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

19.01.2017

The cruelty of man and the inherent hypocrisy of “morals”

Man is not meek nor does man fear his own cruelty. But he fears that if he admitted his own cruelty, he would validate the cruelty of others, which would put him in danger.

Thus hiding his own cruelty he convinces others that he is meek, thus winning their trust and resources.

Many who pretend they are meek then so find together as a community.

Thus community is something born entirely out of selfish interests. Pretending to be meek is the best way – at least in our society that I know – to ensure safety of the self. Selfish satisfaction.

And when one stops pretending, he is shunned. Not because he is ‘worse’ than the others. But because someone else who doesn’t feel obliged to pretend is an inherent danger to the self.

Ironically, you can not ‘explain’ to that person why he should be pretending. So what you do is – you unleash your own beast on that non-pretender. And he ‘learns’ that the pretense is better. And on the surface you may say to that person ‘You have been bad and this is your punishment.’ But that’s only the surface. The real communication is through pain and that one doesn’t lie. It says: I am a beast and I will keep hurting you until you do as I wish you to do.

Unfortunately this contradiction between verbal and non-verbal communication leads to madness. Classical double bind. It creates a disconnect between the mind and the body. And the result is what we all know as ‘hypocrisy’. It is a man whose mind doesn’t understand his body and whose body doesn’t understand his mind.

I really never understood why people thought ‘altruism’ was not selfish…

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

10.07.2016

Black lives matter – to whom?

When you assert that something matters, you are expressing a value. But a value does not exist as an objective truth in a vacuum. Rather, a value is something that is held by a person capable of judging.

You can not talk about what matters without talking about the individuals that it matters to.

When you tell me that black lives matter, then I must ask: To whom?

To be realistic, I would expect this to be followed by the loaded question: So you think black lives do not matter?

And I would say: Not to me, no.

And I would expect to be guilt-tripped and shamed a little, back and forth, blah blah yada.

But seriously, why should I – me as an individual – care about black lives? What does that even mean?

Continue reading “Black lives matter – to whom?

27.06.2016

The pseudo-intellectualism of contemporary discussions about homosexuality

Liberals usually claim that homosexuality is inborn. Religious people and manospherians usually claim that homosexuality is a mental illness. Both commit the same fallacy, an appeal to nature based on personal bias. Both assumptions, when declared doctrine, are potentially harmful.

If we declare that homosexuality is inborn, we take all hope away from those who truly suffer from emotional disturbances and developmental setbacks. They are left in a desperate situation and when trying to reconcile the conflicting voices in their heads, they feel forced to support the voice that urges them into homosexuality, inflicting strong pain on themselves from even thinking about it.

On the other hand, I think it is plausible to make room for the assumption that some people are truly homosexual at their core and suffer gravely from having to repress that. Telling them that homosexuality is a mental illness hurts them just as much as those who experience the dilemma from the other perspective.

To make a little analogy, there may be a man who truly enjoys photography and art. And there may be another man who truly enjoys hard work and carrying around big bricks at the building site. Now let’s assume that each of them thinks that his profession is the only true and natural thing to do for a real man. They get children. The artist’s kid would secretly love nothing more than to be a hard worker. The hard worker’s kid would love nothing more secretly than to be an artist. Let us assume that both shame their kids for not doing what they think is the right way. Both kids suffer for having to be something they do not truly wish to be, feeling guilty towards their parents for not truly wanting to be their narcissistic mirror image. And yet, the fact that the kids suffer from having to live a life that does not fit them does not mean that this life would not perfectly fit somebody else.

Continue reading “The pseudo-intellectualism of contemporary discussions about homosexuality

25.06.2016

Anger hypnosis – why do politics enrage us so?

Nietzsche suggests in his book On the Genealogy of Morals a historical account of a nation that was harmonious and peaceful inside, while periodically going on crusades against other nations, committing the most heinous crimes; rape, murder, torture. And they enjoy it. He suggests that this nation has developed this mechanism as a way to vent the more animalistic tendencies that are suppressed inside its civilization.

Why do we get so angry about politics? Why do we see a flag or a famous monkey and are so hyponotized by it that we elevate it, in our minds, above all of those who oppose it? Why are we seemingly ready to kill people who disagree with us about political issues – and yet seldom dare to speak our own minds if they oppose that which is morally accepted?

I think the answer is simple.

Political issues and political leaders give us the permission to be angry. Something we are generally not allowed to be.

To be angry and violent, those are qualities that are looked down upon in society. To use force and power to get your own way, that is perhaps the greatest crime of all. Beware the selfish man. Serve the others, always be compassionate and so on. And yet, when our personally chosen leaders talk about the enemies of their values, we become feral, with foam at our mouths, ready to do almost anything to silence them. Very peculiar.

Continue reading “Anger hypnosis – why do politics enrage us so?

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