Monthly Archives: March 2014

Basic Gun Ownership

RoK recently ran an article, All Men should Own a Gun. I agree. Strength and the ability to enact violence is a defining trait of manliness and, in modern times, strength and violence are measured by firearms. Anybody failing to train with firearms is failing as a man.

A couple years ago I did a  fair amount of research on gun ownership, so I’m gonna share the basics of what I found while researching and in my first couple years of gun ownership here with y’all. This should serve as in-depth beginners guide here.

Note: Throughout this piece, I will be ignoring obsolete, black powder, and special use firearms. The use of these can be fun and challenging, but do not belong in a beginners guide.

Another Note: Different jurisdictions have different laws. Make sure to check the legality of any firearms purchases or uses where you live.

****

Basics

There are 2 basic types of personal firearms:

Handguns: This is a gun designed for use with a single-hand, although, bracing with your second hand is usually recommended. Handguns are more concealable and easier to use in cramped quarters, but are less accurate with less range.

Long guns: Long guns are designed to be fired using both hands, often bracing with the body. Long guns are more accurate with longer range, but are less concealable, less portable, and hard to use in enclosed spaces.

These are the parts of a firearm you should know about:

  • Muzzle: This is the end of the barrel where the bullet comes out of.
  • Barrel: This is the tube the bullet passes through on its way to the muzzle.
  • Magazine: The magazine stores ammo and feeds it into the action. It can be internal to the firearm or detachable. A magazine is not a clip; calling it a clip is wrong. A clip stores ammunition but has no feeding magazine. Almost anytime most people say clip, they mean magazine.
  • Action: This consists fo the moving parts of the firearm. It’s what loads bullets and makes them fire.
  • Trigger: The part of the action you pull to fire a firearm.
  • Chamber: The part of the barrel which holds a single bullet or shell in a position ready to fire.
  • Safety: When on, it prevents the trigger from being pulled accidentally.
  • Stock: This is the end of the long gun which holds the action and barrel together. The butt of the stock is usually braced against the shoulder.
  • Grip: This is the part of the handgun which you hold.
  • Sights: Most firearms have a rear sight on the barrel near the action and a front sight near the muzzle. You line the two sites up to aim.
  • Scope: An attachable telescope which allows for increased accuracy.

****

Long Guns

There are three basic types of long gun:

Rifle: A rifle is loaded with cartridges and shoots bullets. The long, rifled barrel allows for high accuracy and high muzzle velocity and energy (ie: he bullets shoot fast and hard). Rifles are for when you want accuracy and long-range.

Shotgun: A shotgun is loaded with shells and shoots shot and slugs. Shotguns are usually not rifled. They are not as accurate as rifles and have limited range, but within its, shot, a bunch of pellets, will spread after being fired and will hit an area rather than a point, which is useful for hitting smaller and faster moving targets (ie: birds) or delivering shock (ie: home defence). Slugs (a solid chunk of metal) can deliver a massive amount of force within a limited range.

Carbines: This usually refers to shorter rifles, but the definition has traditionally been rather vague. Nowadays it is often used to refer to long guns which fire pistol ammunition. These are generally lighter with shorter barrels making them easier to use in close combat, but less powerful and less accurate.

There are four basic types of long gun actions: single-shot, repeaters, semi-automatic, and automatic.

Single-Shot: It can fire a single-shot before it need to be reloading. The typical single-shots in use today are the break-action, where the barrel is hinged to the stock and can break open to load, and .22 bolt actions for youths. Single-shots have minimal parts and are therefore very reliable, very easy to maintain, and are generally inexpensive, but, obviously, they are slow-firing. These are almost always outclassed by repeaters for most purposes, but a break-action shotgun can make a dependable, easy to maintain home defence weapon.

Repeaters: Repeaters can shoot multiple times between reloads, but the action has to be manually worked between each shot. These are slower to fire than automatics, but are cheaper, easier to maintain, and more reliable as they have less moving parts. They can also generally more accurate as they can be built to lower tolerances due to fewer moving parts. Repeaters are well-suited for hunting or sniping where initial accuracy is more important than follow-up shot speed, but are less well-suited for “tactical” situations.

Semi-automatics: A semi-automatic delivers one shot per a trigger pull. A trigger pull both fires the weapons and makes the action automatically load the next bullet into the chamber. Semi-auto weapons are more expensive, require more maintenance, and are less accurate, but have a higher rate of fire than repeaters. The magazine size on semi-automatics is usually higher than those on repeaters.

Automatic: An automatic fires continuously as the trigger is held down. Burst fire is a variation of automatic fire where multiple shots are fired each trigger pull. Automatic weapons are generally illegal everywhere, so it’s unlikely you’ll ever own one. Automatic fire is very inaccurate due to recoil and it’s uses are essentially limited to fun, suppression, or hosing down a small enclosed space or a tightly packed group. Burst fire, while still illegal, is more useful. It generally has the same uses as semi-automatic fire, but increases the chance of death or incapacitation at the cost of increased ammunition usage.

Side rant: An assault rifle is a rifle with a selective fire option (ie: it can shoot on both semi-auto and auto). Automatic and selective fire weapons are not purchasable by civilians. (There are a precious few Americans with a license for grandfathered automatic weapons, but they are very rare). You can tell someone is ignorant of firearms if they call an AR-15, or any other civilian rifle, an assault rifle.

There are 3 basic types of repeating actions:

Bolt: A bolt actions is located at the stock end of the barrel. It removes spent ammunition from the chamber by pulling back a handle on a bolt; then loads new ammo into the chamber by pushing the bolt forward. Of the repeating actions, bolt actions are the most reliable, most accurate, and most durable, but they are a bit slower to work than pump- or lever-actions. A bolt action rifle is your standard hunting tool.

Pump: A pump action is located at the bottom of a barrel. It slides forward to eject spent ammunition and slides backwards to load new ammunition into the chamber. It is less accurate and less reliable than the bolt, but cycles faster, pump-action can sometimes match semi-auto cycling speeds. Pump actions are generally found on shotguns and rarely found on rifles.

Lever: A lever action feeds ammunition into and out of a chamber through the use of a lever found at the bottom of the stock behind the trigger. It cycles faster and has a shorter length than a bolt. It can also be used by either hand. It can not be shot from a prone position and lever actions generally use a tubular magazine which can limit ammunition types (pointed ammunition can misfire in a tubular magazine).

****

Handguns

There are two basic types of handguns (there are others, but these are generally obsolete, special purpose, or hobbyist):

Pistols: Pistols are your standard handgun; they have a chamber built into the barrel. They have detachable magazines.

Revolvers: Revolvers have a cylinder which is detachable from the barrel and acts as chamber. The ammunition is loaded directly into the cylinder, which turns to cycle ammunition. Revolvers are generally more reliable than pistols, but are usually limited to six shots between reloading.

****

Ammunition

There are two types of basic ammunition: cartridges and shells. Shotguns use shells, other personal firearms use cartridges.

The major parts of a cartridge:

  • Case (brass): This hold the other parts of the bullet.
  • Bullet: This is the piece of metal that is ejected from the firearm to kill the target.
  • Gunpowder: This propels the bullet.
  • Primer: When struck this produces heat which ignites the gunpowder.

The shell is much the same the same, but it case is usually plastic not metal. It has slugs or shot instead of a bullet. It also has an added component, the wad, which prevents the shot from mixing with the powder.

There are two basic types of cartridge:

Centrefire: Centrefire ammo has the primer located in the center of cartridge base. It can withstand higher pressures allowing greater bullet velocity and energy than rimfire. Most modern ammo is centrefire.

Rimfire: Rimfire ammo has the primer located on the rim of the cartridge base. It is cheaper to manufacture than centrefire but can no withstand as much pressure. Low calibers like .17 and .22 are generally the only cartridges that are still rimfire.

There are far more types of ammunition out there than I could possibly list, but I’ll outline some of the major ones. The numbers indicate caliber, which indicates the diameter of the the bullet. Generally higher calibers are more powerful and more expensive, but that does not mean they are necessarily better; they are also more difficult to learn to shoot accurately and can be uncomfortable to use.

Rimfire:

.22LR: This is your major rimfire cartridge. It is cheap (~4-5¢/bullet) and common, but not very powerful. This is good for target practice and shooting small critters. It is used in both pistols and rifles.

Handgun:

.257/.357/.44 Magnum: These magnum rounds are for your revolver and hold more powder than normal rounds of the same caliber resulting in higher muzzle energy and velocity. These are the most popular type of revolver ammunition.

.38 Special: A cheaper, but less powerful revolver round that can be fired from a .357 Magnum (Note: The reverse is not true; you can not fire .357 ammo from a .38 revolver; trying to do so is dangerous).

9mm: This is your basic pistol ammunition. It is popular and widely used, but is criticized for a lack stopping power.

.40 S&W: A relatively new pistol round with more stopping power than 9mm. It has gained great popularity among police for being a good balance between the stopping power of 10mm and the ease of use of the 9mm.

.45 ACP: Another of the basic pistol rounds. Which of 9mm, .40, .45, and 10mm is superior is a never-ending discussion among gun folks which I’m not going to get into.

10mm: Another popular handgun load. It’s more powerful than .40 or .45.

Rifle:

5.56×45 NATO/.223 Rem: These are common western military rounds and are what AR’s and similar weapons will generally fire. They take some criticism for a lack of stopping power as compared to the .308. The .223 can be fired from 5.56 guns, but doing the reverse may not always be safe. These are not for hunting big game.

.270 Win: A popular hunting cartridge. Some cartridges are not powerful enough for larger game such as elk or moose.

.30-.30: Another popular hunting cartridge. It is debatable on whether it is suitable for larger big game such as moose and elk.

.308/.30-06: The two main big game hunting cartridges that are suitable for larger game. (Note: .308 and 7.62×51 are somewhat interchangeable). Which is better is an eternal debate among gun folks. The .30-06 is slightly more powerful, but .308 is more available and has lighter recoil.

7.62×39: A very popular Soviet military cartridge used in AK’s and SKS’. It’s relatively cheap and plentiful as there’s lots of military surplus floating round. It’s not powerful enough to be used for big game.

7.62x54R: A popular high-powered Soviet military cartridge. It’s relatively cheap and plentiful as there’s lots of military surplus floating around. Powerful enough for big game hunting.

Shotgun:

Shotgun ammunition is measured differently. Every shotgun has a bore diameter measured in gauge; the lower the gauge the wider the shell used and, generally, the more powerful the gun gun and ammunition is. Traditional shotguns sizes range from 10 gauge to .410 (.410 is weird because it is actually measured as a caliber).

Out of all of them, there are two gauges that really matter to a beginner: 12 gauge and 20 gauge. 12 gauge is by far the most popular shotgun size. 20 gauge is commonly used by people who can not control the power and kick of a 12 gauge (women and children). It is also commonly used for skeet and fowl.

Each shotgun chamber and shell also has a length; these will be 2 3/4″, 3″, and 3.5″. 3″ is the most common and is what you should get unless you have some specific need for 3.5″. Longer chambers can shoot shorter shell lengths; so the 3″ can shoot 2 3/4″ (the reverse is not true).

Beyond this there are three types of shotgun ammunition:

Slugs: Slugs are essentially large chunks of metal. They are very powerful within 100 yards or so.

Birdshot: These are shells filled with many small pellets. Pellets sizes range from 9-FF, with higher numbers being smaller, lower numbers being larger, and letters being larger still. The smaller the pellets, the more in a shell. What size birdshot you get depends on the bird you’re trying to hunt.

Buckshot: These are shells filled with larger metal balls used to hunt larger game. They come in varying sizes: 00 (pronounced double-ought) is common. Be aware, despite being called buckshot, it may not be legal to hunt deer or other big game with buckshot depending on where you live.

****

Buying Guide

Now that you are generally acquainted with basic firearms information we can get to your buying guide. You purposes for buying firearms are different so everything said here may not apply to you. Also, you don’t have to buy everything at once; most people don’t have the thousands of dollars a full collection requires, so build up over time.

That said, a basic firearm collection consists of:

.22LR rifle
.22LR pistol
A high-powered handgun
A shotgun
A hunting rifle
A tactical rifle

I’ll go over the purchase of each of these below.

.22LR Rifle & Pistol:

The .22LR rifle and pistol are your basic target shooting weapons. They’re relatively inexpensive and .22 ammo is cheap and plentiful, so you can blow through a few hundred rounds without breaking the bank. They can also be used for hunting rodents for amusement.

The Ruger Mark III is an excellent .22 pistol at a reasonable price ($350-650*).

As for the .22 rifle; you have to first decide if you want single-shot or semi-auto. I would recommend as semi-auto, as reloading singleshots constantly can get annoying, but you could save a bit of money. Also note, that single-shot .22’s are usually geared towards children, so they may not always feel right.

The Ruger 10/22 is a popular semi-auto .22LR rifle at a reasonable price ($200-400). You can get the Tapco Ruger 10/22 ($100) if you really need to save money, but it will be lower quality.

If you really want to get a single shot, I’ve heard the Cricket ($130) is pretty good.

High-Powered Handgun

The high-powered handgun is for personal defence. If concealed carry is allowed where you live, carry it with you; if not, learn to use it in case a situation ever arises where you need it. It can be used for home defence, but generally a shotgun is better.

You have to choose first if you want a revolver or a pistol (or both). A revolver is more reliable, but has less ammo capacity.

If you want a revolver, get it in .357 Magnum. Pretending to be Dirty Harry may be tempting, but the .44 is too powerful for a starter revolver. .357 is a solid round capable of downing a man. As well, .38 special can be used in a .357 revolver for practice at a cheaper price. I own the Smith & Wesson .357 ($800-1100) and its a good revolver, I’d recommend it. It’s a bit pricy, so the Pietta 1873 ($450) could be a cheaper alternative; it’s reviewed fairly well.

As for pistols, there’s two major camps: the Glock and the 1911. The Glock is more reliable and has more capacity, but some think the 1911 has a better trigger. The debate has been raging for a while and I’m not going to wade into it, so you’ll just have to do some research and choose. Then you need to choose your ammo type as described above.

As for me, I plan on getting a Glock Gen IV ($600-700) in .40S&W.

Shotgun

The shotgun is for home defence and for hunting. Not to mention, the shotgun is by far the most fun weapon to shoot. Unless your main purpose for the shotgun is skeet (or you’re a women or child), get a 12 gauge in 3″. I’d recommend a pump action, but you could get a semi-auto if you have money to burn.

The Mossberg 500 series ($300-350) is generally recommended as a starter shotgun. You can get a pump cheaper, but they won’t be as good quality. I own one and I love it.

Hunting Rifle

This is for hunting big game. You want a bolt action chambered in either .30-06 or .308, probably .308. I bought the .30-06 and wish I had got .308 instead; I’m finding the upwards kick of the .30-06 annoying.

The Savage Arms Axis ($430) was a highly recommended starting rifle. It’s not overly expensive and it’s good quality. The scope is subpar, but you can always replace it if you wish. I own one, it can occasionally jam if I slide the bolt too fast, but other than that works well.

I’ve found though, that I prefer the Mosin-Nagent. I find it easier and more enjoyable to shoot. You can get a milsurp nugget for a fairly good price and ammo is inexpensive. Be careful though, quality can vary. Also it doesn’t come with a scope unless you pay extra for the sniper variant, which will limit your accuracy and range.

Tactical Rifle

Your tactical rifle is the one you keep for potential tactical situations, for example, should law and order ever break down in a natural disaster. It will likely be the most expensive addition to your collection. They start in the $800-1000 range and go up from there depending on what you’re looking for. A really good new one with all the cool doodads could cost $3000-4000.

Two common types of tactical rifles are either a .308 battle rifle or a .223/5.56 AR-15 variant.

AR’s are popular and are the civilian version of the US Army’s M16. They also have the advantage of having untold modification options, so you can look tacticool (not necessarily a good thing; kitting yourself out beyond your skill level can get you mocked silently by others at the range).

Boston’s Gun Bible recommends against AR-15 variants as .223 does not have enough stopping power. He is a proponent of .308 battle rifles and recommends the M1A or the FN-FAL. They have longer range and more stopping power.

The choice is yours. Give it some research and thought.

Given the high cost of even a basic tactical rifle, you might as well skip buying an intro rifle and save up for the good one you really want, but if you’re really looking for a cheap battle rifle, the Soviet surplus SVT-40 can be had for a few hundred dollars. It won’t be as good, but it should be functional and uses the powerful 7.62x54R round.

I am still saving for a tactical rifle and looking for a good one that’s legal in Canada. I think it might be an M1A. For now I make do with an SKS and am planning on getting the SVT-40 this spring.

****

Other Things You Need

Here are a few other things you should buy for your guns, make sure to include them in your gun budget:

  • Cleaning kit
  • Gun Oil & cloth
  • Windex
  • Something to shoot at (if not using a range)
  • Spare magazines (have 2-3 mags per gun)
  • Extra ammo
  • Trigger locks – May be required by law, I prefer the combination locks over the key locks.
  • Carrying cases
  • Gun safe – May be required by law, necessary if children are around, optional otherwise.
  • Holster – Needed if you plan to concealed carry, optional otherwise.
  • Range membership

When buying ammunition, buy in bulk to save money. If you don’t buy in bulk, then always buy a more than you use and save the extra, until you have 500-1000 rounds per ammo type, just in case you ever need it.

****

Shooting Space

You need a place to practice with your firearms. If you live in the country, this should be easy, use your own land, some public land, or a friend’s land. If you live in the city it can be more difficult.

In the city you should be able to find an indoor range for handguns and your .22. Finding an indoor range for higher calibers and shotguns is a lot less likely. Depending on your city, you may be able to find an outdoor range. If you really can’t find anything, then make it a point to drive out to public land once a month for some shooting, but make sure you know the regs concerning the use of public land.

If you’re going to use a range choose one close to you and make sure to budget for the annual range fee. They will often be hundreds of dollars.

****

Other considerations

Milsurp: Military surplus, especially that from former Soviet republics, can be a good way to get a few firearms for cheap. In Canada, SKS and Mosin-Nagant rifles can be bought for $200, an SVT-40 for under $400. I think the US is more expensive, though, due to import laws. Also, quality can vary so make sure to purchase from a reputable dealer.

Buying Used: Used guns can save you money, but there’s a risk they might not work well. Either buy used from a reputable dealer or, if a private purchase, make sure to test the guns first to make sure they shoot wel. One advantage of used firearms is that if kept in good condition they will rarely decrease in value, and may even increase in value.

Home defence: For home defence, the general recommendation a 12-gauge shotgun. You’ll want a shorter barrel; a long-barreled shotgun will be harder to maneuver with. Load it with 1 or 0 buckshot. If you can’t find them, 00 is more common and will also do. a high-powered pistol, rifle, or slug will penetrate your walls and could go who knows where creating collateral damage. Buckshot lowers the chances of collateral damage while still having the force to put someone down. The pump-shotgun also has the added bonus of a familiar sound, which may strike intimidate intruders. (Some people prefer birdshot to reduce penetration further). Store your shotgun safely near where you sleep; keep it loaded (if legal) but don’t chamber a round. Practice retrieving it and loading it. Make sure to know self-defence laws for where you live.

Cleaning: You’ll want to give your guns a quick wipe down after use and occasionally oil it. You should also dissemble it for a thorough cleaning and oiling on occasion. How often you do this depends on your gun; generally the more complex the gun, the more maintenance it needs. Your bolt action rifle won’t need much cleaning all that often. You’re expensive semi-auto will need it lot more. Your Soviet surplus rifle can be ignored for years fi you’re not using corrosive ammo.

Corrosive ammunition: Beware of corrosive ammunition, especially if you’re buying milsurp ammo. There’s nothing wrong with using corrosive ammunition, but if you do, make sure to clean your gun after every use. Windex works well for this. If you don’t it will ruin your gun.

Survivalism: If you are doing the survivalism route get guns in .22LR, 5.56×45, .308, and 12 gauge and stock up on ammo (buy .223 instead of 5.56×45). These will be the most common ammunition available and the most sought after. Also, it is relatively easy and inexpensive to create large stockpiles of surplus Soviet 7.62×39 and 7.62x54R ammunition.

There you have a starter guide to getting yourself some guns. Now get to shooting.

****

* All prices are new unless it’s milsurp.

Drugged and Indoctrinated

I’ve written before that it’s all related. Little of what I write is a thought unto itself, which is why I try to consistently link back to my previous thoughts throughout my many blog posts.

I came across an article illustrating how its all related. Here is one Belinda Luscombe arguing why she needs to drug her kids even if ADHD doesn’t exist.

At this point, it sounds insane enough, but that is literally the title of the article: “It Doesn’t Matter if ADHD Doesn’t Exist, My Son Still Needs Drugs”

The article starts sane enough, she doesn’t want to drug her kid and Dr. Saul is arguing ADHD does not exist. Her son comes from a “bookish home” and had tutors, but is dyslexic. The son gets in trouble at school and has trouble reading and writing and the school tries to convince the parents to drug the son, but the parents resist. Not untypical.

But then you begin to see the pathological insanity of the system, but you have to look close.

One interesting wrinkle is here:

We may have stood our ground forever, except for the aforementioned “charming” part. Turns out our son was something of a pied piper. If he decided to wander off task, he took half the class with him. The nice folks at the nice school pointed out it wasn’t very fair to the other parents.

The kid is a natural born leader. The charismatic-type who people will naturally follow. Naturally, this is used against the child: He’s a natural leader, therefore it is all the more important to drug him.

But, in any case, what modern parent can approach the specter of a child who doesn’t learn with any equanimity? Even a not-very-attentive adult can see that the knowledge sector of the economy is the safest haven in downturns. The gap between those with college degrees and those without is ever widening. Not just in income, but also in life areas like successful marriages and health. The option for a kid who can’t sit and learn is not a slightly less lucrative career, it’s a much more miserable existence.

How much pathological modernism can be forced into a single paragraph? Understand the (barely) implicit script presented here:

The child must go through public schooling so he can get into college so he can get into an office job so he can survive the failing economy so he can be healthy and have a decent marriage.

First thing to note is the fear. She states “the cold hand of impending doom got us by the neck and squeezed.” The system is working quite well when it can instill actual dread in a parent when the public education system is failing him.

The second thing to note is that all these correlations she’s pointing to are probably genetic in origin. In other words, its not the education and college degree that makes someone healthy, marriageable, and successful, it is the person underneath, and given that he was such a naturally charismatic child, he probably would have done alright. So her fear is rather unfounded.

Third, look at the implicit assumption that college and an office job is the correct path. No consideration he could go into sales (which would seem an obvious path for a charismatic child), trades, or entrepreneurship. Nope college and an office job or bust.

Fourth, the implicit assumption that if a kid can’t learn in our public schools the child is wrong, not the schools.

She pretty much accepts that her child must be drilled complacency to be a good office drone or he will be a total failure at life. Pathological modernism.

Either he needs a class size of about six, with an incredibly adept and captivating teacher, or he needs a little help.
…
Could we get our kid through school another way? Maybe. Perhaps spend half the day in P.E. Or get him a governess instead of a classroom. Or find a teaching style that is different, somehow, more kinesthetic or less visual or uses blocks or therapy monkeys. But they’re all just maybes and he’s not our only kid and he’s not our only life challenge and his useful school years are slipping away. The meds work, are almost free of side effects and, far from being handed out willy-nilly, are a huge pain to get every month.

Notice what’s not on that list?

Home-schooling. She’d rather drug her kid than leave her job and reduce her families consumption. Either that or the thought of home-schooling enver even entered her head. I’m not sure which one would be more sad.

When I asked our now 16-year-old son if he liked taking his meds, he said “Sure. They help me concentrate.” And when I followed up with, “Would you rather be able to concentrate without them?” he gave me one of those specially-reserved-for-moronic-parents-looks and replied, nice and slow, so I’d get it. “Wouldn’t anybody?”

At least he’s happy.

She did get one thing right though: “But if we want to eradicate a chemical solution to what might be a behavioral disorder, we’ve got a whole economy and education system to reorganize.

It seems there might be something needing changing with a system that requires drugging 14% of our boys to work. I am shocked by this.

Of course, she then states “While you guys get on that, I’ve got to get my kid through school.

How cauterized does someone’s soul have to be to be to look to your kid, know the system is destroying him enough that he needs drugs to simply cope, and then say, meh, I’d rather drug him than change it or remove him from it?

****

So, in one article about a dozen paragraphs long we have: public education, ADHD and medical over-prescription, the tuition bubble, white collar uber alles, the declining economy, nontraditional sex roles, failing marriage, consumerism, and the economic fracturing of our society. All are linked together to force one young boy to drug himself, and like it, so he can continue the consumerist rat race in the future. It’s all related.

Lightning Round

Frost launches the Red Pill Review.
Related: LaidNYC calls it quits.

Three ways to stop being a little bitch.
Related: Don’t complain.

Castration is not the answer.

Dealing with loneliness.

Seek small victories.
Related: Fail faster.
Related: Ambition.
Related: I’m glad I was a sexless, hopeless, unattractive nerd.

The clash of masculinities.

Why male-only spaces matter.

Frame and blind spots.

The red pill can’t bring back what was lost.

Take responsibility for what you’re responsible for; don’t take it for what you are not.
Related: Christian nice guys are not good.

What love is.

Peers, elder, fathers, and sons.

A red pill: Cryonics and hostile wives.

Psychology Today on female desire.

Doc Illusion thinks Max Tucker is not bad for the manosphere.
Related: It’s just marketing.
Related: Critical mass has been reached.

It’s possible to get to a point in life where you are beyond help.

The public policy challenge of male motivation.
Related: The media and sex worker stories.

On the fissures appearing in neoreaction.
Related: Paleoreaction and neoreaction.
Related: Land vs. Anissimov.
Related: Neocameralism is autistic.
Related: Meta-neocameralism.
Related: Bryce does not think monarchy is in the cards.
Related: A good case for monarchy.

Focusing on realistic questions.
Related: Fields to study for neoreactionaries.
Related: Lessons from Alinsky.

The world will become nerd vs. non-nerd.

Chicago, democratic dysfunction, and fraud.

The milquetoast conservative squad.
Related: Reviewing the NRO.

Fertility and extrapolation.

Liberalism, Islam, and multiculturalism.
Related: Illegal immigration and anarcho-tyranny in California.
Related: Mascots of the elite

Real life examples of low-hanging fruit.

Cathedral coordination between reporters and PR flacks.

The puritan hypothesis goes mainstream.

Neoliberalism, Robert Strauss, and Robert Rubin.

The Russia, PRC, Saudi Arabia axis.

Language and the swim of Cthulu.

Jim on gay marriage.

Onward Christian bloggers.

Great read: The desolation of the autumn people. Vox comments.
Related: The intellectual pretensions of the nihilists.
Related: The anti-existence nihilism of liberalism.
Related: Stupidity in book reviews.

Is the Orthodox church going to self-annihilate?

Catholic schools being forced to teach all religions are equal.

A look at Fred Phelps.

Parenting is for the young.

Seems that weird red pill Christian BDSM blog that popped up months ago was a troll.

Some feminists realizing sex-positivism is not good for women.

The awesome temporary power of young attractive women.

The American bachelor as a Mexican fisherman.

The high cost of female coders.

Benevolent sexists happier.

The new morality: Lying to your paramour about being a man is ok, but someone else revealing that the liar is a man is not.

Science and peacocking.

The decline of the academy.

Should it really take 14 years to become a doctor?

Fuck GDP.

Banker suicides up to 11.
Humour: How banks screw you.

Economic bubbles disproportionately hurt women and minorities.

Intelligent people more likely to trust others.

Pay for your own birth control.

H/T: RoM, Nick, RPR

Questions for Christian Singles

This post is specifically for Christians. None of this applies to non-Christians, so please no red pill complaining about the horrors of marriage from non-Christians in the comments.

Every single Christian should ask themselves these 5 questions:

1)  Do I burn with lust, passion, or loneliness?

2) Is my lack of a spouse negatively impacting my Christian walk?

3) Am I called to marriage?

4) Do I fornicate, masturbate, look at pornography, or date non-Christians?

5) Would I rather be single for the rest of my life than married to this Christian?

If you, as a single Christian, have answered yes to any of #1, #2, #3, or #4 yet have rejected people to whom the answer to #5 is no: consider why.

Female Fornication Fallacy

I have been counseling young women not to follow that strategy. One of the big problems I’m running into though, is this.  Men say they are only engaging in the hook-up culture because they are responding to what women want and that if women want traditional marriage, then they shouldn’t engage in premarital/hook-up sex, which would force men back into the commitment-for-sex role.  Fair enough, but then girls are telling us that if they don’t put out, if they don’t work a slutty vibe, they can’t get men (even most Christian men) interested in them because they are competing with girls who do. That means it doesn’t work very well (socially, not morally) for just some women to avoid premarital/hook-up sex; it has to be almost all of us who avoid it.  But when secular women start trying to tell women to close their legs and stop giving away the milk for free, they are accused of trying to run a sex cartel.  And maybe they are accused of that because they slept around first, but how surprising is that really, given the fact that the alpha mares in the female herd strongly encourage young women to do so, and women only learn (and accept) the folly of this strategy when they’ve gotten older?

There are no easy solutions here.

SSM, and a few other manosphere-related women keep perpetuating the same false argument. Please stop.

While there is no easy solution for society, there is an easy solution for individual young women.

Young women should go for young men who are willing to wait until marriage.

“Most” might not be willing to wait, I’ll even accept that “most” ‘Christian’ men might not be willing to wait but there are many young Christian men who are planning to wait until marriage.

If a woman is serious about it, she can find one. It may mean choosing a young man who’s not as hot as the one’s demanding immediate sex, who’s a bit nerdy or socially awkward, but them’s the breaks.

If young women would rather fornicate and hope for a relationship born in sin than choose a less attractive young man willing to wait, that’s their choice, but they should stop complaining about there being no option but spreading their legs.

If a young woman has high standards for hotness, then she should accept that she might be single forever. The higher her standards the more likely she is to be single and the more likely she is to waste her prime attractive years.

The complaints of women on this issue ring hollow.

Young women have far more options than the vast majority of men could possibly dream of. Stop trying for perfect and then complaining you can’t get perfect without fornicating. Instead, either: 1) Accept being a fornicating sinner and the consequences of such, 2) accept that your high standards will leave you single, or 3) go for a less attractive man who is willing to wait.

That’s the simple reality of the situation created by women’s own demands.

The worn complaint of “I can’t find a man without fornicating” is both tiresome and false, please stop perpetuating it.

Either that or express it in its proper form: “I can’t find a hot man without fornicating, so I’d rather sin with a hot man than be chaste and/or marry a moral, but less hot, man.”

That’s an opinion I can respect. It’s immoral, but at least it’s true.

Those perpetuating the “I can’t find a man without fornicating” argument are excusing sin and leading other young women to sin. (Not to mention that it’s making it harder for us awkward men waiting for marriage).

Anyway, for women not looking to justify fornication to themselves, here’s a link to some advice I’ve given in the past for building your own attractive man from less attractive materials.

EDIT (2014/03/24):: After thinking about this, I believe I went farther than is prudent here and was inaccurate to the point of error, and have withdrawn the redacted lines. I expressed what I was trying to say more accurately but less readably below. 

****

EDIT (2014/03/23): SSM, and potentially others, have misunderstood what I said, so maybe my writing was insufficiently clear. Therefore, here is my response in the comments to SSM clarifying what exactly I am criticizing.

SSM,

I do not believe I have misrepresented you; instead I think you misunderstand my position.

I have not said you have counciled fornication because, as far as I know, you have not.

I did not read the comments on the Picky, Picky piece at Donal’s, so I don’t know what you said there. (If you have particularly called out the pernicious myth I outline in my post and below I apologize for misrepresentation).

My problem is with this:

Fair enough, but then girls are telling us that if they don’t put out, if they don’t work a slutty vibe, they can’t get men (even most Christian men) interested in them because they are competing with girls who do. That means it doesn’t work very well (socially, not morally) for just some women to avoid premarital/hook-up sex; it has to be almost all of us who avoid it.

The repeated stating of “women can’t get men without fornicating” is incorrect. It may be true that women can’t get some men [typically the hots ones] without putting out, but it is not true that women can’t get men without fornicating.

There is a difference between “men” and “some men” or “particular men” or “attractive men”.

I highly doubt any but the obese (who should improve themselves) or the deformedly ugly (who I have much empathy for) can not get men.

In fact, whenever I have heard women saying I can’t find a man, or there are no good men, they have always had both many men and good men available to them. In some cases, I was a good man who had asked them out previous to them saying this.

Instead of perpetuating the myth that women can’t get men without fornicating, you, and others in the sphere who perpetuate this myth, should instead tell the women complaining to look towards the good men around them who they have been ignoring (ie. the awkward or unattractive men) or to shut up and accept that their high standards may leave them single.

Because every time I (and likely most good Christian men) hear a Christian woman say there are no good men, or I can’t find a man, or I can only get a man through fornicating, I (we) become that much more bitter towards your whole sex.

You have no idea just how discouraging, how dispiriting, how emasculating, how embittering this “I can’t find a man (without fornicating)” is to Christian men.

If you want any good men to still be looking in the church, this shit has got to stop. Because every time I hear it, I am pushed that much closer to saying “fuck marriage” and that will be one less bachelor available for Christian women.

Entryism in the Manosphere

It seems Tucker Max (of fratboy asshole fame) and Geoffrey Miller (who wrote Spent) are creating a male dating and self-improvement site. LaidNYC and D&P have detailed how they think Max and Miller are just going to rip off pre-existing manosphere bloggers and try make them politically correct.

That the new site will be politically correct is nigh indisputable given Max has written this:

https://twitter.com/TuckerMax/status/445631840133464064

It is highly unlikely that by ‘ethics’ he is referring to a rooted morality derived from religious principles. It will almost assuredly be shallow progressivist ethics in nature. I would bet a decent sum the ethics will primarily be focused on creating a kinder, gentler carousal. “Leave her better than when you found her.”

But somebody trying to profit off the manosphere by stealing ideas and making them more acceptable to liberals is not terribly surprising. It was bound to happen at some time and Max Tucker is well positioned to do so. In retrospect it seems almost inevitable.

Instead of lamenting the inevitable, which laidnyc and D&P did a good enough job of that, I would like to instead point to a comment by aramaxima:

From a paranoid reactionary perspective, it looks to me like the Cathedral is about to turn the Manosphere into controlled opposition. Stealing all its ideas, rebranding them to a “wacky pair of a bestselling author and an Ivy researcher!” and then (of course) ignoring that the Manosphere at all ever existed is exactly how I’d do it.

Some reformed asshole stealing ideas is, in the larger scheme of things, not that big a deal. What manospherians should be worried about instead is entryism:

Entryism is a small team of conspirators trying to manipulate and control another organization – usually a larger organization with a bigger mailing list and more funds.  Thus for example a small group of political extremists, a team of half a dozen or so people, would naturally like to take over an big organization involved in some big money, moderately leftist, politically progressive task such as funding housing for the poor, if lots of funding for the poor flows through the housing organization.

In this case, the ‘big’ organization is the manosphere and its ‘funds’ are lost knowledge of the SMV and influence among disenfranchised young men. The mainstream progressives would definitely like to bring the manosphere to heel to work for its agenda.

How I foresee this working:

1) Max uses softened versions of red pill concepts (let’s call this the purple pill) that are more acceptable to polite society. These ideas will still be outside of the mainstream, but only slightly so. Max will become the David Brooks of dating advice; still kind of icky but acceptable enough for the NYT.

2) The purple pill is still more effective than the blue pill, so it still gets a following. Many disenfranchised, but liberal, young men who would be scared off by the harsh truths of the manosphere accept this new politically correct purple pill.

3) A new purple pill community for young men with its own set of blogs develops with Max being a key player. Maybe the community links up with existing purplish-pill dating sites like the Good Men Project, Hooking Up Smart, and Mark Manson, maybe not.

4) The purple pill community begins to link to and get links from some of the more “acceptable” manosphere sites like the Art of Manliness and MMSL. Overlap between the manosphere and the purple pill community begins.

5) The purple pill community begins applying the the manosphere and/or red pill labels to itself; either that or it develops its own label and beings applying that itself and the manosphere as a whole. Either way, the two communities begin to fall under similar label to most outsiders. (The same way those in the manosphere are still called MRA’s by a lot of outsiders). We’ll call this the new manosphere (NM).

6) Extreme feminists will attack the purple pill NM for some reason. Some red pillers will defend them (he’s one of “us” being attacked by one of “them”) and ties will grow within the NM.

7) As the feminist attacks happen, the NM will distance themselves from the “extreme” red pill community. They’ll post a few apologies and some politically correct claptrap to satiate their opponent’s bloodlust. This, of course, won’t work.

8) Purple pill types will start to concern-troll the NM, trying to dilute the message, purportedly for the good of the message. “Look how we’re upsetting others. We’re driving people away. We need to soften our language and maybe talk less about mean stuff so we can get more people into the red pill.”

9) Eventually, the NM will start cut themselves off from the red pill community and denounce them. “Those guys aren’t part of the real NM”, “the NM would never have anything to do with sexists like that”, etc. Red pillers will be shunned and excluded from the NM.

10) At this point the manosphere will have become completely controlled by the purple pill. The purple pill will be called the red pill, Max (or someone else like him) will be the centre of the manosphere, and Roissy will be that crazy crank who hasn’t evolved with the red pill. Old red pillers will either have to rebuild the community that was destroyed by the entryists or leave altogether.

Now it probably won’t be exactly this way, and will almost assuredly not be in the exact same order with such discrete steps, but the general thrust of the movement will be the same. The result will be the same, the conquering of the manosphere by the purple pill.

Also realize, Max and Miller do not have to be doing this intentionally. Maybe all they want is some easy cash from stealing others ideas. They may even be opposed to some of the steps. They may end up being simply tools of others. In fact, it wouldn’t even require anyone doing this intentionally, it may simply happen because that’s what tends to happen to large, unstructured organizations. They go left.

Also, even if Max’s site goes nowhere, which is possible, they are not the first (HUS) and definitely won’t be the last. There will be other entryists and the pattern will be the same.

****

So, how to stop it?

Entryism can only be stopped by vigilance. To keep the red pill from being subverted current people of the manosphere have to stop them from doing so.

Here’s some things that can be done:

1) Aggregates and other gatekeepers, such as RP Reddit and manosphere.com, have a special importance. They must make sure not to put Tucker Max’s site or other similar sites, into their rolls and must keep content from purple pill sites from infesting them. If some gatekeepers allow themselves to be taken with purple pill stuff, they should be abandoned for other gatekeepers.

2) Important manosphere figures must make sure to distance themselves from purple pill types sites. Mockery, such as Aunt Giggles, can work well for this. This already being done.

3) If a men’s dating or self-improvement group or community outside the current manosphere starts to take the red pill or manosphere label upon themselves, the manosphere needs to vocally reject their usage. As well, if purple pill communities create their own labels and try to apply them to the manosphere, the manosphere must reject those labels.

4) Concern-trolling must be ignored. Anybody who starts to campaign for making the red pill more accessible by enforcing language codes, political correctness, sensitivity, etc. needs to be shunned and delinked.

5) Avoid linking to purple pill sites for purposes other than mockery, rejection, or rebuke.

6) If purple pill commenters start concern-trolling your blog, make sure to either answer and reject their concerns or delete their comments.

7) Mockery works wonders against entryists. Use it.

8) Those manospherians who become to cozy with purple pill sites need to be warned, then shunned.

Those are some ideas I can think of immediately. If anybody else has others.

It should be noted to be careful not to go too far in enforcing over-rigid ideological control. It is counter-productive as the manosphere thrives on open discussion. There is a difference between keeping entryists out and keeping everybody out. A line needs to be drawn between acceptable disagreement and questioning and entryism.

****

The manosphere can listen, or not. It can take steps to protect itself form entryism or not.

But if it doesn’t, don’t be surprised to hear: “No true red-piller thinks hypergamy exists”, “every red-pill person knows the Dark Triad is unattractive to women”, “those sexists aren’t a part of the manosphere”, etc. in the next few years.

Lightning Round – 2014/03/19

There’s a new manosphere aggregator: Manosphere.com
Related: Seems Viva la Manosphere has been ripping off others. Off the sidebar.

Looks like Tucker Max and Geoffrey Miller are manosphere entryists. Post coming Friday.

Some feminist is making a red pill documentary.

How to be lucky.
Related: Just show up.

Be superior.

If you did everything the manosphere said.

Dark knights rising.

Dominate yourself.
Related: Dominant body language and presence.

The Manosphere should study friendship. Already started here.
Related: Choose your friends carefully.

The Christian game 101 formula.

Donal looks at Sirach, women, and marriage. I still have to read the Deuterocanon.

Christian nice guys are abused.
Related: Faith is essentially fake it ‘til you make it in spiritual terms.

Every Christian man’s battle.

A discussion of Jesus at Cana and a reply.

Thinking too much is also one of my great problems.

Proud not to be a PUA.

A crib sheet of game.
Related: Speak less.

A taxonomy of haters.

The internet may be doing more harm than good.

The white knight landing page.

Some SMP graphs.

There’s more to success in marriage than just being hot.

An outline of a women’s relationship timeline.

Neoreactionary plans for the future.

Who are the neoreactionaries?

The purpose of reactionary politics if to end politics.
Related: Exit over voice.

Neoreaction and social order.

The decline of social trust.

A short introduction to HBD.

A criticism of neoreaction and a response.

Monarchy and SovCorp.

Reactionaries and inequality.

Roosh answers reactionary criticisms levelled against him.

Clannishness vs. state-dependent individualism.

A big summary of the hajnal line.
Related: A bit more on the Hajnal line.
Related: Hypothesis on why NW Europe began outbreeding.
Related: The low fertility of urban liberals is a boon.

The pathogenic theory of culture.

Laidnyc has probably the best ‘yo mama’ joke I’ve read.
Related: The risks of dimorphism.

Neoreactionary subversion.

A crime prevention proposal.

The composition of the Ukrainian government.

Offense as an intellectual allergy.

Low interest rates are a sign and cause of moral decay.

The consequences of the US’ debts.

Progressive hypocrisy on democracy.

Sociopathic patriotism.

Why foreign aid produces bad results.

The degeneration of evangelicalism.

The desolation of the marital altar.

A plea for mercy for adulterers.
Related: The cruelty of the proposed ‘pastoral exception.’

Problems with the church and recovery seminars.

Morality and adrongyny.

There’s a patron saint of shooters and handgunners. Nice.

The patriarch of Georgia singlehandedly raised birth rates by 20%.

Church leaders denying the existence of feminism.

Men’s predation on women is not the problem, women becoming feral is.

The rot goes deep.
Related: Sluts, daughters, and tuition costs.
Related: Roissy comments on the same.
Related: Why does it hurt when I pee?

Young women, older women are trying to throw you under the bus.

Chesterton on women in the workplace.

Women in STEM & MBTI:  Women just don’t have programmer personalities.
Related: Vox starts a Twitter outrage. #iamdoingprogramming

SJW’s deny female agency: bitcoin edition.

Jailing the long-term unemployed.

On female libertarians.

Hook-up culture and campus rape accusations: everyone loses except professional feminists.

Girls don’t have it any worse than boys.

Your tax dollars pay for feminist Mireille Miller-Young to violently assault teenage girls.

Writing and literacy are patriarchal. Guess that means we should keep women illiterate?

Affirmative action for her but never for him.

Triggers warnings silence dissent and protect fragile egos.

A guy wrote a satire for Thought Catalog.

Jewish woman sad that she can’t get a religious divorce because she’s withholding visitation rights from the father.

Amusing story: Lottery winner’s mom wants reunion after 7 years of estrangement.

Woman marries dog. You’d think there’d be a law?

A review of 50 Shades of Grey.

Work on male birth control continues.

A recap of why global warming is a sham.

Private citizens stopped 1/6 mass shootings.

Target shooting in America.

A guide to the gun control debate.

The statistical incomprehension of the masses.

Learning to loathe the USA.

A TRP guide to choosing kindergartens. (Better yet, home-school).

Poor whites are discriminated against in college admissions.
Related: SAT scores by income and race.

Anti-racism is code for anti-white.

Tribalism comes to California.

The racist origins of modern progressive politics.

Can animals distinguish between human races?

Democrats want bureaucrats to visit parent’s homes at birth.

The hypocrisy of leftists in SF.
Related: Winning the culture war in SF.

Demented liberals protest a $100-million donation to a hospital.

Leftist mental illness.

Is American approaching an event horizon in industry?

Eating the young: Global debt reaches $100 trillion.

Voting is an illusion of power.

Why gravitational waves are a big deal.

Socialized medicine and socialist politician killing a little girl.

The lies of homosexual activists.

H/T: Outside In, Phineas, Zippy, RPR, Nick, SDA,

Divine Justice

Divine Justice

Here is the Lord cursing Judah through Isaiah:

And I will make boys their princes,
and infants shall rule over them.
And the people will oppress one another,
every one his fellow
and every one his neighbor;
the youth will be insolent to the elder,
and the despised to the honorable.

For a man will take hold of his brother
in the house of his father, saying:
“You have a cloak;
you shall be our leader,
and this heap of ruins
shall be under your rule”;
in that day he will speak out, saying:
“I will not be a healer;
in my house there is neither bread nor cloak;
you shall not make me
leader of the people.”
For Jerusalem has stumbled,
and Judah has fallen,
because their speech and their deeds are against the LORD,
defying his glorious presence.

For the look on their faces bears witness against them;
they proclaim their sin like Sodom;
they do not hide it.
Woe to them!
For they have brought evil on themselves.
Tell the righteous that it shall be well with them,
for they shall eat the fruit of their deeds.
Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill with him,
for what his hands have dealt out shall be done to him.
My people—infants are their oppressors,
and women rule over them.
O my people, your guides mislead you
and they have swallowed up the course of your paths.
(Isaiah 3:4-12 ESV)

Does that not sound like our society?

Does not “And the people will oppress one another, every one his fellow, and every one his neighbor” sound like democracy?

Does not “the youth will be insolent to the elder, and the despised to the honorable” remind you of “don’t trust anyone over 30” and “baby-killers”?

“My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them.” Hmmm… How long until Hillary is president?

How cursed is a society that worships what in earlier times were feared as divine wrath for serious sins?

Inner Beauty

A while back I mentioned inner beauty, saying I accept the concept itself but reject the abuses it has taken. I decided to write a bit more on this topic after reading this post on why men marry some women. (If you’re a young woman looking to marry, I would strongly suggest reading that link).

The concept of “inner beauty” typically gets short shrift in these parts, and deservedly so. Inner beauty is usually used as an appeal by either unpleasant fat people or unpleasant aging women for why people should love them despite their unpleasantness, obesity, and age. Sadly, Jim Carrey was right about how inner beauty is often used:

Despite the abuses of inner beauty, inner beauty is actually very important. As the earlier linked article pointed out:

1. Men are attracted by the physical, but marry character

a. Newly engaged men said that what attracted them to their fiancées was how classy, positive, energetic, enthusiastic, and upbeat their future wives were.
i. While 68% gave a physical description of their fiancée, only 20% said that what attracted them was how gorgeous and sexy their fiancée was. Over 60% described their personalities, even if the women in question were very beautiful.
b. Therefore, be positive!

2. All wives are trophy wives—men marry women whom they admire and like to show off (but not for their physical appearance)

3. Dressing appropriately sends the message, “I am wife material.” Men marry women they perceive as “situational virgins” who move easily in their world.

a. Editor’s note: In other words, don’t dress like a ho. Men see a sexy outfit as an invitation to have sex.
b. Most men decide within 10 minutes of meeting a woman if she’s appropriate for marriage, or just for a casual affair.
c. Over 80% of men said or bragged that their fiancée was the kind of woman they were proud to introduce to friends and family
d. Over 70% of men said that they knew that their future bride was a “nice girl” the minute they met
e. Only 7 out of 2,000 men interviewed said that their fiancée was dressed in a very sexy outfit when they met.

For finding a husband, women’s looks are secondary, their inner qualities are what matter more. (For finding hook-ups, the opposite is true). This doesn’t mean women should ignore her looks, secondary is still important, but instead a woman looking for marriage should focus on developing the internal qualities a man would want in a wife.

****

Look at the list above of attractive features from 1above: “classy, positive, energetic, enthusiastic, and upbeat”

All but ‘classy’ can be described as simply as ‘actively happy’.

Classy is simply a polite way of saying “not an embarrassing slut”. If you look at points 2 & 3 this simply reinforces that point. Men don’t want someone slutty for marriage, they want a nice girl.

If a woman simply develops herself into a happy, energetic person and refrains from making a slut of herself, she will be attractive.

This is true inner beauty and it shows outwardly.

****

Your outer self reflects your inner self.

Your internal attitude will reflect how others perceive you.

The manosphere talks of frame and irrational self-confidence a lot, because they know that how they think about themselves, their inner personality, comes through in the way they look, in the way they stand, and in the way they talk. Having a strong, confident frame attracts women. The men of the manosphere knows that a person’s inner self reflects their outer self.

This is a man’s inner attractiveness.

But this internal frame doesn’t just apply to men, it also applies to women. A woman’s internal attitude will greatly effect her external appearance.

A women’s positive attitude is extremely important. A genuine smile and positive outlook on life can easily and greatly increase a women’s attractiveness.

Here is something most men know, but many women seem not to understand. The vast majority of women under the age of 25 who keep themselves healthy, have a positive attitude, and smile a lot are attractive to most men.

To be unattractive usually requires effort on a women’s part.

****

To be unattractive most young women have to actively make themselves unattractive by either having a bad attitude, gaining weight, mutilating themselves through piercings or tattoos, or actively hampering their looks through too much make-up or a bad (ie: short) haircut.

Obesity is the most common reasons for young women being unattractive, but, even that is simply an outward expression of an inward attitude. I’ve written more about this before, but to summarize, obesity a symptom of two of the seven cardinal sins. An unwillingness to take the most basic care of your body shows outwardly a deep inward self-loathing.

Tattoos and piercings show internal attitudes as well. Tattoos demonstrate poor decision-making, trashy attitudes, and sexual easiness. Piercings demonstrate much the same. While these might attract men looking for easy sex, they are counterproductive in sending the message “I am wife material”.

A bad haircut (ie: short hair) displays a lack of femininity and a lack of desire to be feminine. This displays an unattractive internal reality.

Poor make-up is less permanent and less destructive, but caking it on like a whore, makes you look like a whore, which is the opposite of classy wife material. This may be showing an internal problem or it may simply just be showing cluelessness.

While these external markers may all show inner ugliness, inner ugliness will show through more directly as well. Inner ugliness will display itself in frowning, bad attitudes, argumentativeness, nagging, and the like, all of which is horribly physically unattractive.

If a woman simply keeps in shape, is happy, and doesn’t ruin herself, she will be able to attract a man.

****

There are a few exceptions to the rule, some people are are just born physically ugly and no amount of inner beauty or self-care will change that, but that is rare.

Look at this 1-10 pictoral scale, how many women (excluding the obese) like those in the 1-4 categories does a man actually see in real life?

For myself, I can only think of one example of a girl (from church) under 30 from my entirety of my regular social circles (school, friends, social activities, etc.) who would fall among the 1-4 range for a reason other than obesity. It is very rare in the course of my regular life in public areas (bussing, shopping, at church, walking around, etc) that I will see a <30 woman who would physically be a 1-4 for reasons other than obesity (or, occassionally, a hideous make-up job, bad haircut, or piercings/tattoos).

The young, in-shape women who is actually unattractive is a very rare thing.

For a woman, being a 5 or higher means the majority of men are naturally attracted to you.

So, if you are a women looking to find a husband, develop your inner beauty. Be happy, be positive, be energetic, and don’t get fat or be a slut.

****

To bring this to a more abstract, ideological level, this is one of the problems with feminism; feminism actively tries to destroy inner beauty.

They encourage fat acceptance, sluttiness, and bad attitude.

I’ve already written about fat acceptance here, re-read that.

As for sluttiness, Tracy’s new piece shows you exactly what they are encouraging there. Hardly the time of women that would be a classy, nice girl to show off to family. Radish Mag has a nice long piece on this as well.

As for bad attitudes, feminists are actively campaigning against being happy and smiling. They believe smiling is tyranny and have started a campaign called “Don’t tell me to smile”. They revel in their “bitch faces“. The possible examples are endless, but its obvious the feminists are opposed to being “positive, energetic, enthusiastic, and upbeat” or anyone encouraging the same.

So, to any women looking to get married, avoid any feminist advice, for men are looking for exactly the opposite.

****

For just one example of how feminists destroy inner beauty, we’ll take RoK’s ugliest feminist, Lindy West (trigger warning: Lindy West):

She’s obviously very unattractive, but if you look closer you can tell she has good skin and no major deformities. If we see a picture of her smiling (even if it a kinda fake smile) and hiding her fat , she jumps physically from a 2-3 to a 4:

If she lost weight and put on a positive attitude she could probably easy jump form the ugly range to the attractive range. Even so, just physically speaking she’s not the physically ugliest person I’ve seen, but her ugliness is not from her physicality, it flows from her inner self. Because she follows feminist dogma she will keep herself fat, she will continue to display a bitchy face, and her inner ugliness will continue to glower through.

As the top commenter on the RoK article stated:

These women are rotten to the core. That’s why Roosh picked them. They’re miserable, cynical, pessimistic, angry, and offer nothing of substance. They’re physical appearance was just icing on the cake. They’re ugly through and through.

It’s her inner ugliness that truly makes her repulsive.

When I wrote of Tracy Flory-Clark a lot of men expressed repulsion to her. She’s kind of plain but not physically ugly:

With a more genuine smile and eyes that didn’t have the thousand-cock stare, she could probably be fairly attractive. It’s not her outer self that’s repulsive, it’s her inner self which manifests outwardly that makes her repulsive to men.

These feminists are not ugly because of what’s outside, they have an ugly inner core.

****

So, women, unless you want to be in line with the ugliest feminist in America, develop your inner beauty. It matters a lot.

Not to mention you’ll feel better about yourself as a happy, healthy, joyful, energetic person rather than a bitter, angry, hateful one.

Lightning Round -2013/03/12

Radish finally finished his Pump & Dump post. Read it, it is amazing.

The manosphere and masculine excellence.
Related: Game vs. the reactosphere.

On powertalk and how it applies to the RP. Read the series a long time ago, a good reread.

Follow God, not other’s passions.

Grow or stagnate.
Related: How to accomplish anything.

I’m just somewhat above untrained for the main 4. Much more work to do.

Body language: Hands down. Simple but, from experience, hard to implement.

You’re lonely but you’re not alone.

The truth industry.

Don’t be a nice guy.

Manosphere Omertà.

Applying the pareto principle in life.

Porn replaces our burning to fight. Related.

Man up, church. A biblical defense of giving offense.
Related: The good Christians do in the world.

Advice for short men.

Why men don’t marry, labour force edition.
Related: A Japanese MGTOW’s take on herbivore men.
Related: The ‘mysterious’ rise in youth unemployment.

Roosh is experiencing why marriage is important.

A discussion of God at RoK.

Who cares what women think.

Feminine and masculine communication.

Love your wife through words.

Don’t marry an overeducated woman.

A letter to ABlack spade (cards)’s daughter.

An oldie for good Christian women.

Wifely submission.
Related: Sex should not be weaponized in marriage.

A study on why men marry some women and not others. Good advice for women; some red pill stuff in there. The editor’s note amused me.
Related: A blunt message for women on fertility.

A reactionary oath.

An excellent analysis of the mess of our current legal system.

Our popped culture.

A big summary of the hajnal line.

The death of honour.

On groupthink.
Related: Human cognition and groupthink.

How the media promotes terrorism.

Minority tipping points.

Racial voting in Texas.

A reactionary look at the Lone Ranger.

Seems some ‘medievalist’ got in a ‘debate’ about HBD and made himself look foolish.

The rot goes deep.

Gromar attends CPAC.

Food labels for the retarded.
Related: The decadence of food glorification.

Russia not Right Sector.
Related: Neoreaction and the ascendency of Russia.
Related: The incompetence and moral bankruptcy of the US in Ukraine.
Related: Urkaine: Were snipers from Euromaiden?

The EU isn’t a nation, no one will die for it.

Remember Libya?

I kinda wish Ballista had made that post. Harsh criticism is good for the soul.

Pope could support homosexual civil unions.

The church needs to re-evaluate its conception of gender.

The failure of the bodily autonomy argument for abortion.

The reason women act in certain ways men don’t understand: Women fear being cast from the tribe.

Two women’s funerals.

Men in America are an interruption.

New word: Bureaugamy. (Although, I think I’ve heard it before.)

Horses, fat, and healthiness. Dressing it up in ponies might help some girls get it.

Canadian man found guilty of sexual assault for poking holes in condom; SC makes sure ruling does not apply to women lying about taking birth control.
Related: Remember, even if she says yes, it might still be rape.

Breastfeeding may not be best.

How transgenderism could divide feminism.

“As a result, twice as many women as men passed their genes to the next generation.”

Car status and number closes.

Student loan fraud and mass delusion.
Related: OWS continues their stupidity.

4 harsh truths you need to learn.

The government cannot distinguish between the shiftless and the unfortunate.

What world do journalists live in? Obama’s “era of austerity”???

The decline of the US military.

A second bitcoin exchange goes bankrupt.

 

A left-wing glossary.

Venezuela food lines.

Global warming in 1922.

App to read novels in under 90 minutes.

Vox on entryism is SF.

Facebook cracks down on guns.

Amanda Marcotte notices something right-wingers have been saying for ages, but, of course, doesn’t acknowledge that her and her kind are the reason this idiocy exists.

Bo-meme-ian Rhapsody.

(H/T: SDA, RPR, Outside In)