Rape Culture and Its True Culprits

I was lying back while drinking beer and watching television. On the side of me is a female friend who is doing the exact same thing. A conversation ensues between the two of us about what a man must do in order to get a date with a woman. The context was of a mutual friend of ours who has trouble in this department. I told her the story of how he was recently rejected by a female coworker of his. She went on with her advice as to why he was failing with women. But somewhere along the line she said something that disturbed me and gave me a keen understanding as to why so many women get raped. What she said was not at all original or revolutionary in its essence, but when the words


“Sometimes a girl likes to be chased. She wants to feel wanted”


I instantly knew the root cause of the so called “rape culture” in the U.S.



Women are notorious for always warning men that “no means no”. For us men who have dealt with enough women, we know this to be pure malarkey. If “no” always meant “no”, many men would die virgins. There would also be fewer rapes as a result, because for once women would mean what they said instead of talking in indirect code language.


Women, many times, bring rape upon themselves. They purposely reject men, even ones they are interested in, in order to get him to chase her. Since women love to be the prize and the center of attention, leading a man on a wild goose chase through all sorts of hoops and mind games is all too common in today’s society. What this does is blur the line between what is acceptable for a man to do to a woman and what is not…because once we can all agree that women want to be chased, we can understand what a predicament it puts men into. Since “no” does not always mean “no”, there is no real way for a man to know when to stop his advances upon a woman.



My theory as to why women give such pieces of advice goes back to dark triad genes or the lack thereof. You see, when a woman tells a man that he should just be himself, or to respect women, or to give them compliments, or that “no means no”, what she is actually doing is bullshitting the male. This is a weeding out mechanism that women use in order to ensure that men who don’t get it never will. You see, women do not want nice guys to propagate their genes. They do not wish for them to be successful with women. This is why advice coming from women is never good; it has been sabotaged from the get-go.



Women have the power and control in the dating scene. This is important to note because it means that any and every problem with society in the context of female-male relations falls on the shoulders of women themselves. If women decide to start dating men who are genuine, nice, and honest, then that is what most men will become. Since women, however, are only attracted to males with dark triad genes, that is what most men strive to be. The ones that do not either are alone or being used. Moreover, since women have decided to make men chase and act in an overly-aggressive fashion in order to get sex, the rape culture pervades society. Make no mistake about it, women invariably cause most rapes.



Now, this is not to say that specific individuals who are victims of raped caused it or even desired it. The point is that women overall have created an environment in which only sexually aggressive, narcissistic, abrasive men are seen as sexually attractive (these traits are what women interpret as being “confident”). They have created an environment in which “no” doesn’t mean “no”, it actually means “try harder, keep going, I want to be chased, I want to feel wanted even though you’ve already made it clear that you want me. I want to play games and toy with you until I’m satisfied.” Men are constantly placed in awkward, unsure situations because what women want is always esoteric. Should he approach? If she rejects him, should he continue his advances because that’s what she may want deep down? Who knows? For many men, leaving things to chance is not an option. They will continue to press the issue in order to find out the woman’s true intentions.


Thus is the nature of women: enablers of the very thing they claim to despise the most

And....

He's back. As you can see, the new computer is in. There will be much more to come ladies and gents

About My Recent Absence

My computer went down a few weeks ago. This is the main reason for me not making any new posts. Its a cheap Dell Laptop that only lasted 3 years. It has a virus that somehow uninstalled all my drivers for keyboard, internet, wireless, etc. I'm close to fixing it but when I do I will probably just sell it on Ebay.

Once I get a better computer, I will turn this blog more personal. It will be an honest journal of my experiences in life that have led me to who I am today. These will be full of complete honesty. I will also, of course, continue to make the usual posts along with it.

Until then, cheers folks.

"Dark Triad" Genes

The bad-boy question has been answered by science.

Nice guy genes do exist, and many unfortunate men have them. Women want these genes severed from the gene pool and thus existence:

Why women really do love self-obsessed psychopaths

"Peter Jonason, of New Mexico University in Las Cruces, believes that these traits may have an innate, genetic component that explains why some men seem unable to stop themselves behaving badly."


- Steve Connor, "Why women really do love self-obsessed psychopaths",

The traits that he refers to are "Dark Triads". These are traits such as narcissism, thrill-seeking, psychopathy, etc. Basically, quintessential bad-boy behavior. This study proves that it is what women really want, while they lie about wanting a humble honest respectful guy. What a fucking surprise, right?

However, let's use our intellect to take this a step further. Let's go beyond what the study says using deduction and logic. If there are "dark triad" genes, or in other words bad boy genes, then conversely there must exist nice-guy genes. These are the genes many lonely men possess, and it explains why they are alone and suffering.

Like I've said many times before, for the most part women want to weed the nice-guy genes out of existence. That's why they reject so many men and also inform their social circles not to date us after the rejection takes place. They don't want to be treated well. Women want psychopathic narcissists and they are lying if they say otherwise. I'm tired of every girl claiming they want one thing then turning around and blowing some guy with a neck-tattoo and a criminal record.

The looks faction is close, but they fail to make the quantum leap and recognize it comes down to genetics. The confidence mafia (those that believe the key is confidence) are way off.

"Looks" and "Confidence" are simply byproducts of good genes. Its all genes. And women are quasi-eugenicists.

The Arizona Shootings: Who's To Blame?

Yet another mass shooting has occurred recently, ironically right around the time I posted about the one that happened back in 2009 (see below post). Is this nothing new? Has this not happened before and for a similar reason? Or was he a lone nut? The answer, as it usually does, lies somewhere in the middle. Like with Sodini, this shooting (and the reasons it happened) is not cut-and-dry. There is more to this guy than meets the eye, and it surpasses the nerd-loner stereotype in my opinion.


All politics aside, this man, Jared Lee Loughner, was deeply troubled.


Most leave it at that.

"He was disturbed"
"He was mentally ill"
"This guy had a few screws loose"

What sickens me about society is the cowardice and disturbing inability to display empathy for those deemed unstable. Loughner may have been irrational, but why does no one ask what made him that way? My answer to that is one that I will always have in these situations: society has trouble pointing the finger at themselves. No one wants to admit that perhaps, just maybe, there were other factors that contributed to Loughner's shooting rampage.


And what of Lougner's politics? There is no doubt that his conspiracies about the government led to hatred of certain politicians. Some of his theories had slight merit; for instance, language does indeed control thought. However there is not substantial evidence that the government is forcing or subtly encouraging its population to speak a certain way. There is such a thing as political correctness, but those who wish to exercise free speech are still welcome to do so.

When I first heard of this story, I immediately knew that his failures with women had something to do with it. I just had the feeling, deep down. And, sure enough, the Wall Street Journal proved me to be correct recently when the following article was published:


"Postings of a Troubled Mind"

Whenever something like this occurs, miserable interactions with women are a culprit, if not the biggest one. What cannot be stressed enough is the importance of consistence sex and companionship that a man needs to keep his sanity. Its no joke. Its life and death. We are seeing examples of it over and over again. Men need sex, men need women that truly care about them as a person. One might jump to say, "But all people want that, including women!" Well, women are not the ones that experience loneliness the way men do.

Here's a question everyone must ask themselves: If Loughner had a girlfriend that loved and cared about him, would this tragedy have happened? No one can say for sure. It is a question for critical thought.

Women and Eugenics

Scenario: After being rejected by a woman, you discover that she also informed her friends of the debacle. Now not only has she rejected your advances, but she also ruined your chances with several other women. What is this inclination that women have and where does it come from? I am here with an answer: Eugenics

The image that you see to the left includes tools that have further enabled most women to be quasi-eugenicists. They can now line up all their prospects conveniently on a screen and carefully select what genes they want to allow to propagate. Its almost like shopping in the cereal isle for women. The over-abundance of options that even average plain-janes posses is remarkable, and in combination with social media, they can all use their sexual prowess to their advantage like never before. Make no mistake about it, social media has benefited women exclusively and has almost done as much harm to men that feminism has.

The Theory of Modern Female Quasi-Eugenicists

I am not saying that women are walking around reading your genetic code as a scientist would. That's not what I mean by quasi-eugenics. Your genes are expressed through your physical traits. Gene expression. Also known as phenotypes. Its eugenics on a small-scale; women control who gets laid and how, therefore they control propagation. If they reject you, they are rejecting your genes. When they go back to their social cliques and inform other females of how you were rejected and humiliated, she is sub-communicating that your genes are undesirable, and all the women should reject your genes from passing on as well. Now, she has successfully ended the possibility of your genes propagating with several more women in addition to herself.

Hence my term, quasi-eugenics.

In the following video, Mystery explains how being a victim of quasi-eugenics in tribal times directly relates to fearing the approach of women today:




But there is something else....something, elusive. The "IT" factor that was discussed in a previous thread. I think that women have some sort of intuition or animal-like quality that turns them on to the "IT" factor.

This is why many men can't understand why they are single and it seems to defy logic. Isn't it curious how the dating game has always been sort of an inside joke? In other words, dating has always been a sort of "if you have to ask, you aren't getting any" type deals. Those who have it have it, and they can't even successfully explain it to someone who does not. Kind of like how women always seem to give bad dating advice, as if they want you to fail.

The "IT" factor is something that has yet to be discovered that some lack, and women know it. Most guys have it, but some don't. Maybe its facial symmetry. Most likely, it is the gene that women can sense.

I mean, there are certainly things that can transcend all else, such as wealth and riches. Especially in America. I'm not stupid enough to suggest that even being rich wouldn't help lonely men. It would. My theory by and large has to do with normal people who exist outside of the top 2% of American society. Other guys try to compensate in other ways, such as getting super-jacked, getting nice tats, etc.



Let me give you an example of why none of this stuff even matters anyway: George Sodini

* He was worth $250,000. That is financial security
* He had a nice house, car, and stable job.
* He was built. He worked out at LA Fitness Gym.
* He went to PUA conventions


As you can see, he did everything that most people would jump to suggest for you to do if you complain about not getting women. People will say,

"you need to make at least decent money"
"you need a career and goals"
"you need to workout and become healthy and attractive"
"you need to learn how to talk to women. "

George Sodini did all of this and some. He went right down the checklist of requirements that women have. Yet, it was all in vein. Why?

Quasi-eugenics. His genes simply were not desirable, for no discernible reason. Women severed his genes off from society; forced him into celibacy and loneliness. The female eugenicists destroyed Sodini, so he in turn took the lives of 3 of them. I'm not condoning anything, but you see my point.

The difference between this and regular sexual selection

The abundance of selection that these women have, specifically in Western countries.

Women may be this way partly by nature. But guess what: in the 50's, they could most certainly NOT exhibit quasi-eugenic behavior, because society put barriers in place that controlled their sexuality. Now, those barriers don't exist and women have all the free reign in sexual selection that they want. Also not all women can have the power the be quasi-eugenicists, but most do. As long as she is a 6, she is a god among insects and will enjoy endless options until she hits age 53. 5's as well. Women below this still have options but its not as much and not guaranteed

Michael Savage talked about this. He said that shame is a good thing. When you do bad in school, you should feel ashamed. When women act promiscuous, they SHOULD be shamed by society and scorned. Unfortunately that does not exist in the West anymore. To many weak-minded men allowed this to happen.

I must point out however that I think most women in the dating game fall within the 6-10 range. Beauty seems to be common; Mystery (a famous pick-up artist) said this himself. I can vouch. On my college campus I can honestly say that ugly undesirable women are rare; I find myself attracted to the majority of them. All it takes is the right outfit and makeup, and women can all look above average and be selective breeders. So therefore, the vast majority of women are quasi-eugenicists and have the power to do it to men.

Another example is the Middle East...the men there do not allow their women to be eugenicists and control what genes get passed on. The nice guys in the middle east get their genes propagated, as well as most men there in general, good-looking or bad. Why, social barriers (i.e public shame, beatings. harsh but its necessary)

In China however, the government has become the eugenicist. The gender imbalance there was deliberately done by the communist regime. Men there are screwed to hell and they report very low sexual partners on average...sad.

All women are quasi-eugenicists by nature and as long as they have complete sexual freedom with no barriers, nice guy genes will continue to be weeded out of existence. This is why you see more and more psychopaths and douchebags in bars and clubs hording all of the women. Women chose the fathers of these men for that very reason, make no mistake about it.

Possible Solution: Get the Hell Out of This Country

So, I've been pondering about my location lately. I pretty much am fed up with America. Where should I go? Better yet, where can I go? Is it even feasible, given my particular situation, to move out of the country for good?

I sure as hell hope so.

The first thing on the list of things to remember would be the language barrier. I could encounter difficulties if I do not understand what anyone or anything says; moreover, I certainly would not be able to assimilate into the culture. That is what I ultimately want to do, move somewhere else, and completely convert to their way of life. This includes learning their language. English-speaking countries will be my first choice, but I will not rule out learning another language if the situation is nice enough

Here are a few places I've given serious thought to:

New Zealand




I've heard great things about this place. Perhaps...







Canada (Alberta)






I don't know. Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia? I like the idea of Canada because I've been there and I have family that are citizens there. From what I hear, people are much friendlier in Canada. Everything I hear about the place is good.

However, people seem to dislike Toronto, so I'll stay away from there. The things I hear about Toronto are that it is even more expensive than New York, the women are notorious for being stuck-up, flaky, and unfriendly, and people are in general submersed in their own lives and not willing to make friends.

That's a huge factor for me. I have to be able to have a successful life amongst others, and Toronto's qualities seems similar to the Seattle Freeze in many ways.


For instance, check out the city-data forum for Toronto:
Toronto Forum on Difficulties in the Social Scene


Nonetheless, I will strongly consider everywhere else Canada.




Germany




The women are some of the most beautiful in the world. Seems like a cool place. I'd have to learn German, but I think I could do it. Who knows?





The Philippines





The demographics of men to women favors me here. They are all bilingual, so I wouldn't need to learn Philippine. I also hear this place is very friendly. Am I scared of 3rd world countries? Nope. I live in a terrible city as it is.



The U.K.











I once read somewhere that there is no paradise. Every place has its ups and downs, its share of problems. I recognize this reality and fully accept it. However, I am 90% positive that the U.S is not the place for me. One day, I hope to get away to one of the above mentioned places. I hope to thrive somewhere else, and just be happy.

What hinders me? Well, lets see. I'm not done with school, I will have a ton of loans to pay off when I graduate, and then I would have to find a job in the new place that could A) pay the loans and B) still leave me with enough to live off of.

Other than that, there's nothing stopping me. We'll see what happens. I need to get skills that I can market anywhere.