Friday, 29 April 2016

Social Self-Destruction

Ah, the old Far Side cartoons by Gary Larson.
The irony: this was meant to be satire. The reality these days is that there are gamer superstars in Korea and suchlike. There are people who make a living by "farming" games for items to sell to rich-and-lazy Westerners. You see it everywhere in games these days. Hell, they're blatantly advertising inside the games.

Look at the mindset exhibited in the above comic panel. Then look around you.

Tiger Mothers. Western women. A long time ago I wrote about pitying the children of modern women.

Somewhere fairly recently, I read about Silicon Valley - the high-tech nerds there are creating the next-generation of "social integration apps", yet their personal relationships are self-destructing or failing to launch.

Fucking ironic when you think about it. These people are so near-autistic that they can't form proper social bonds, yet they are attempting to create platforms to facilitate social interactions. Laughable.

Now look again. As a society, here we are attempting to shove our children into an X-shaped box so that they become "just like" Silicon Valley nerds.

Materially successful: making money so that they can buy lots of shit that they don't really need to live. (Though it sure is good for a parasite woman.)

Socially disastrous: incapable of being socially connected. (This makes it easier for a parasite woman to socially isolate and manipulate them.)

Societally destructive: the wrong kind of example of what people should aspire to, who are also developing "new" methods of forcing others to interact in given ways - just like they do, or rather don't. (This helps parasite women achieve their dream of cash-and-prizes without fear of social retribution from these obviously-defective males.)

Talk about everything being crippled by definition.

Spiraling inwards, intensifying, until the ultimate going up their own orifice and imploding - taking society with it.

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

Death of a Manspace

I've been away from my gym for a couple of weeks, it's been difficult staying in semi-shape for that time. Even doing a lot of walking, and some bodyweight exercises, I gained a couple kilos. So I go back...what do I see...
Female Friendly Workout Zone
(I won't put up the picture - too identifying - you get the drift.)

Oh my.

So looking around, an area of about 1/4 of the gym - that used to be filled with various machines designed to push iron to the sky - has been partitioned off with some cutesy screens with a cutout of some stylized silhouette of a sculptured chick. It's all marked up now with "Women's Only Zone" and shit like that. Said screens basically allowing people to peek through.

I walked to the entrance of the area and looked around inside. Spacious - you could almost say expansive. A few machines around the outer area, the middle totally open. Plenty of friendly space for teh wimminz to work out in.

I look at the remaining 3/4 of the gym. Most of the original machines have been crammed into it, making things cramped and inconvenient for teh eeeevil menz.

"Female Friendly" - reverse those two. Female becomes male, Friendly becomes unfriendly. Male Unfriendly.

I can smell the trainwreck coming a mile away. Cater to the pussy. One day, some man will be noticed casually glancing at the area, and teh wimminz will be going "oh, we don't feel safe any more".

These cunts belong in Contours, a women-only gym. Not in this gym. Not around guys who have stainless-steel bowling balls for nuts.

I'm already looking for a new gym. I might be shit outta luck. That's the problem with living in the ass-end of nowhere in Bum Fuck New Zealand.

Monday, 11 April 2016

Immigration Insanity

Immigration, immigration, immigration.

I'm getting fucking sick of this insanity.

I subscribe to New Scientist, which is basically a mag with basic shit going on in the scientific and theoretical fields. It's mostly pap for the masses, but wth, it generally has a few things in it which interest me. Plus out here in bum-fuck New Zealand, I take what I can get. Whatever catches my attention I'll go digging around for more info (the life of a minor autodidact).

Now though - the pap has overwhelmed the good aka interesting stuff.
Latest cover: MIGRATION

Ooooohh shit. Here we go. Some leftist motherfuckers reasons why we should encourage more immigration. Guess I'd better read it.


Very quick into the mag:
Migration calls for an international, enlightened response.
While it mentions Paris and Brussels (no mention of Germany) it also states:
Terrorism and economic insecurity are genuine problems, but hostility to immigrants is precisely the wrong response to them. If you look at the evidence - and there is plenty to look at - it is clear that clamping down on immigration will not solve the problems that its opponents want to solve.
SJWs and leftists always lie.

According to them, throwing out every single piece of shit leech refugee, plus building a wall, plus shooting everything outside that wall which tries to get in, plus carefully vetting and keeping a careful eye on everyone that you let through the wall - will do absolutely nothing to stop them shooting or blowing up innocent leftist/SJW citizens and raping their wives and daughters and running a child sex ring for 20 years. Damn, I never realised that.

Shit. I forgot. Profiling is WRONG. My apologies. I won't do that again. Vetting these motherfuckers in the slightest is totally out of the question.

More leftist buzzwords show up. Increasingly globalized society (find cheap slaves elsewhere to make cheap shit) movement of goods and services (we can buy cheap shit)...demographically challenged countries blocking foreigners desperate for jobs (harder to import slaves for the really shit-awful jobs that nobody really wants to do)...

"Immigrants expand economies, innovation, and prosperity"?!

What fucking world do these cunts live in? Immigrants bring in a poor mindset and different standards and criminal behavior. Hell, we have the Mafia and Tongs in New Zealand. That shit wasn't put up for franchise to the highest bidder, it came in with fucking immigrants. The fuckin' Pakistani's who set up the Rotheringham child sex ring hadn't had their families living in Britain for 100+ years while they soaked up good, British standards - they were fucking immigrants.

Ah, a call for an intergovernmental agency to "collect the relevant data, promote research and formulate global rules is long overdue." Jobs for the boys! More government! More taxes! Oh joy!

Excuse me while I wipe my ass with that little one-page article. Time to move on.
Radovan Karadzic (hint: the former Bosnian Serb leader) has been brought to justice through DNA work on victims, now he's starting a 40-year sentence. They've positively identified about 30,000 of the missing 40,000 from bodies, graves, etc etc. Let's have a look at ISIS for comparison:
A United Nations report highlighting the human rights violations of the Islamic State's jihadist campaign in Iraq found that while over 24,000 Iraqi civilians have been injured or killed by ISIS in the first eight months of 2014, and the extremists have taken up the practices of recruiting 12- and 13-year-old soldiers and forcing women and girls into sex slavery.
We already knew that, about the soldiers and sex slavery thing. Peculiar, is sex slavery for women and young girls endemic to that part of the world?
As of Aug. 30, the report finds that over 1.8 million Iraqi citizens have been displaced from their home due to the ongoing violence. The report notes that over a million citizens, or two-thirds of those displaced, are in areas that are under ISIS control, making it hard for humanitarian aid workers to access them.
Sheep, actually - though that is redundant. If they had any guts they'd probably be ISIS members (if you can't beat 'em, join 'em).
Skipping on to the "real" article - ON THE ROAD AGAIN! Just can't wait to get on the road again. The life I love is making music with my friends. And I can't wait to get on the road again. (Sorry Willy. Just a fuckin' trainwreck these days.) Let me see.
The United Nations says Europe faces "an imminent humanitarian crisis, largely of it's own making".
Oh, I get it! Europe caused the fighting in Syria, the rise of ISIS, and suchlike! The UN is also censuring Australia for "sending boatloads of refugees to squalid camps in other countries". Wow. Just wow. Like, wow, man.

So reading through more...bla bla bla bla bla..."Concern about immigrants falls sharply when people are given even the most basic facts" - no, they just knuckle under when you browbeat them into submission with your emotive leftist crap. Oh, this is a goodie:
One analyst even says that removing all barriers to migration would be like finding trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk.
Zatso? Zimbabwean trillion-dollar bills? 'Cause ya know, they're so enlightened and progressive that trillion-dollar bills worked out just fine for them. (h/t to Wikipedia for the pic)
Reading on. "Globalization has lifted millions out of poverty" - because 10 cents an hour to them is big bucks. "Several populist parties took the opportunity to warn of a flood of freeloaders at the gates" - I'm reminded of an old Mad Magazine comic, where a guy comes to America to see the sights and a gullible American citizen starts pointing them out to him (it ends with the guy saying with a shit-eating grin: "No, no! You no understand! Where is welfare office?")

A little insert: "The origins of xenephobia". It states:
All the evidence suggests that migrants boost economic growth.
Citations, please. Just stating that doesn't make it true. (Plus, SJWs and leftists always lie.)
(In the past.) Anyone displaying different cultural markers was likely to be a competitor.
They got *that* right, which is why I wrote that post about racism and xenophobia being good. These things protect you and yours from the kind of shitbags who blow up innocent SJW/leftist civilians and get your underage daughters addicted to drugs in a sex slave ring.

On second thought. Maybe they're right. Maybe that racism and xenophobia is really a bad thing. Maybe we should actually embrace these diverse people and every nuance of thought that they bring to the table. Perhaps turning our women and children into sex-slaves isn't a bad thing after all.

Some more drivel about more people expanding the economy - yes, we need more government workers organizing and administering aid to refugees.
In a survey of 15 European countries, the UN's International Labour Organization (ILO) found that for every 1% increase in a country's population caused by immigration, it's GDP grew between 1.25-1.5%.
Study and controls, please. In comparison to what? What if the 15 countries had not had such immigration - would the GDP growth have been smaller? The same? Larger? Where's your statistical comparison?
The World Bank estimates that if immigrants increased the workforces of wealthy countries by 3%, that would boost world GDP by $356 billion by 2025.
Again, in comparison to what? Define wealthy countries? How about some hard numbers on exactly the amounts of people involved? Was there a rise in crime with these immigrants?
Removing all barriers to migration could have a massive effect.
What, to jobs as a suicide-bomber? It's only short-term employment, ya know...hardly high-paying and skilled work...
A meta-analysis of several independent mathematical models suggests it would increase world GDP by between 50-150%. "There appear to be trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk."
Oh, totally! By the way, did you take out the GDP contributed by all the scientists and high-end engineers and those who really get shit done? After all, they will get blown up by the suicide-bombers or killed off by ISIS as undesirables - the remainder will also get taxed massively to help the "poor, innocent refugee's" to get started in their newfound home.

In the end, I suspect that the 70 virgins these retards get will be like this...
...or their fellow (male) suicide-bombers.
I'm done. I just can't bring myself to mock this any more. It's an exercise in futility - again, these morons are doubling down on the stupidity.

I get the impression that you could kill one of these morons every minute, and they'd still increase their numbers faster'n you could kill them. Maybe we need a "Hunt an SJW" and "Hunt a Leftist" season.

Time to go have a sip of grand marnier, then bed. No, I will not bother buying New Scientist any more. They are nothing more than another leftist sounding-board. The signal-to-noise ratio is too pathetic for it to be worth the money.

Saturday, 9 April 2016

An Unhappy Picture of Damaged Goods

A little while back, Uncle Bob put up a post about 80% of women being unattractive. Almost as an afterthought, he put out this:
It's astonishing the number of women out there who are damaged goods.
On his post I put up this comment regarding these damaged goods:
I would put at 95% of women out there are damaged goods.
Conversely, I would have to state that probably 95% of men out there are damaged goods also. (Including myself, when I'm feeling brutally honest. Or bleak.)
Commentor Anonymous asked this:
Define "damaged." I think the meaning is different for each sex. They become damaged differently, in different ways.
What does it mean to be a "damaged" woman?
What does it mean to be a "damaged" man?
How does each get that way?
Now these are good questions. I've been thinking about this for a couple days and here's my take.

What does it mean to be a damaged woman? How does she get that way? To me, the primary thing which makes a woman damaged is that she is out of touch with reality. To achieve this requires that she be coddled, protected, and spoiled all of her life. This leaves her delusional, narcissistic, and selfish in just about every way.

She acts in ways that no man can, because special allowances are made of her simply because she is a woman. She is protected from the natural consequences of such behavior. She is privileged in this manner - so privileged in fact that she actually has the chutzpah to claim that she is oppressed - and others will support her in this delusional claim.

Her privilege is such that in many cases if something - almost anything - doesn't go the way that she wants it to, she will have a screaming fit. And everyone will gather around to console and support her with her spoiled behavior.

What does it mean to be a damaged man? How does he get that way? To me, the primary thing which makes a man damaged is that he starts out in life being out of touch with reality - then has his eyes opened to it, with varying degrees of brutality. To achieve this requires that he be lied to all his formative years (men are scum, woman are sweethearts, always kowtow to women, etc etc). This leaves him delusional, with an imposed inferiority complex in almost every way (especially these days).

He acts in very strict and narrowly-defined ways because if he doesn't, he gets mentally and emotionally beaten around. Even physically - which he is not permitted to defend himself against (the best defense is a good offense) - upon threat of jail and having his life ruined forever. He is expected to follow a set path which forces him to do certain things, typically in the service of women and children.

The wakeup can be gradual and gentle, or sudden and brutal. The gradual and gentle types of wakeup would be typically what makes a man who is effectively a bachelor from a young age. He never gets married, has no interest in it, because he's looked at reality and realized that it doesn't match what he was taught. So he simply walks away from it, or uses it as it is (the "natural" PUA you might call him).

The sudden and brutal wakeup is generally because of women - often in the form of divorce, being cheated upon, being treated exceptionally badly. To the point where he cannot live in denial any more because life has brutally ripped off the protective mental blinders and rubbed his nose forcibly into the shit and then kicked him in the face, guts, and nuts a few times for good measure.

In my view there seem to be different ways of coping with this:

  • Denial. Forcibly pushing reality out of your head. Continuing to toe the party line despite being hurt badly by it. Trying again - even doubling-down on it. (Tripling down on yet another Russian bride, sheeit talk about denial.)
  • Suicide. There is a well-documented higher rate of suicide for divorced men. I think that this is quite often because of a crippling financial load.
  • Overreaction. Treating women like they are utter shit, complete scum, using them for your own physical gratification, etc.
  • Avoidance. Deliberately pushing women away. They have been the source of pain in many cases, keep them at arms length or even further away.
  • Extreme avoidance. Deliberately pushing everyone away. This includes other "normal" men as well. They realize that most of these men are also toeing the party line of women, and they don't want to be dealing with that kind of hassle as well as whatever women are trying to push their way.

These are all forms of emotional/mental/social damage to a man. They come into existence because to be frank, men are an underclass. Nobody cares about the underclass, only the privileged, so we become damaged goods. More: because we are the underclass, we are blamed for the misfortune of becoming damaged goods. It is "our own fault" that this has happened to us, never mind the way that society is structured to almost force it upon us.

So someone (particularly the privileged class) might say "this isn't a rational reaction!" Actually it is. The underclass is stuck in what is effectively a police state. Some people might choose to commit suicide by pulling a gun and shooting everything in sight, which is widely reported in America (Bowling for Columbine, thank you Michael Moore for your weird-ass and leftist-biased documentaries).

Other rational reactions are knuckling under (denial), sabotage and guerrilla warfare (overreaction, MRA, PUA), and avoidance (MGTOW and Going Ghost).

I've been slowly turning this over in my mind and have decided to get into the maths of it, just to figure out the actual (or rather, most likely) percentages. So let's dig in, using New Zealand statistics. To recap:

49% of New Zealand children are born to single mommies

From Statistics NZ, on marriages and divorces in 2014:

20125 marriages
8171 divorces

8171 / 20125 = 41% (just under)

That's the official statistics - I showed with American data that the reported rate over there is 53% minimum. And I've spoken with a divorce lawyer who told me that the divorce rate is actually higher in New Zealand, especially amongst the younger newly-married types.

So I'm going to run with these "official" statistics from New Zealand. I'm also going to make some probably-unwarranted assumptions, trying to be reasonable about them though. Let's use some of the information from this spreadsheet published by Stats NZ. Also some of the information from this interactive website by Stats NZ, showing an age pyramid of people in New Zealand.

From the spreadsheet, approximately 2.34 million women in NZ as of 2015:
From the age pyramid, 2.33 million women in NZ as of 2015 (this is just a screensnap, go to the website if you want to play with the interactive).
Now the good part, looking at the age pyramid you can see that roughly it is 30k women each year from 15-40 years of age (what might be called the "prime fertility years" according to the feminists). A little maths gives us (40 - 15) = 25 years * 30000 women = 750,000 New Zealand women who actually or potentially have children.

I'm going to state that single mommies probably have 1.5 children on average. If they have only one child that means that half of NZ women are single mommies, which seems excessive. Conversely, I can't turn around and say that they're all "welfare queens" with 3+ children each. So 1.5 is most likely a reasonable average/median.

A little more maths: 49% of children / 1.5 = 32.666...% of New Zealand women are single mommies, round it up to 33% or a hair under 1/3rd.

750000 * 33% = 247,500 single mommies, near enough as dammit to a quarter-million.

I'm now going to state that only 50% of women (total) get married, period.

This leaves roughly 17% who actually don't get married and don't have children. It might be because they're unfuckable, unmarriageable, can't find a man because there are 3.5% less men than women available, or are flat-out sterile (which I showed back here 12% of women under 29 are sterile - though that doesn't mean that all unmarried women are sterile, or that all married women are fertile).

So to summarize. Some 33% of women are single mommies, 17% never go anywhere for various reasons, and 50% get hitched up to one or more man-slaves before they kark it.

With 50% of women getting married, that's 375,000 married women who have or potentially have kiddies.

With a divorce rate of 41% that's 153,750 men and women in their prime fertility years who have split up, causing damage to both parties and any children involved.

Of the remaining 59%, or 221,250 families, they're not all happy families. You can bet that at least half of them are staying together "for the children". So they fight, sometimes viciously, which is shit-knows not good for the children either. More damage done to everybody involved.

But lets get back to the percentages for the moment:

33% single mommies, damaged in some manner
17% unmarriageable for whatever reason or just never got it together enough to get married at all
50% got married, of which:
41% are divorced and therefore damaged in some manner by definition
29% (minimum) are unhappy as fuck
30% can be considered content to happy
Let's split those three into the 50% of marriages, which breaks down to:

50% * 41% = 20.5% damaged due to divorce
50% * 29% = 14.5% damaged because they're unhappy as fuck in marriage
50% * 30% = 15% content to happy

NOW we can combine these things:

33% single mommies
17% dysfunctional
20.5% damaged by divorce
14.5% damaged by unhappiness

Giving us an 85% overall of people (men and women) are damaged goods in some manner or another.

Leaving us with a 15% overall of people (men and women) who might be considered to be content, happy, and well-adjusted in life.

From up there, with a total NZ population of 4.59 million people, men/women/kids:

4.59 * 85% = 3.90 million people are fucked up in one manner or another
4.59 * 15% = 0.69 million people (690,000 people!) are content, happy, and well-adjusted in life

Given that birds of a feather flock together, the 85% of the fucked-up will most likely only find others in the same situation - while the remaining 15% are quite happy hanging out with others like them, don't need no other friends. Especially from the fucked-up group.

Which is generally why I state that 95% of people are damaged goods. Because that's all that I run across, yet I have to admit that logically not 100% of everybody in this country is fucked up. It's just that like hangs with like.

So yeah, I will admit that a helluva lot of this is just theoretical. It's kinda hard to get firm numbers on those staying together for the children's sake, or the exact number of guys who have knuckled under in their marriages, etc.

It's worse in America, with their proven 53+% divorce rate. Couple either of those with fucked-up kids these days not getting married at all (the 17% and possibly rising).

This is not a happy picture of our society.

Friday, 1 April 2016

Doubling Down on Fucking Stupidity

Fucking leftist fucking morons. These C.U.N.T.'s used to be the fucking commie party in NZ. These shitheads may as well sell the mother-fucking country straight-up to the fucking Chinese for $1 billion then scarper off to drink pina colada's in the fucking Cayman's.

As various people have stated across the manosphere: Leftists (and SJW's) always double-down on the fucking stupidity.