end the date. (Ex: “There’s my car” or after a longer pause “I have things to do, we should head back”)

Don’t try to awkwardly prolong the date; end it a bit before it becomes awkward, and try to end it naturally.

Finally we get to parting. If you’re dropping her off, get out of the car and walk her to her door. If you met up, walk her to her car or bike. If you both walked, don’t just awkwardly walk away; make a definite part.

So how do you part?

That depends on a large number of factors such as how well the date went, your comfort level, her apparent comfort level, how much you like her, her apparent like for you, and your (and her) views regarding physical intimacy.

Whatever it is do not draw it out. Once you are at the parting point, make it short, a few sentences and a parting hug/kiss. Do not keep blathering away like an idiot; it makes things awkward.

If you don’t want to see her again, a hug or handshake, and a thanks for the date will suffice. Do not tell you’ll call her if you won’t. Thank her for the date and tell her you enjoyed meeting her.

If you do want another date, then tell her you enjoyed the date. Then either tell her when and how you’ll contact her again (something like, “I’ll call you in the next couple days) or if you know your schedule, lock down the next date (“I’d like to see you again, how about next Friday night?”).

Follow this with some physical contact, depending on how the date went and your comfort level. A few types of contact are always bad, such as a parting handshake or a side hug (the way I too often end a date). Here’s some good types of physical contact to end a date with:

  • A full kiss. This is high risk. If you go for this and get it, you can be sure the date went well, but not all girls are comfortable with it and there’s a good chance it could flame out. As well, some, such as myself, may think it is too high a physical ecalation for such an early time. Go for this if you’re both really digging each other and you’re comofrtable with it. If she turns her cheek, that’s fine; if she pushes away you’ve blown it.
  • A full hug. This is the safe move; it’s neutral and won’t win you any points but its positive, will rarely be rejected, and won’t lose you points (except among the most licentious of women). Make sure you lead and make it a confident chest to chest press with both your arms around her. Don’t lean over, don’t fumble awkwardly trying to avoid her breasts, don’t do a side hug, don’t make it awkward, and don’t be tenative about it. Commit to it fully and just go for it. Hold it for two or three seconds, but no longer.
  • A light kiss on the forehead or top of the head. This has some intimacy to it and can be positive, but it has a sort of paternalism to it, which may backfire on you.
  • Take her hand and give a light kiss the back of her hand, like an old school gentleman. This is usually positive, as it harkens back to chivalry and most women get a little giddy from that, but the traditionalness of it can occasionally backfire, especially with more feminist women.
  • A peck on the cheek. Fairly safe for a date that has gone well. It shows a bit of intimacy, but is not as forward as the full kiss. It can possibly end awkwardly depending on how conservative she is or if she’s not as in to you.

Then tell her “See you later” and part. Don’t wait around after the goodbye contact; it makes things awkward.

****

Now you have a second date (or third or fourth, your first few dates should all be similarly casual and give you the chance to get to know each other).

Choose something else relaxed, fun, and inexpensive, preferably something you know she likes. In a pinch, ice cream can work again, but may look a little stale.

  • If you share a hobby, doing that together would be a great idea.
  • Minigolf is good. It’s fun and relaxed. So is bowling.
  • A hike in the woods, a stroll in a large park, or a walk at the zoo or aquarium can be a good adventure. It’s relaxing, fun, and there’s plenty of interesting stuff to see, talk about.
  • Ice skating is great for the winter; it allows a great interplay between playfulness and getting to know each other.
  • Museums, art galleries, etc. can be a good trip. Make sure to choose something she might be interested in.
  • If you have a local touristy area, checking that out can be a good idea. You can walk around, admire the sites, check out the stalls, and have some casual snacks.

All of these can also work well as first date ideas.

After the first few dates, you can try dinner and a movie or, even better, cook her a meal and watch movies at your place.

After that, you’re on your own. You should know enough about her by this point to be able to figure out how to spend time together. Let things work from there.

****

Lastly, cold approaches.

This is not something you’ll be able to do right away and will always be troublesome. You’ll probably need to build up to it. I still have difficulties with it. But here’s some exercises to help you build up to it.

Start by simply looking girls in the eye and smiling (make it a confident smile), as you pass them in the streets. In fact, try to make it a habit. Do this for every girl you see for two weeks.

The next two weeks, do the same, but say hi as well. Then keep walking (unless she makes a point to start a conversation with you; in which case talk to her).

The following two weeks, do the same, but if she smiles or says hi back, ask her how her day is going.

The following two weeks, if you see a girl you think is really pretty talk to her. If the clerk at Target is cute, as her about her day. Ask the gal on the bus what she’s reading or where she’s going. Ask the girl in line with you at the coffee shop how her day has been.

If any at any time, these turn into real conversations, and it seems like she might be interested, ask for her number.

If you get it, phone her two days later and set up a date. Then go to first date protocol.

Start small, and work your way up.

****

Random Tips

  • Remember your Dale Carnegie: smile. When interacting with women, be happy, be energetic, be positive. Nobody is attracted to the morose loser. (The brooding loner can be attractive if pulled off right; but if you need my help, you aren’t going to pull it off right).
  • Remember your body language. If you can’t be confident, at least look it. Also, look to women’s body language. I can not stress enough the importance of body language.
  • Take advantages of opportunities. If a girl says she really wants to go to a new restaurant, or see a new museum exhibit, or visit some place, or try some activity, she’s handing you an opening, use it. It’s a simple, “That does sound like fun, how about we go see that local play next week?” If she hands it to you, take it.
  • No movies or dinner for your first few dates. Save movies until after you’ve known each other a while, because they don’t let you to talk during them. Save dinner until you’re actually dating, as it costs a lot, is too stereotypical (and thus “boring’), and looks try-hard.
  • Don’t be desperate. Avoid phoning her more than once a day, and don’t phone her more than once between each date for your first half-dozen dates. Don’t text her twice in a row. After a date, wait a day or two before contacting her again. You can relax on these rules once you’re in a steady relationship.
  • On the other hand, don’t go too far the other way. If you wait to long, she’ll simply not respond.
  • Try to be natural. Don’t try too hard, don’t look like you’re trying to hard. Don’t try to put on a false persona. Act natural and confident.
  • Practice. Social skills are like any other skill; you need to practice.
  • Keep eye contact.

****

Your goal:

Your goal for the week is to look every girl you pass in the streets in the eyes and smile at her.

Also, if you see “her” this week who you’ve been unable to talk to, ask her how her day is going.

If “she” is a friend or acquaintance you have talked to, ask her out.

Sex – A Response to Scott Alexander

Scott over at Slate Star Codex has created the Anti-Reactionary FAQ, probably the first rational, comprehensive critique of neoreaction. (It also turns out he like Turisas. Huzzah!) Much respect goes to Scott for this; it was a comprehensive and fair work (unlike some pieces of drek), which, over time, (neo)reactionaries will have to respond to. Michael has already done a short, preliminary response, while Jim has critiqued one particular aspect of the FAQ.

My humble blog was mentioned a couple of times. He mentioned my analysis of how the communists won, and quickly analyzes a Republican platform in response. I’ll provide a greater response to this in the future, when I have the time for a decent one.

For this post, I’ll concentrate on his section “5: Are modern ideas about race and gender wrongheaded and dangerous?” where my post, One More Condom in the Landfill, was referenced. I will be working on the gender aspect for this post and will respond by section number. So, my focus will be on 5.1-5.3, as 5.4 gets into stuff on social justice rather than sex itself. I should note Bryce has already made a post concerning this, but his is more theoretical in nature, so I will make my own.

****

5.1

Sexual surveys on lifetime partners are usually not fully reliable, as the number can vary significantly depending on estimation strategies. Women underestimate, men overestimate.

The data on lifetime partners is, as he points out, minimal. 6 for men in 1970 and 2006, 2 for women in 1970 and 4 in 2006. He ends up using French data instead, but the French are not English and have a different culture, so I’m not sure if this would hold.

Instead, let’s look at bastardy rates, a more easily measured proxy for promiscuity. As we can see on this graph of CDC data from the Heritage Foundation, bastardy has been on a steady increase since some time around 1960.

This steady increase has occurred despite the increasing availability of both the pill and abortion. It is obvious that sluttiness and promiscuity has increased.

If we look back to one of Scott’s sources we find this gem:

American illegitimacy ratios in the eighteenth century and after the Civil War seem to have been about one or two percent, well below the five or six percent found in England and Wales at the time(s) (Smith, 1980, p. 372; Wells, 1980, pp. 354-55; Laslett et al., 1980, p. 18) and very far below the 30-plus-percent ratios found in the U.S. in the 1990’s.

Imagine a bastardry rate of only 2%.

It is obvious sluttiness has increased drastically.

****

5.1.1

In this section, Scott ignores the religious argument, and I will too, for one argues with one’s (reasonable) opponents on grounds both can accept.

The decline of marriage would be the major argument, as he acknowledges. He posts this graph but misses the commentary on the graph.

The commentary states:

My own hypothesis is that a higher partner count (up to 5-9 or so partners) is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience. Older women, and women with more dating experience, are more likely to have learned which personal qualities will work best for them in a marriage partner. As a result, such women choose more wisely and tend to experience lower divorce rates. Now, it also happens to be the case that older women have had more time and occasion for pre-marital sex! Specifically, I suspect it’s not the 5-9 pre-marital sex partner count per se that drives the relative drop in the divorce rates, but rather it’s the maturity and experience that women have acquired while they’ve dated more men.

Scott does not take this confounding variable into effect in this piece.

This one chart comes from unpublished data from anonymous source. Sadly, it is the only source I know of where divorce risk is measured by number of premarital partners.

Most data either looks at either whether a person had premarital sex or not, or lifetime partners, which can be confounded by additional sex partners post-divorce.

If we look at data posted by the Social Pathologist elsewhere:

Only four nationally representative studies have examined whether premarital sexual experiences are linked to divorce (Heaton, 2002; Kahn & London, 1991; Laumann et al., 1994; Teachman, 2003). Nevertheless, the core finding—the association between premarital sex and increased risks of divorce—is robust[Ed]. Teachman (2003) found that women who had sex only with their future husbands did not have higher risks of marital dissolution, which suggests that the premarital-sex effect on divorce is related primarily to having sex with multiple partners

Each additional sexual partner increased the odds of infidelity by 7% while increasing years of education seem to decrease the risk by 10%.

The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.

Here’s some data showing adultery risk is higher for promiscuous women.

Here’s another chart showing that delaying sexual activity reduces divorce risk:

Here’s a chart, it counts all partners not just premarital ones:


Even beside divorce, there’s a large array of social and personal ills that come from promiscuity and higher numbers of sexual partners.

There is other information, but it all points to the same conclusion; the more sexual partners and the younger the woman is when first having sex, the more likely the risk of divorce.

By focusing only on that single chart, Scott misses a wide array of data which all tell the same story: a slutty women is a divorce risk and an adultery risk.

Even if we accept that one chart alone, Scott’s argument falls apart.

Being a virgin leads to a greatly lowered chance of divorce, a fact Scott just shrugs and dismisses it, accepting that premarital sex is an inescapable norm among the non-religious .

The whole point is that premarital sex should not be the norm. People (at least those intending to marry) should not be having premarital sex.

A doubling  (or tripling) of the divorce rate is not something we should just accept. It is damaging to the very fabric of society as parents’ divorce is associated with an increase in almost every socially non-desirable trait we measure (from poverty to crime to poor educational achievement).

[Edit: Removed two charts that did not fit with the main point and simply confused things. Moved a few things around, added a bit, and generally improved section 5.1.1. Thanks Ozymandias. 25/10/2013]

****

5.1.2

In a broad perspective the point is correct – empirically, men with more psychopathic traits, less agreeableness, and greater narcissism have more sexual partners.

He agrees on this point, but goes on to equivocate between men and women, then essentially shrug his shoulders (“I have no idea how to solve the object-level problems”).

The reactionary project (at least those that aren’t PUAs) is attempting to do more; we have a model we know works from history and we are trying to reimplement it.

Simply allowing the cads to run amuk and having the good men go without is a recipe for social disaster, I’ve outlined here, here, and here.

*****

5.2

He accepts that divorces have elevated, but doesn’t acknowledge there is a steady, long-term trend of increase since 1860 and divorce rates per married couple still remain almost double what they were at 1960.

Also, he says that progressivism has created a natural memetic “immunity” meme to divorce.

I would suggest instead the decline of divorce is instead linked to the decline in marriage rates; ie. those who are less committed to marriage and more likely to divorce are moving in together rather than marrying then divorcing, driving the divorce rate down.

You can see this easily in the chart Scott provided:

Divorces spike, then as marriage rates decline so to do divorce rates per married couple, but this rate remains almost double what it was in 1960. The decline in divorce rates per population is decreasing, simply because the family is disintegrating by not getting married.

He asks why progressives are less likely to divorce:

College-educated women have about half the divorce rate of the non-college-educated (source). More conservative states have higher divorce rates than more liberal states (source). Atheists have divorce rates below the national average (source). Some of these factors seem to remain even when controlling for wealth and the other usual confounders (source, source).

The education and atheist arguments are mistaking IQ and/or a low time preference for progressivism (atheists tend to be smarter on average than religious folks because most unintelligent people stick with their default philosophy, which, in the US, is religious). Conservative (ie. Southern) states would likely have high divorce rates due to high levels of blacks which have a much higher levels of divorce. (Nevada, likely has the highest divorce rate for what seems like a self-evident reason; Vegas).

Essentially what Scott has shown here but not noticed is a long-argued contention of reactionaries: smart upper-class folks can have progressive values and still function because they are smart upper-class folks, but when applied to the less intelligent lower classes these values are socially destructive, because poor, stupid people do not have the time-preferences to function despite the harm from these values.

****

5.3/5.3.1

Here he essentially argues that the depopulation of the US doesn’t matter because foreigners with foreign values are immigrating here and replacing native Americans. Also, you’re a racist if you think this is a problem.

I will just say that this is exactly the problem that reactionaries have with depopulation; he’s not actually refuting anything, he’s simply confirming our arguments. (Also, every reactionary is used to being called racist, so, that won’t really work).

If Scott can’t see the problem with foreign populations with different cultures and values replacing the current population, I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince him here.

I just hope he doesn’t mind losing his progressive values when non-progressive minorities start voting against progressive laws.

****

5.3.2

He’s probably right here on the effects of low-IQ fertility on intelligence, which is why I don’t (or at least try not to) espouse the idiocracy line. The effects of dysgenics through fertility are something that will not substantially effect us, in and of themselves, for a very long time, too long a timeline to worry about overmuch now.

Instead our focus would be on the mass importation of low-IQ immigrants, which will have a more immediate effect on society.

I would also focus on the effects of single-parent, low-IQ homes with many children on the national treasury through government welfare, education, and health programs. This problem will rear its ugly head far sooner than dysgenics due to fertility rates will.

****

So, there we have my first kick at the FAQ. I’m sure there will be others down the road.

Lightning Round – 2013/10/23

It’s your fault.
Related: The minimalist’s guide to being rich.
Related: The great hamster wheel.

Generation Fucked Over.
Related: Why kids today don’t have it easy.
Related: A failure of parenting.

The quest for truth.
Related: Why man needs his myths.

r/K selection and master-slave morality.

A rant against rants against church rants.

ABC would lie (read the comments) about the manosphere? Colour me shocked.
Related: CC on the article.
Related: The article is a pre-planned hatchet job on the MRM and manosphere.
Related: JB thinks it will be a train wreck.
Related: Matt Forney on his interview.
Related: It’s a hit piece, but it will still grow us.
Related: Roissy with his take.
Related: Private Man’s take.
Related: Kid Strangelove with a liberal take.
Related: Dr. Illusion’s take.
Related: The Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
Related: ABC, 20/20 and the Manosphere: the real story.
Related: Is Sarah Figalora guilty of journalistic fraud?
Realted: Are Alyssa Pry and Alexa Valiente Guilty of Journalistic Fraud?
Related: This cracked me up. Hilarious.
Related: Dr. Illusion on the piece.

Some more mainstream coverage of the manosphere. Never heard of this Hembling person though.
Related: SSM is picked up by Amanda Marcotte. We’re nearing the big time.

The truth of manosphere community beliefs.

Having both parents, father and mother, matters.

SSM would rather be owned by her husband than the state.

Amos & Gromar expertly dissect the lies of feminist slut culture. Young women, read this.
Related: How feminism self-perpetuates; today’s slut, tomorrow’s spinsters. I think #7 is by far the most telling of the list.
Related: The pyrrhic victory of a Tuesday night bang.
Related: The math of feminism and marriage.

The rise of the Renegade Alpha.

How to escalate with women 101.

Why Ace fears strong, independent women.

The dictatorship of the crazy woman.
Related: Vox advises men on how to deal with crazy.
Related: Another little lesson about divorce.
Related: Women are the threat to marriage.

The utter worthlessness of feminists displayed.

Women whine because they’re sensitive to others perceptions.

Female privilege.

JB is moving to aVfM.

Rollo defends his SMV graph.
Related: A woman shouldn’t try to know her number.

The wages of female education in Japan and Singapore.
Related: Welcome to Japan: our future, today.

Rape culture vultures.
Related: “Rape” is ex post facto regret.
Related: The modern definition of rape.
Related: Racist Sandra Foehl continues to help destroy falsely accused man’s life.

Liberal feminist: Best rape prevention is for women to stop getting wasted.
Related: Alcohol-related rape is the only crime for which liberals desire harsher penalties rather than prevention.

Women wear make-up to advertise their fertility.

Laid gets chicks qualifying to him with #FatShamingWeek.
Related: Why fat shaming is unnecessary.

Evil cupcakes are sexists who prey on young women.

A bit on sexbots.

Fiat everything.

An anti-reactionary FAQ; the first rational, comprehensive objection to the neoreaction. It’s very well done and will take a good while to unpack.
Related: Michael writes off a quick response.
Related: Bryce has a response on sluttiness.

On the other end of the spectrum: what the hell is a dark neoreactionary?
Related: Why lie when the truth should be sufficient.

Reactionaries and neoreactionaries.

The casual cruelty of the Brahmin overclass.

A new Moldbuggian class.

Sanctimonious Fnargl.

Leap on voting laws. Seems like he might start leaning towards monarchy soon.

An excerpt on revolution.

Atheism can’t be practised.

The new use of old churches.

Arm the world.

The future depends on libraries.

Scientistry and seamless transitions.
Related: Be careful of trusting experts.
Related: The failure of modern science.

Pseudohistory.

Food security and poverty aren’t the issue; tradition is.
Related: Poor people aren’t really poor.
Related: If you want to prevent starvation, shoot a socialist.

If I were in charge of welfare

72 hours without EBT.
Related: Obama’s stormtroopers are being summoned.

They are coming for you.

Why Obama doesn’t matter.

Potemkin parliament.
Related: The re-iterated game of chicken.

Bipartisanship sucks.
Related: A shameful episode.

The country is finding out what’s in the Obamacare bill. This bill is cutting a huge swath through the middle class. Guess the Brahmins have finally been able to stick it to the Vaisyas nice and hard.
Related: Canada has death panels and ‘that’s a good thing’.
Related: Surgery caps in Canada. Something else for Yanks to look forward to.
Related: Obama vows to exempt himself from Obamacare.
Related: Obamacare offers voter registration. Might as well get the parasites right from the host.
Related: Daily K-os is learning what’s in the bill.

The government really is the only thing all leftists belong to.

Another housing bubble in the making?

Democrats and public school teachers send their kids to private school.

Yale professor surprised to find Tea Party scientifically literate because he doesn’t know any.

The nuttiness of Salon.

Dogs are great.

The inevitable zombie apocalypse.

Some ideas on reparations.

Pirates are complaining about being treated as such.

Roundabouts and social capital.

Asians and cheating.
Related: Stupid U and faking the GPA.

Modern sugar consumption. (Although the 765g and 4.3lbs factoids seem contradictory).

A possible video game crash in the near future?

Little girls like to know they’re pretty; in a decent society their father would reassure them. In our society, they must turn to strangers on the internet.

The hypocrisy of liberals once again illustrated:
Emily Bazelon, Oct. 15, 5:39 PM: Charging two female teenagers for bullying someone to death is wrong. Blame the parents.
Emily Bazelon, Oct. 15, 9:35 PM: It’s good to charge two male teenagers for drunken sex. What parents?
Remember: Males are always to blame, females are never to blame.

(H/T: Instapundit, Foseti, SDA, On the Rock, Isegoria, CC)

Repost: Fat Acceptance

This last bit of the Omega’s Guide is taking more work than I thought. In honour of the end of #FatShamingWeek, here’s a repost from a year and a half ago. Still as relevant today.

****

Fat acceptance seem to be going around the manosphere right now and derisive mockery seems to be the order of the day. It seems to have started with this guy’s (probably satirical) blog on fat game.

I’m going to avoid the derisive mockery, but  instead I’m going to talk about shame and self-hatred.

****

First, some theology. Being fat is generally a sign of sinfulness.

Sloth and gluttony, the two primary causes of obesity, are two of the cardinal sins. It is shameful to be fat, because it is shameful to sin.

Derisive mockery is not untoward to someone who advocates the acceptance and normalization of sinfulness.

****

Theology aside, obesity is still something to be shamed.

I do not need to go into all the ways obesity is unhealthy for an individual, that’s common knowledge. By allowing yourself to be obese you are quite literally committing slow, likely painful, suicide.

By allowing your body to destroy itself you are showing that you do not love yourself or your life. You are also showing you do not love those who love you and will be devastated by your early death.

If you are married, by being fat you are showing your spouse through deed, if not word, that you do not love them enough to remain attractive enough to have a healthy sex life.

You should be ashamed of being fat.

****

Fat acceptance is concerned with ending self-loathing fat people feel for themselves. That is wrong.

Self-loathing and self-disgust is generally a sign that something is wrong in your life. It is your body and subconscious telling you that something needs to change as your current actions, lifestyle,and choices are negatively impacting your body and its ability to reproduce itself.

It is an evolutionary mechanism designed to protect you.

In the case of obesity, the shame and self-disgust you feel is your body telling you that you are killing yourself.

When your body and subconscious  tells you something is wrong, the answer is not to get over it, the answer is not to drug it into submission, the answer is not to accept it, the correct answer is to figure out the reason your body and subconscious are screaming at you and to change yourself so they no longer have to scream.

****

Your body evolved in an environment of scarcity. Food was scarce, you rarely gained the calories necessary for optimal health, so your body adapted to urge you to eat as much as possible, particularly of sugars and fats, which provided a large amount of calories.

Modern industrial agriculture has made food abundant; it is no longer scarce but your body still thinks it is, so it demands you eat, and it particularly loves its fats, sugars, and salts.

When you do not eat as much as you can your body screams at you that you are starving yourself; when you exercise, you are depleting your energy reserves and you body screams at you.

This is why it is much easier to gain weight than lose weight. Your old primal self is no made to handle the new modern world. You should not ignore this, but you should know why this pain exists.

The curse of being fat is: Your mind and body scream self-loathing at you for being fat, but your body screams pain at you if you diet and exercise. It is painful either way.

****

So why do people participate in fat acceptance, when their own bodies and minds are screaming at them that they are killing themselves, when all the research says they are killing themselves, when obesity negatively impacts yourself and those you care about?

Easy: change is hard.

It is a lot easier to come to accept (and possibly overcome) your self-loathing mentally than it is to overcome the pain of diet and exercise. Self-loathing is vague and amorphous, pain is immediate and direct.

Self-loathing can be reasoned at, self-justified, denied, and overcome by other emotions. There is no reasoning with, denying, or ignoring pain: pain is.

Instead of facing the pain, it is easier to accept the self-loathing.

****

Shame is used for societal control. It is used by society to prevent people from following their base urges to self-destruction.

Forgoing shaming obesity, gluttony, and sloth is not loving; it is apathetic. It is people to destroy themselves.

Fat acceptance is not something society should embrace, for the good of fat people.

This is not to say fat people shouldn’t be loved, they should, but their obesity and the behaviours contributing to it should be shamed out of love.

Fat acceptance is telling people it is okay to engage in self-destruction.

****

If you are fat, realize it is not healthy. You are hurting yourself and showing you do not love yourself or those around you.

Realize that the pain may be unavoidable, but it is necessary.

Overcoming the pain and making yourself a better person will do much more for you, your self-respect, and your happiness than any amount of fat acceptance.

If you want to improve yourself, I would recommend the primal diet.

I tried the primal diet; while being strict on it I lost 10 lbs in 3 weeks. After that I became less strict, but I’ve still lost about 25 lbs (12% of my body weight) in 3 months. I’ve never been actually fat, maybe skinny-fat, but I did have a gut, it’s quite noticeably shrunk.

The best part, after the initial three weeks it’s required almost no willpower on my part. I rarely feel hungry and I never feel like I’m missing anything; it requires very little discipline. Once you get over the initial hump, it’s easy. It causes minimal pain, while still getting results.

So, do yourself a favour. Try the primal diet.

One More Condom in the Landfill

I was reading through some advice columns again and came across this nugget. It’s your typical story, a decent, young guy likes a girl and gets in a relationship. She’s not feeling it, so he piles on the beta-provider behaviours, so she ends it. The guy is such a great bloke that the ex’s mom loves him enough to invite him to a family day at Six Flags as a friend (probably with the ulterior motive that her daughter will date the guy again). The kid asks whether he should go and if he can get her back. The story’s not particularly interesting, but the columnist’s response is.

You are right not to go to Six Flags with your ex and her family. You are right to give her space. And though I wish I could tell you that time and absence will make her heart grow fonder, the truth is it probably won’t. Because the thing with 20-year-old girls is that 80% of the time, they don’t go for the guy who takes a bus six hours so they don’t have to drive home alone and they don’t go for the guy who sends them rice pilaf in the mail or the guy whom their moms are crazy about. They go for the guys who ignore them and cheat on them and break their hearts. Not always, of course, but a lot of the time.

And for a while, it seems like no one is happy because guys like you are pining away for girls like your ex and those kinds of girls are pining away for someone else and everyone is sad and a little lonely and wishing they could just love the people who already love them back. The good news is that eventually the 20-year-old girls turn into 25-, 30-, 35-year-old women and they’re tired of longing for the guys who don’t treat them well. And they long for the kind of guy who will go on a family vacation with them and help them move and bring them their favorite food. And you’re going to be in luck when that happens because you’re going to have your pick of the litter. In about 5 years or so, the kind of girl you like is going to be looking for someone exactly like YOU. And then it’s all just going to be a matter of timing to find the right match.

I know that doesn’t help you much now. It doesn’t do much to soothe your broken heart and make you feel less alone. And the only thing I can say to that is that it WILL get better. As long as you remain the sweet, thoughtful guy you are — the kind of guy moms love and girls want as their “friend,” it won’t be too long before they’re going to want so much more than that. And who knows, maybe you’ll get lucky and you’ll find the rare breed of young woman who has no interest in dumb games and already understands the value of a guy who wants nothing more than to be a great boyfriend.

This has been said a thousand times around these parts, but I’m pointing it out again:

If you are decent guy, most everybody expects you to get shit on romantically and just take the lumps for a decade, then get the used-up, washed-out, emotionally-wrecked left-overs of the assholes’ pillaging.

Wendy just dismisses this, like it’s just the way it is. There’s no condemnation of the attitude, no real thought as to how thoroughly poisonous this is.

Does nobody else think there’s something disastrously wrong with this attitude?

Does nobody realize what a destructive message this sends to young men?

Does anybody even care?

How can we just casually accept that anti-social assholes get the prize, while the decent, honest builders and maintainers of civilization get the dregs, if they’re lucky?

This is how civilization dies, tiny cut, by tiny cut.

****

A commenter illustrates this perfectly:

this reminds me a lot of my own relationship as i left for college. my boyfriend was a wonderful person, and i just… didnt want to do it anymore.

above all, dont do what my exboyfriend did: he became a total douche. i dont know what happened, if his heart was broken so much, or if he would have turned that way regardless, but when he went off to college the year after me, he could give a shit about studying and almost failed out his first year after being top in his class, he started dating my good friend and then cheated on her all the time (and continues to, i think? yikes), after never wavering with me ever… i mean, at my joint birthday dinner, he was talking about how this random girl just started having sex with him on the lawn in front of some house at a college party. he was not that person when i knew him. so, just be you. dont get jaded, dont intentionally change just to become something you believe that girls want or whatever- just be you, and you will find someone who genuinely wants to be with you.

He’s the douche?!?

He’s just a normal guy who realized the score, being a good guy gets you rejected and your heart destroyed for no real reason at all.

Being a “douche” gets you you easy sex with strangers at a party; it gets you a loyal woman who sticks with you while you jam your cock into all varieties of foreign vagina.

She’s the one who torched a perfectly good relationship with a wonderful man so she could get her holes plugged by assholes in college. Yet, somehow he’s the douche for wanting to be one of the assholes doing the plugging rather than the loser on the outside watching the girl he loved get plugged?

You get what you incentivize.

If you learn nothing else of economics, of politics, of sociology, of psychology but this one fact, you have more understanding than most of the fools with doctorates and fancy titles. If you never get anything else from this blog, remember that phrase:

You get what you incentivize.

If you incentivize douchebaggery, you get douches. If you incentivize decency, you get decency. If being a decent fellow gets you a broken heart and being a douche gets you blown by young co-eds, any rational man is going to be douche.

So, we have more douches who fail to do do anything useful for civilization because who cares? when being an ass is enough to get you sex. We have fewer decent guys willing to pick up the burden of civilization because all it gets you is heartache and loneliness.

Thus, civilization dies as parasitism becomes the norm.

****

What’s especially, ironically funny is that a good portion of the letters at Wendy’s site are some variation of “how do I get my boyfriend to commit to me?

These short-sighted women don’t even realize they’re destroying their own chances of commitment by rejecting the commitment-minded types in their youth and chasing the douches.

So, to men here’s the warning: if you’re a decent, commitment-minded man, don’t ever commit to a woman over 30, and be wary of committing to a woman over 25. She had her chance when she was young; she chose some asshole over you (or some other decent fellow like you) to give her youth to, why should you waste yourself on her now that its gone and she’s desperate.

No matter how much your girlfriend begs for commitment, no matter how much your mother pesters you for grandchildren, no matter how much shaming older women heap upon you, no matter how much your pastor demands you man-up, do not marry an older woman. They are simply not worth it.

If you want commitment go for those young women who are decent enough, smart enough, and love civilization enough to find a decent guy and marry young.

Demand more for yourself; demand better for yourself than the leftovers of assholes.

Demand better of the girl you want than someone who will let herself be the leftovers of the assholes.

To women, here’s the warning: if you love civilization, if you want to marry a decent, commitment-minded man, find him while you are young and don’t waste your youth on assholes. If you do, you could be one of those women in her mid-30s scheming over how to get their confirmed bachelor boyfriend to commit.

Demand better for yourselves than drunkenly blowing some cheating jackass on the lawn or being the cheated-on girlfriend.

****

I know this post and this story are not particularly insightful or novel.

It’s just another brick in the wall, just another condom in the landfill.

Just another decent young man whose heart was broken being told to suck it for a decade so he might have a shot at the leftovers.

Just another overlooked story of a once-great civilization dying, tiny, unnoticed piece by tiny, unnoticed piece.

When the last, violent, death throes of whatever is left of our civilization come, I’m going to revel in their suffering, for it will be well-deserved.

Let it burn.

Lightning Round 2013/10/16

#FatShamingWeek ends. #AnorexiaShamingWeek fails to gain traction.
Related: A round-up on the success.
Related: Top 14 tweets from #FatShamingWeek. None of mine.
Related: Your forefathers would be ashamed of your physical condition.
Related: Atheists are fat.
Related: A fat tax proposal.
Related: Fat gays are shamed as well.
Related: I feel almost guilty over how much I laughed over this.

Amos and Gromar post their 26 theses. Great stuff.

Joseph did not man up.

On wifely submission.
Related: SSM on submission.
Related: Cane on where submission ends. I think he has the right of it.
Related: A heart-warming story of strength and submission.

New Blog: Die Gallantly. Some good stuff; he seems to concentrate on finances and productivity.

Matt Forney has the last laugh.
Related: Judgy Bitch makes actual legitimate criticisms of Matt’s infamous insecurity piece.
Related: Feminist lies about Roosh’s book. Surprising.

Every man has a breaking point.

There’s not enough time to do everything you want.

Elevating romantic love above real love.

Do people fear romantic success more than failure?
Related: Humour: 5 ways you sabotage your love life.

Why millenials had to exist.

A guest post by Deti on the average American girl.
Related: Donal finds a story of warning.
Related: The parable of two fortunes.

Girl game for quiet girls.

Saving the family is fundamental to saving society.

What is to be done?
Related: The ground is moving.

The Last Psychiatrist with another great one on media. Also, this comment is one of the greatest examples of missing the point I have ever read.

The modern “right wing” exists to take the blame of the failings of the left.

A Brave New World glossary.

What if men disappeared?

A variety of manosphere-related studies.
Related: Divorce risk correlates with a wife’s share of household income.

Studies on low testosterone.

A snail mail experiment.

Under feminism women are less human.

Seven ways American women have replaced dad with government.

It’s only rape when the he doesn’t fall in love.
Related: Feminist hypocrisy on menstruation.
Related: The real sexual double standard. Hypocrisy from the left? Surprising.

Women who don’t get men.

Imagine the outcry if this were boys rating girls. The hypocrisy is astounding though: “When it does, that will be a different story.”

Quitting is leadership, if you’re a woman.

Erin Pizzy and the domestic violence industry.
Related: The delusion of women regarding DV.

It’s always funny watching feminists whine about threats of violence after they spent weeks threatening violence against Forney and #FatShamingWeek participants.

Get this: most people find work not meaningful, yet childcare meaningful. Why are feminists insisting on tearing women away from the latter to do the former?

Twitter: As typical white/Asian males build something; everybody else demands the fruits of success.

Female privilege.
Related: Privilege nonsense.

The stupidity of “Safety First!” and entitled parents.

The age neg.

Even at my most omega, I never would have even contemplated being this pathetic.
Related: GBFM with some more greatness buried in the comments.

Religiousity: Cooperation or reproduction.

On segregation.

Russian race riot.
Related: The rise of rape in Sweden.
Related: Sweden’s egalitarianism isn’t. Surprising.

Everything you need to know about feminism in one sentence: “I love (and hate) dating Russian men: The macho guys from my home country leave me torn between my feminist beliefs and my sexual desires.”

Front National in the lead.

Golden Dawn second most popular party in Greece.
Related: Greece may begin confiscating private assets.

The slow birth of American secessionism.

Police 3x as likely to murder you as concealed carry permit holders.

More NSA spying revelations.

US Army: Christians are a hate group. What happens when Christians stop joining the army?
Related: Are the recent military purges suspicious?

There will be no default (sadly).

The falling wages of American society.

EBT cards go down at Walmart. Turmoil in food stamp nation.
Related: EBT theft.

90 climate projections vs. reality.

Obamacare is not the law of the land.
Related: Obamacare website crashing because they don’t want you to know the cost.
Related: Obamacare was started as a throwaway line for a stump speech.

NPS goons remove trail water fountain handles

Making Indians suffer.
Related: The story of the state’s destruction of A&P.

Ashkenazi Jews may be Italians.

How to rename the Redskins.

The war on Halloween.

Animating women is hard because they have larger ranges of emotions.

Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian stole her game sources. Related video below:

(H/T: Phineas, SDA, Art of Man, InstapunditD&P, Will, CC)