A Day Without A Woman

Women's March organizes a protest:

Organizers of January's Women's March have called for women to take the day off and encouraged them not to spend money to show their economic strength and impact on American society.

"A Day Without a Woman" on Wednesday is the first major action by organizers since the nationwide marches held the day after President Donald Trump's inauguration that drew millions of women into the streets in protest against misogyny, inequality and oppression. Though it is unclear how many women could participate, thousands across the country have signaled their support and interest online and to employers.

The event coincides with the U.N.-designated International Women's Day, and organizers say they want to "stand with women around the globe" who supported their efforts Jan. 21 with similar protests in cities around the world.

Spokeswoman Cassady Findlay said organizers were inspired by the recent "Day Without an Immigrant" protests held last month. She said the action is aimed at highlighting the effect of women on the country's socio-economic system and would demonstrate how the paid and unpaid work of women keeps households, communities and economies running.

I will be counterprotesting today by playing Star Control 2, Eador: Genesis, and later, watching a soccer match.

Stay strong, my brothers.

Between Gamma and Lambda

Anonymous Conservative explains how extreme /r reproduction occurs:

It is counterintuitive to think specimens like this would have greater fitness than traditional K-selected males, but when fighting is not necessary, fighting is a Darwinian disadvantage. And in truth, I do not think I could actually bring myself to beat one of these characters to death, even if they attacked me. It would just feel like killing a handicapped child. I suspect after parrying one of their girlie deathblows, I would turn away in horror, screaming, “Just go, just go!” And they would live to fearfully boink a manjawed feminist ball-grabber yet another day.

So what does r-selection do when fighting and being beaten to death is a Darwinian disadvantage? It causes r-selection to evolve men to adopt the appearance and manner of handicapped children – and that appearance and manner is itself actually evolutionarily advantageous. Females in r-selection, on a deep level, know this and seek out male mates with those traits, so their offspring are inoculated against being beaten to death too. I would say it is elegant in every way – except in the result it produces.

Yeah, we'll see.

The fire rises

The Chateau observes that white men are no longer interested in being lectured by their hypocritical inferiors:

There’s fight left in White men. The time is coming, very soon now, when the paper tigress of shitliberalism is exposed on the vivisecting table, and unapologetic shitlords stream out of their bunkers armed to the teeth with the liberating knowledge that the passive-aggressive snarl is all their enemies bring to battle, and behind that snarl there’s nothing but cowardly submission.

Speaking of a White fire rising:

A rare breed, two Pedowood shitlords, react to post-Wall harridan Meryl Streep’s anti-Trump self-aggrandizing harangue on stage. Look at the fire in Vince Vaughn’s and Mel Gibson’s eyes. These are men asking themselves, and the world, “Who bitch this is?”. They forge in the furnace of their unalloyed disgust a quiet and seething intolerance for the enemies of White men; a vengeance devised to settle the ultimate score — recapture of their homeland from degenerates within — percolates in their blood and radiates from their irises.

Look at those eyes brimming with righteous hatred closely, and multiply that look by millions, because that’s how many White men of the West feel the same way. And their numbers grow daily. White men are awakening to their planned and active dispossession by malevolent forces corrupting the creation of their ancestors. They see Meryl StreepThroat as another in a long line of preachy hypocritical reprobates shitting on their race and culture and values for fun and profit and the adulation of the elite bubble crowd. This rapidly coalescing army of normal White men and the White women who have not yet abandoned them for the wigger low life knows that attacks on Trump are proxy attacks on Whites.

Don't hide your contempt. Don't hide your total rejection of the daily SJW Narrative. Let them know that the fire is rising and it is going to entirely consume them.

Divorce and social disruption

The pernicious effects of divorce on demand aren't limited to the parents and children:

Up to three in ten pensioners are refusing to leave everything to their children when they die over fears it will either be squandered or lost in divorce, a survey shows. Instead, many are leaving assets to grandchildren or handing them down to their offspring in smaller packages over the years so it does not go all at once.

 It found 30 per cent of parents are unwilling to leave money to their married children, mainly through fears half of it would be lost in divorce.

It is ridiculous that inheritance money is included in the pool of marital assets that are split. One certain way of protecting it is to keep it out of the hands of the child about to get married.

What feminism hath wrought

Feminism and multiculturalism have created a society where women can do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't involve marrying a smarter, taller, better-educated man of their own race, making a home, and bearing his children. Much to everyone's surprise, this makes white women very unhappy:

Drinking is killing twice as many middle-aged white women as it did 18 years ago.

Generally, middle age (age 35 to 54)  is not the time to die in modern societies. It is past teenage dangers, before the serious perils of age, and improved medical care and public-health campaigns are keeping more people alive.

So why are middle-aged white women dying more often even while death rates for other groups continue to go down? What are white women doing that is so different?

One simple answer is: a lot more drinking.

Feminism kills. Feminism is societal cancer.

Return from savagery

Is there no madness the God-Emperor Ascendant cannot cure?

Call it a strange sign of the times. Some doctors, like Sterman, say they are noticing more and more millennials coming in because their ears have become deformed from overpiercing and need reconstructive surgery.

And it's not just ear piercing. Many are seeking to reverse the impulsive, perhaps keg-fueled decisions of their not-quite-lost youths. That tongue piercing, that bone through the nose, that conspicuously placed tattoo you got in college may not go over so big now in a job interview, or in the board room. It's time to conform to the real world.

"There has been an influx of people, millennials in particular, who have a lot of body piercings — mainly facial piercings — that they are looking to change," says Dr. Laurence Milgrim, a board-certified facial plastic surgeon in Teaneck. "These are large earring holes, larger than the usual stud hole. When the earlobe and other parts of their bodies are expanded, they have trouble in the classic work force. Nose piercings, ear piercings … and tattoo removal, especially on the neck, where it's noticeable, has become popular."

It's about time. This is a heartening eucivilizational trend. There is an adjective for cultures that adorn themselves with skin stainings and body piercings: primitive. If you're going to get pierced and tattooed, you might as well put a plate in your lip and strap on a penis gourd.

Game and Round Two

The Chateau explains that America is already in the midst of a second civil war:

The best way to think about America, now and historically, is as the battleground between rival White factions, with nonwhites and women as shock troops ordered to exploit, respectively, White men’s racial guilt and their white knightery.

One faction — the Runaway Universalists (RU) Whites — is engaged in biological warfare against the Fuck You (FU) Whites, via open borders to the third world.

This is not a recent invention. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the RU Whites (back then, Yankees of Quaker and Puritan blood) opened the borders to non-Anglo ethnic European immigration, seeking the same goal: defeat of their cousin FUs (loosely organized under the later umbrella term “WASP” for Anglo-Germanics, but including Southern and Appalachian Whites of Scots-Irish descent).

The RU Whites won a surrender and a temporary peace with the FU Whites in America’s first Civil War, but the ethnic faults and schisms persist, and have deepened since then, despite decades of “Diversity is our strength” propaganda.

The end game is the same: hot war. But RU Whites know they can’t win a shooting Civil War 2 now. So their strategy is demographic displacement. This is the strategic undercurrent that will strand a true “White nationalism” political platform from achieving social significance.

The White War pitting RU White ethnics against FU White ethnics will necessarily confine any emergent WN movement to within the FU White sphere of influence, as White Nationalism is inherently a defensive posture against memetic and cultural attack by the RU Whites.

This is why MGTOW is not an option. It is a surrender. It is exactly what the RU-Whites want you to do. Yes, there is a real risk that marrying a white girl and having children with her will end up with you being divorce-raped. It is a risk that you have to take anyhow, for the same reason that a soldier in a shooting war has to take the risk of being shot.

There are casualties in every conflict.

Game helps you reduce the risk of becoming a casualty, but the risk is there for every man no matter what. But so what? Taking risks is what men do. Don't live in fear, go out there and win the war for Western civilization.

Let's face it, if you meet a girl who responds well to being taken by the hand and being told: "Come with me if you want Western civilization to live", there is a good chance she is a keeper.

Sexism in politics

As usual, the article of feminist faith proves to be false once examined:

Back in 1997, three scholars, Richard Seltzer, Jody Newman and Melissa Voorhees Leighton examined every state legislative race from 1986 to 1994 and every governor's race, U.S. House race and U.S. Senate race from 1972 to 1994. Combined, they analyzed almost 62,000 candidates. They divided the races into three categories: Male incumbents vs. female challengers, female incumbents vs. male challengers and male non-incumbents vs. female non-incumbents.

The results were unambiguous: When women run, women win just as often as men do.

Our study found no difference between success rates for men and women in general elections. Based on the overwhelming weight of the data gathered, the conclusion is clear: A candidate's sex does not affect his or her chances of winning an election.

Hillary Clinton didn't lose because the U.S. voters were sexist. She lost because she was a horrible candidate with a long history of corruption and failure at everything she touched and because she failed to stand against the ongoing invasion of the USA.

There is always a "them"

Rational Male observes how feminists are dependent upon cutting off young women from the herd using a largely imaginary revisionist history:

In femopshere there will always be an ‘us’. As I’ve outline in many prior essays, the Sisterhood will always take precedence above religion, politics, personal conviction and even family affiliations for women. Largely this is due to women’s evolved propensity for collectivism among their own sex. In our hunter gatherer beginnings women had an interdependent need for collective support for keeping tribal cohesion as well as child rearing.

This intrasexual collective support has carried over into what’s become the Sisterhood today. If you look at the interactions of young girls and their social group interdependence you begin to see that nascent tribal collectivism naturally come through. In terms of larger societal scope this collectivity becomes about acknowledging a shared experience of an imagined oppression by men. Between all women there is a gestalt understanding of “the plight of women” and a presumption of an endemic sexism no matter how culturally or socioeconomically dissimilar those women are.

The best way to attack this is not to surrender and abandon all women as the MGTOW do, but rather, to attack the feminist paradigms, deconstruct their propaganda, and save young women from it. Yes, there is risk in this, but there is absolute and certain defeat in "going your own way" to the grave as an evolutionary and civilizational dead end.

There will always be a "them". It is up to men to ensure young women that there will always be an "us" that is a more powerful and meaningful and attractive bond.

White women voted for Trump

Donald Trump had 53% support from white women. He had 4% support from black women. The primary political problem in the USA is not feminism, it is ethnicity.

And that's why you don't hit men

No doubt there will be much hue and cry about charging the young man if the young woman who attacked him dies of her injuries. But as the video shows, it's a clear-cut case of self-defense.

A 19-year-old woman suffered a fractured skull after being punched in the face near a Rutgers fraternity house over the weekend, and her family is asking for help to identify the man who hit her.

Emily Rand's aunt said her niece underwent surgery at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital on Thursday in an attempt to reduce bleeding in her brain, but that the teenager isn't making progress.

"Not yet," Debbie O'Connor said by phone Friday afternoon. "No improvement at all. She's still heavily sedated."

A video of the incident posted on social media and obtained by NJ Advance Media shows Rand take a swing at a man in the area of Robinson and Hamilton streets before the unidentified man punched her in the face.

We have no sympathy for small men who attack bigger, stronger men and experience the natural consequences. We should not have any sympathy for women who do so either.

Not out of any belief in a nonexistent equality, but out of respect for the eucivic principle of providing negative incentive for violent aggression.

It's all over but the crying

Courtesy of David James Vickery and the Chateau comes the moment of truth:

Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
- Matthew 17:1-2

The end of feminism

It isn't dead yet. It hasn't lost the hearts of young women, only the minds. But it has suffered a mortal wound from reality puncturing its pretensions:

This image from the Women Against Feminism Tumblr page really hits home the loss for feminism. This woman was raped. She is not running around spreading lies like the UVA RAPE HOAX story that Rolling Stone ran and had to retract. She justs wants to go back to living a normal life. She does not want to be angry at ALL men for the crime of ONE of them. She does not want to demonize all men in some sad attempt to get revenge. She does not want to be a victim.

Feminists have lost the female youth of Millenials, the very generation that is supposed to obliterate the patriarchy completely in the 21st century.

If Hillary Clinton is defeated, that will end feminism as an offensive force. If Hillary Clinton is elected, that will arguably be even worse for feminism, as rule-by-Hillary will set back the cause of women by decades, if not centuries.

There is always hope

Sometimes, we are so focused on the darkness and the nastiness of the fallen world that we forget that there has been a Divine Invasion. Sometimes, we are so occupied with battling the demons and shadows that escaped Pandora's Box that we neglect to remind ourselves that the box also contained the the little winged fairy of Hope.

This story of an unlikely couple is a reminder that giving into despair and fatalism is not necessary:

It was pure chance that [Chris] Dempsey came into [Heather] Krueger’s life.

The code-enforcement officer in Frankfort, Ill., overheard one of his co-workers talk about a cousin who was dying of cancer and desperately needed a liver transplant.

Dempsey readily agreed to get tested to see if he was a match.

“I spent four years in the Marine Corps and learned there never to run away from anything,” he explained to CBS News. “So I just said to myself, ‘Hey, if I can help, I’m going to help.’ ”

He turned out to be a match.

All that is necessary to resist evil is the knowledge that sometimes, occasionally, against all odds, the good guys sometimes win.

The Attraction Irony

The hallmark of a broken society: many women will now respond better to male infidelity than to male fidelity.

Most men in this part of the world won’t so much as verbally disagree with his female or even raise his voice at her. Men like this are fearful of the proverbial shit storm they’re sure will ensue if they upset the applecart. For this reason they live in a perpetual state of discontentment caused by this fear.

A man in a relationship where he’s afraid to check his woman for any reason will lose the single most important element in in keeping her loyal: respect. A woman cannot love a man she does not respect. It can’t be done. And if a man doesn’t have any backbone, his woman can’t respect him let alone love him.

According to women, two of the worst things a man can do to a woman within the context of a sexual relationship is physical abuse, and infidelity. But knowing what we know about women tells us that that these two ‘crimes’ keep them around a hell of a lot longer than the opposites.

It does make sense, in a sick sort of way. The man who cheats obviously commands interest from other women, whereas even the most desirable man can be dismissed as unable to attract interest from other women if he is resolutely faithful.

From a strictly hypergamous perspective, the unfaithful man is more sexually attractive than the faithful man, by definition. Traditional women are taught to control their hypergamous urges, just as traditional men are taught to control their promiscuous urges, but then, increasingly few men and women have been taught to deny themselves anything these days.

Mandatory minimums for sex crimes

California has just taken a very dangerous step that will almost certainly result in innocent men being imprisoned:

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law Assembly Bills 2888 and 701 on Friday, which create mandatory minimum sentences for people convicted of sex crimes.

The bills came in response to the outcry over Brock Turner's lenient sentence. As I've argued previously, that outcry was largely justified—Turner did get a comparatively light prison sentence, though the fact that he has to register as a sex offender is no small thing....

The new law specifically prohibits judges from letting perpetrators get off with probation if they have been convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious or intoxicated person. While this may have produced a better outcome in the Turner case, forcing judges to send more people to prison is bad public policy. It will exacerbate all kinds of problems with the criminal justice system.

Mandatory minimum sentences, combined with the known quantity of false rape and false sexual assault accusations, removes the ability of a judge who has cause to doubt the veracity of an accuser to reduce the impact of a false accusation.

This will take the War on Men to new depths.

I won't be surprised if feminists next attempt to permit extrajudicial college courts to impose these mandatory minimum sentences.

Donald Trump and diversity

Dr. Helen explains why she is supporting Donald Trump for President:

In 2008, during election night, my husband Glenn and I did some commentary for PJTV and I remember PJTV host Bill Whittle asking me if the election of Obama would reduce the anger of liberals to which I said, "no, it would probably enhance it because now they feel entitled and emboldened to be even nastier." If one thinks of liberal bias and anger in behavioral terms, winning the presidential election would reinforce the self-entitled behavior of liberals even further:

In operant conditioning, positive reinforcement involves the addition of a reinforcing stimulus following a behavior that makes it more likely that the behavior will occur again in the future. When a favorable outcome, event, or reward occurs after an action, that particular response or behavior will be strengthened.

So, what does all this psychological jargon mean for the individual in regards to politics? It means that liberal bias and anger against those of us who do not go along with the liberal agenda could increase and in ways that cost people their jobs, livelihoods, relationships etc. A Trump election means that people (mostly liberal) will stop to think about the consequences of their acts more with the other side in power. The fact is, the media, schools, universities and much of society in general these days is driven by liberal thought and with a liberal president and Justice Department at the helm, people feel very free to engage in acts against dissidents without as much restraint.

How does this play out? It means that there will be fewer conservatives allowed in the media, in schools and universities and in all institutions that are left-leaning which is to say most of them. If a conservative (one of the few) happens to be within earshot of a liberal, it is possible that they may lose their job, their reputation, and their livelihoods.

But with president Trump, though liberals may be angry at conservatives and try to get them fired, harassed, mobbed or jailed, they will try a little less or maybe not at all if they feel that they will not be backed up by the Justice Department or other liberal henchmen (or women). And for those who are not conservative and think you are safe if liberal, not so fast. Fewer conservatives in the liberal crosshairs means fewer targets; then they start picking off their own.

Don't be surprised if you find out that your fellow liberals will take you down too, and you will have nowhere to turn since the government and your office is all on the same side.

There are other, even more important reasons, such as the opportunity for immigration restrictions, to support Donald Trump. But this is a non-trivial one. And one can only imagine how much further amok feminists would be permitted to run under a Hillary administration.

How the West was weird

Every now and then, I encounter a post that makes me realize how little I know, and how there are entire realms of thought that never, ever, cross my mind:

A great deal of weirdness in conservative life can be explained by the theory that smarter women were more likely to end up out in the West/frontier and also be able to offset the consequences of marrying a relatively lunkish guy because their domestic labors were monetized.  They also could afford to take the chance of marrying a lunk because he didn’t need to be all that clever to make it in the West.

Over time as the domestic sphere lost its financially remunerative aspects, the general pattern was established, but that just left such women scrambling to compensate in other ways, leaving them prey to scams and schemes because they had income pressure but no easy way to integrate it into their increasingly narrow domestic sphere.

It's true that the romantic heroes of the West tend to be taciturn and competent rather than facile and intelligent. But I have no idea what significance that might hold or how it has shaped modern society, nor have I ever given the matter a moment's thought.

However, we do know that intelligence tends to flow through the maternal line. So, it's an interesting line of thought, even if it is one that I am unlikely to pursue myself.

Black Lives Matter attacks white girls

Minding your own business doesn't matter anymore because many American blacks simply hate whites. They don't care who you are, what you think, or what you're doing. This is the age of identity politics:

Stockton police are searching for the suspects in a vicious attack that happened on Friday against two teenaged sisters.

Police say a group of protestors wearing Black Lives Matter shirts held a vigil and a protest near the intersection of Pacific and Yokuts avenues.

Protestors were remembering Colby Friday, an African-American man who was shot and killed by Stockton police in August after he ignored an officer’s commands to drop his handgun.

Police say two Caucasian girls left a local restaurant and passed by the protest when they were attacked by the protestors.

What was supposed to be a peaceful protest remembering Colby Friday turned into a vicious brawl directed against two sisters, and now, investigators are looking for suspects.

On the plus side, the experience should suffice to dissuade them from any mudsharking in the future

Why women are angry all the time

The Daily Mail wonders why so many middle-aged women are consumed by rage and out-of-control:

Why are modern women so aggressive? It's been called the dark side of equality - a surge in respectable women flying into violent rages for the most trivial reasons. Research has also found that women are significantly more likely to be verbally and physically aggressive to men than vice versa — something physicians are seeing more of in their clinics.

'We are treating more women than ever who are struggling to regulate their emotions and express themselves appropriately,' says Dr Monica Cain, a counselling psychologist at London's Nightingale Hospital.

So what is causing the red mist to descend for so many women? And why is this anger afflicting so many upstanding women, the sort you might hope would be immune to, or too ashamed of, having outbursts?

Some experts suggest women believe that such outward displays of aggression allow them to seize the initiative from traditionally dominant men. Whether it's in the workplace or around the dining table, shouting, swearing or throwing things are increasingly viewed as valid methods for women to assert themselves.

Dr Elle Boag, social psychologist at Birmingham City University, says: 'Women feel aggression is a form of empowerment. It has become so commonplace that it's not even shameful.'

As women hit menopause, they tend to get observably unhappier and angrier. However, Western society no longer permits men to keep middle-aged female anger under control any more than it permits them to restrain young female promiscuity.

Two observations. First, it's clearly not psychologically healthy behavior: I get heart palpitations and shake. Then I open my mouth without engaging my brain. I shout and use foul language I regret afterwards. It takes me a couple of hours before I can calm down.'

Second, it is milquetoast men who are enabling the self-destructive behavior. As mild-mannered as Jo is volatile, he's found that the best thing to do is to walk away and let the tantrum burn itself out.

The reason for the behavior is that this is what the unrestrained female psyche looks like. I would be willing to bet that there is no problem of violently angry women in Saudi Arabia, because a woman who acted that way would be badly beaten down by the first man she tried to provoke.

The irony is that this ridiculous, even infantile, behavior is not merely permitted, but enabled, by men. It's not necessary to physically slap down a perpetually angry woman. Simply telling her to "shut the fuck up" and then refusing to have anything to do with her when she's raging will suffice to inspire any woman who isn't literally off her rocker to control herself.

I don't accept verbal aggression from women. If it is directed at me, I respond to it in kind. Unsurprisingly, I very seldom encounter it. It may be useful to note that women cannot stand vulgarity or contempt as well as men can, so instead of matching their shrill tone or raised volume level, two things they can abide rather better than men, it will usually be more effective to use obscenities in a dismissive manner.

Protesting, "You're always shouting at me! Would you stop shouting!" is only going to launch an interminable high-volume argument about what "always" and "shouting" mean, whereas a dismissive "turn down the fucking volume" is much more likely to be met with a blessedly silent period of pouting. You can't fix their feelings, or their sense of the world's injustice, but you can certainly convince them to shut the hell up.

Take what victories are available to you.  Soft-voiced obsequiousness is only going to further infuriate them. One thing I've noticed that accompanying every married rage-queen is a meek husband who never seeks to correct or control his angry wife.

And should they try to play the "you shouldn't use that language" card, simply respond with "don't use that fucking tone". Either communication is civil or it is not. Once one party has decided to forgo civil communication, they have lost any right to appeal to conversational etiquette. Treat a woman who speaks like a lady like a lady, and a woman who talks like a bitch like a bitch. It's her call.