A place for a

27.03.2017

Why do most people believe women’s lies?

If we assume women naturally pretend to be victims even when they aren’t to get what they want …

… we must also assume that people notice this every now and then …

… which results in women then not getting help when they actually need it …

… which becomes a “valid” complaint of theirs and furthers their victimhood …

… so they have to exaggerate and perfect their displays of innocence and victimhood further and further to still be convincing.

So in a way … them being manipulators is a slippery slope. They can’t stop manipulating because then they would not get anything at all. So they have to instead rise to the top of the manipulation-foodchain.

Continue reading “Why do most people believe women’s lies?

23.02.2017

Feminism and gaming: Far Cry 3 writer says the player’s character should have been castrated

Spoiler warning. Don’t read if you don’t want to read about Far Cry 3’s ending.

I remember playing Far Cry 3 and wondering why the fuck I have to be playing hero for some stupid indigenous tribe led by some stupid bitch whom I could not care less about other than that she was kind ahot.

I also remember wondering why I, the hapless and untrained American tourist, am chosen over literally every other male in the game for this task.

Either way, the whole story was kinda weird and the bossfight you actually look forward to is even weirder and rather disappointing.

In the end of the game, you are encouraged to make a choice:

  1. Kill your friends and stay with the stupid but hot bitch who proclaims her love for you.
  2. Save your friends and kill the bitch.

If you choose the first option, the bitch will fuck and then kill you.

Turns out, Far Cry 3 writer Jeffrey Yohalem wanted to make a feminist statement with this, to mock the “princess saving complex”. To punish the man for his “misogyny”, he suggests he actually should have been castrated. Here’s the excerpt from the linked article (Spoilers!):

In one ending, Jason chooses to live out his days with Citra, where he – being the ultimate badass that he is – will continue to protect the island. Only Citra has other plans and decides to murder the oblivious bloke instead.

As it turns out, Citra never really needed to be saved and the whole thing is a commentary on the princess rescuing complex that permeates the medium. “Jason conjures up this whole idea that Citra needs saving and he’s gonna save her, when in reality it was all a ritual she created to find a sperm donor, and she kills him,” Yohalem explained.

“Sex, violence, and the player is killed. Here are the things that satisfy our animal side as men, but they’re subverted because it’s a female doing it.” Yohalem likened the ending to Princess Peach stabbing Mario. “Now that I’m thinking about it, that final scene should have been Citra castrating Jason. Seriously, that’s the point! It is like, ‘You win, motherf*****!’ It’s totally like, ‘F*** you, you misogynist idiot!’”

For reference, here is the original article that this article quotes from on archive.org. Apparently it has been deleted since, but you can find this old version of it, so it’s all cool.

Continue reading “Feminism and gaming: Far Cry 3 writer says the player’s character should have been castrated

20.02.2017

Arguments are power plays

When somebody is in competition to another, it is not so much whether he is actually better that counts.

It is whether the voices that most people listen to judge his performance as better.

The “critics’ consensus”. The consensus of the voices that most people think are reasonable and informed. Whatever that means, right?

When you trust a source that says “Trump totally owned Hillary, that bitch”, then that is the truth.

When you trust a source that says “Hillary is the rightful winner, Trump only tricked himself into winning”, then that is the truth.

But it’s much more apparent when there is no actual competition rules, like in a presidency.

In a debate.

Take a public debate. Most people afterwards will gravitate towards sources that proclaim that their preferred debater “won” or “totally burned” the other one.

In a debate there is no objective winner. What counts is not so much whether someone has actually won, but whether you can convince people that some particular part of the debate marked a participant’s victory.

And suddenly, after the critic says it, “it becomes obvious”. Well, why wasn’t it obvious before the critic or “expert” said it?

Continue reading “Arguments are power plays

02.12.2016

How the need for validation can hijack our passions

When we first had Latin at school, 7th grade or so, I absolutely loved it. I ate that shit up. All others were like Meh, but I devoured it. Latin homework was always the thing I looked forward to doing. I learned all the vocabulary and delved into the grammar. The subject was utterly fascinating to me.

Predictably, I got very good grades. I was by far the best student in Latin. I was so good that when we had a translation exam, I wrote two different, ehm, let’s call them interpretations and passed one around secretly for the others to copy, which led to a funny situation once or twice, because the interpretations I passed around were always my second choices and not the ideal translations.

Now, here’s a short overview over the grade system in Germany. We have grades ranging from 1 to 6, 1 being the best. They are titled like this:

  1. Very Good
  2. Good
  3. Satisfactory
  4. Sufficient
  5. Lacking
  6. Insufficient

You usually need at least a 4 on average to pass the school year. In Latin, I always had a stellar 1.

Now, I was generally a good student and by the end of that year, I was proposed to change to a different school that would be more challenging.

I accepted.

Continue reading “How the need for validation can hijack our passions

28.10.2016

Women complain about the male ego, but they are the reason it exists

The male ego.

Why do men have greater egos?

Because men are expected to shut up about their pain. When they open up about such things, the typical response is “suck it up crybaby”.

And I guess that’s all cool and shit. But don’t go about complaining men have big egos when they learn from small on to hide their feelings as if they were some dirty secrets.

Men have big egos because that’s what is expected of them. And not just because of patriarchy. At least as big – if not bigger – a component are women who expect men to be strong and impenetrable and take care of them while sacrificing their own needs. They keep throwing shit tests at men who display weakness, and using men to their own advantage when they sense they can do this. Thanks to their ability to “empathize”.

In fact, I dare say every woman even reading this post will feel a repulsion to even such a limited amount of openness and “weakness”. Makes sense, as she is evolved to crave for a protector and shit, right.

But think of it … when even a post like this – or a real life equivalent – can repulse a woman from considering a man attractive or lovable – saying this as a matter of fact, not to cry for sympathy -, or use it as cannon fodder for her manipulations …

Well then don’t fucking complain about the male ego, because that’s basically what you’re asking for.

Matter of fact, I think women dislike the male ego precisely because it makes the man wisely close up towards women about his emotional world. Women crave to know stuff about people so that they can use it against them … so they naturally want men to let their guards down. It gives them power.

So … let’s celebrate the male ego. It is a fine protection against the harpies. And as for being open and honest: That’s what locker room talk is there for.

10.09.2016

Coining a new red pill term: mommy-whipped

I actually have a pretty cool article in the pipeline – in my eyes, anyway – but I want to try and get it on ROK for fame, shits and giggles. It probably won’t work out, as my writing style is … different. But anyway, since you guys have been missing me so terribly, here is an absolute game changer (or a relative one?).

Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce to you the term: mommy-whipped.

To not make it too complicated and convoluted (are those the same?), I’ll just give you a checklist a la DSM aka pseudo-professional mental illness labeling:

You are mommy-whipped if:

  1. You will defend and justify any deed done by a woman towards her children with: She loves you.
  2. You think a mother can not be abusive towards her children emotionally, physically or sexually.
  3. You think a mother is more important to a boy than his father and/or can replace him by putting in hard work and sleepless nights and doing a hell of a job!.
  4. You put your mother or mothers in general above other women. Hint: Read stupid Bible quote below this list.
  5. You put the Mother Archetype above other Archetypes and see her as something like the Ultimate Deity and Creator or whatever.
  6. You view your mother or mothers in general as something pristine, unspoiled, holy.
  7. You think your mother is somehow different from other women, especially regarding typical red pill truths.
  8. You think that your mother has some mystical infathomable thing called a mother’s love to give you that you can never ever obtain anywhere else, especially not in yourself.
  9. You think you need your mother’s blessing to make personal life decisions and/or you feel the need to tell your mother about your life.
  10. You consider it wrong on principle to cut off contact to one’s mother.
  11. You firmly believe that you must honor your mother no matter what.
  12. You worship the mother as the giver of life. Hint: The zinc “spark of life” requires both egg and spermium.
  13. You do not dare to establish boundaries with your mother and let her talk to you about stuff that is none of her business, including psychological stuff, your relationships and other intimate matters.
  14. You think kids are indebted towards their mother for her so-called sacrifice. You feel you owe her your life.
  15. You think a mother always knows what’s best for you. Hint: A typical Western mother will eventually claim this.
  16. You worship the mother for having such a tough job and being strong etc and think she deserves tremendous respect. Hint: Life has equipped her with the ability to be a mother and other people have done great and difficult things as well.
  17. You put your mother’s needs and emotions before your own.
  18. You think you must take care of your mother when she gets old.
  19. You see mothers as some kind of unappreciated martyrs and do everything you can to help when she displays some ‘negative’ emotion like sadness.
  20. You let your mother chastise you for your expressions and talk differently to her than to other people. Aka feminine politeness.
  21. You like to use the phrase: But it’s your mother!
  22. You confuse guilt and shame with love and reason.
  23. You tolerate infantilizing behavior from your mother and accept her saying things like: To me, you will always be my little baby boy.
  24. You think that your mother’s sadness over you establishing boundaries and living your own life is a sign that you are doing something evil and hurtful.
  25. You blindly trust your mother’s judgment of your capabilities, dreams, aspirations, looks, personality.
  26. You think your mother has some kind of magical empathic connection to you that makes her feel whatever you feel and thus know what you feel. Hint: She is not telling you what you feel, but what to feel.
  27. You want to make your momma proud by being a so-called good man.

Continue reading “Coining a new red pill term: mommy-whipped

02.07.2016

Having a feminine side VS. being female

This is not an MRA article demanding that women desire weakling men. It is nobody’s responsibility but your own to love all aspects of who you are. So take this as an invitation for self-acceptance, not for another crusade for justice.

When it comes to healthy sexual relationships between the sexes, I pretty much share the – generalized – view that the man plays the dominant part, while the woman is submissive. This may not be the absolute truth in every last case, but I think it is a very fair generalization that at least describes a valid tendency.

But, if I were to give any advice, I would tell you to immediately forget this observation once you make it. Why? Because you should not have to be thinking about things like that. If it is the truth, it is the truth because that simply is what happens when you stop trying to control the situation or bring your ego ideas about correct or good relationships and interactions into it. Once you start acting dominant to do it right, you practically defeated the point of making such a point. If all of it was simply an act, all the time, in everyone, you could actually claim that it is a social construct. Hence I believe that the only way you can make such an observation in an honest way is to introspect and make some personal experiences.

You can only make a valid observation when the observed ones (that can include you)  feel no obligation to support either view. That is, when they feel free to express themselves fully without thinking about it.

If you have to tell a man how to be a man, then you can not claim that you are making him more of a men, rather than less. At least when you, like myself, assume that being a man means to have the male biological sex – instead of abiding by some ideological construct like neo-masculinity. If being a man does not flow naturally from being born a man, then our concept of being a man logically must be flawed. Of course, that presumes that there are no forces in place during one’s formative years that restrict this natural flow.

Continue reading “Having a feminine side VS. being female

23.06.2016

The devilish male co-dependent double bind, or, anatomy of a cuck

A double bind, as I see it, is a situation where one is confronted with two conflicting desires, effectively rendering the person helpless and making a solution of the problem impossible. It is the scenario of being between a rock and a hard place. Having to evade an approaching train by jumping down from a bridge.

One of the meanest double binds I have experienced and lived with most of my life is something I would say is typical for co-dependent men, especially when it comes to dating, or, to be more precise, living out the sexual drive. But it does not only apply to fucking girls. It also applies to situations of open confrontation and conflict.

The double bind goes something like this:

  1. You have to be liked, wanted, desired and respected.
  2. To be liked, wanted, desired or respected, you have to be confident.
  3. To be confident means to not be dependent on being liked, wanted, desired or respected.

Now, note that I am not talking about objective truths. I am talking about deep, ingrained beliefs and compulsions.

Continue reading “The devilish male co-dependent double bind, or, anatomy of a cuck

09.04.2016

A phenotypical explanation of fear of women

Recently, I used to have dreams in which my mother ridiculed and humiliated me. I wanted to strike her, but something kept me from it, I felt paralyzed. There was also this one time where my mother threw a nice skull I owned out of the window. I wanted to punch her, but I felt a similar kind of fearful resistance.

Now, I have been thinking. Does it make sense to be afraid of women purely for reasons of shaming tactics or to avoid rejection? It does not quite add up.

Some time ago, a commenter remarked about a picture of me and my mother and my grandmother that it is obvious that they must be afraid of me physically. It is a thought that never entered my head and it is true that I am much stronger and taller than my mother and other women, for whatever it’s worth.

Some time later, during my meditations, I was reminded of the fact that my mother used to beat me when I was still too young to defend myself. Got me thinking.

What if fear of women is – partly – just a residual fear leftover from days when women were still ones physical superiors?

26.02.2016

On the nature of the male and the female

In a recent article, I noted that in pictures of couples, the man often seems to lose himself in the moment and is simply happy, while the girl always keeps a kind of attentiveness in her gaze that may betray a hint of contempt. This stands as a representative of a general difference between the sexes that I observe.

Today, I watched three nigger kids around the age of 8 play – two girls and a boy.

The boy had this kind of happy and innocent curiosity and a relaxed smile on his face. Once he decided to stand in the middle of the walkway and imitate a policeman on a crossing. He extended his arms and whenever somebody came by, he playfully turned 90 degrees and let that person pass. He was likable and made people smile.

The girls were a little older than him and had this same attentive – actually controlling – gaze I described earlier. They were arrogant and unabashed. Intuitively, I would say that their way to interact with the world in that moment was control and manipulation. Their main interest, if my empathy allows so much insight, was to look at people and coldly analyze them for emotional anchors they could use and then do just that – not so much for their personal benefit perhaps as for the sheer joy of having power. Once, one of the girls sat down on a chair, spread her legs very far and loudly proclaimed something in African sounding language to get attention. And again, it did not seem like she really needed the attention as much as she wanted to try out the effect her behavior would have on others. In short, they were plain annoying and even at this young age: Bitches.

I always thought they behaved like bitches because I was doing something wrong. But it is just who they are.

The female like a luring tigress and the male like a loyal joyous dog.