Month: February 2019

Infowars Steps Up Persecution of Incels


Once again, the organization that prides itself on being the “tip of the spear” on many things, including anti-police state sentiments, is advocating a police state for the one demographic that all of the others hate: guys who lack female validation.

Apparently, humanity’s renaissance against the New World Order is not for all to share.  Tradcons or liberals, MGTOW or marrieds, religious or atheist, capitalists or socialists, males or female, young or old, rich or poor…no one is inviting rejected men to the party.  Apparently, the curators at Infowars envision a free humanity, but they would still reserve a dystopia for systematically rejected (by females) males.

Paul Joseph Watson cherry-picks some particularly bad simping from males on Tinder – be they incel, nearcel, trolls or otherwise – and projects it all over all incel males, whether they’re Tinder users or not.  Of course that kind of simping of females is absolutely pathetic and should be ridiculed by everyone, incels and noncels alike – even females ought to call it out for what it is, but of course they never will, because attention is as much neurological currency for a woman as sex is for a man – it’s validation.  Also, Paul ought to try getting off of his Infowars pedestal and seeing what happens when you confront guys for simping directly online – you’ll find that everyone of all stripes will condemn you and (ironically) accuse you of being incel.  Funny how that works, isn’t it?  This is how you know that gynocentricism is driving everything these days, including this very Infowars screed.  We’re seeing rationale and principle being tied into a pretzel these days, and all of the anger, negativity and condemnation always end up pointing right back at incels, regardless of who said or did what.

Persecution, flowing from females, contorting around every vestige of logic and principle, and redirecting back to the same guys they won’t fuck.  That’s how it works in the 21st century.

Don’t kid yourself here.  When Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones make content like this, and call for incels to be profiled, it is the most start aberration of the convictions that the whole organization is founded on, and it’s being driven by male dominance instinct.  As soon as female-invalidated males become visible, their morals and ethics turn off with the flip of a biological switch, and they instantly revert back into the schoolyard bullies who got all the chicks, and roughed up the weak, isolated boys who couldn’t defend themselves and the girls despised.  This is how and why they carve out an exception for incels, as the one and only demographic not worthy to live free of tyranny.  Apparently, it’s an instinct that even the higher-thinkers of our species can’t overcome.  A male’s worth is determined by females, now that females are in the driver’s seat of sexual selection, and thus, we’re now devolving into a full torunament species, leaving our pair-bonding aspects behind.  Everyone, including the people who are supposedly on the front lines of the fight against a new dark age of feudalism, welcome this new feminist-driven baboon colony way of living with open arms.  That is how you know that this “new golden age” of nationalism and populism for free-minded people around the world isn’t going to last.  50 years?  Perhaps, but it won’t go the distance.

That last entry, from a guy who claims to have rubbed his dick against a girl on a train (if it was even real) should be investigated, and by the way, is much more likely to have been committed by a bad boy than an incel.  The festering of incel usually manifests itself in other ways, that don’t cross the threshold of sexual misconduct.  Of course, that’s not going to stop PJW from projecting it onto incels, for all of the above reasons.

You know, there is one silver lining though…  Aside from that last post, the other posts, where guys call out females for rejection, stringing-along, boyfriend-bombing and the like, are a good thing to see.  Yes of course they are overreactions, but the fact that they’re happening is a step in the right direction, for two reasons: a). modern females need and deserve to have guys take the gloves off on them, verbally; and b). it is showing the world what this very blog is trying to disseminate about the dysfunctional, broken state of male-female relations nowadays.  Yes, it’s bad behavior, but if I’m being completely circumspect, I’ll applaud it.

Boy… I wonder if Advanced regrets participating in that Shy Boys dox-umentary.  Regardless of how much time has passed, he has still managed to become the non-murdering figurehead of everything society hates about incels.

Single Men, In Politics and Real Life

This is not an endorsement of Cory “Spartacus” Booker, by any means, but there is an article with some worthwhile points on public perception of bachelors in positions of leadership, and the lessons apply to everyday men.  Just pretend it’s about someone better than this moron from New Jersey.

Oh, and hold your nose – they only use the ridculous word “boo” about three times.  Just try to ignore that.

Politico: Is America Ready for a Single President?

During his appearance on the syndicated morning radio show “The Breakfast Club” early this month, the conversation turned to his dating life—“Cory Booker got a boo?” exclaimed a host named Charlamagne—and the man known for glib speeches in Senate hearing rooms got cagey, all of a sudden. “Out of all the issues we talked about,” Booker stammered, “this is the most uncomfortable part of this interview.”

There’s a reason it’s uncomfortable – it’s intended to be.  You’re usually only asked that question by people who already know the answer to be a no.  If they’re really feeling sociopath that day, they’ll follow it up a few seconds later with, “Have you ever had one?”  There is no other way to interpret a question like that: it’s a way of persecuting you, for fun.  It’s a pretty overt statement that they have no respect for your humanity at all.

There is a very good Sandman video on this kind of thing called “MGTOW is the New Gay”.

There is only one way to avoid this (maybe): stonewall in the beginning.  Don’t even let them get their foot in the door.  Don’t tell them your relationship status or history.  Don’t even assume that you can say one thing or another about it, and you can suddenly stonewall when it goes beyond your comfort zone.  The tactic of these “normies” is to start a conversation about it, and then they can glean things from where you throw up the black card and end the conversation.  You know that you’re going to have to put up the black card as some point, because their goal is to ferret out what they see as your major malfunction of human reproduction, so you might as well do it off the bat.  It’s none of their business, and you need to set that boundary right at the start.

Now in Cory Booker’s case, he’s running for president, so probing questions like that go with the territory – fine; but happily married or hooked-up normies have pushed for it to go with the territory of just working a regular job these days, and men who are incel or MGTOW have been conditioned to believe that they owe these people answers, and are accountable to fat, gossipy women in your workplace – it’s a lot like how people are conditioned to believe that when cops as you questions, you have to answer, and that the 5th Amendment (US) only kicks in when you are placed under arrest.  Oh, don’t stonewall..that just makes you look guilty!  That’s the thinking of people who don’t know how fishing expeditions work.  If a cop is asking you questions, you already look guilty; and likewise, if someone is asking you your relationship status, you already look incel.  Without getting all hostile, just set the boundary at the outset, and see how that goes.

Now even if you this, you’ll get hit with a deluge of questions, and one of them is going to be if you’re gay.  Most incels and MGTOWs have been accused of being gay dozens of times, mostly by women.  Well, what can we say?  We have to start somewhere…take them to your personnel or human resources department.  Yeah, it probably won’t go anywhere because you’re a male, and there’s a double-standard…try it anyway.

Like it or not, it’s going to keep coming up. The American public is fascinated by bachelorhood, and also eager to see single men married off—hence our keen interest in the dating habits of British royals, and the umpteen-thousand hours produced of “The Bachelor.” As much as the boundaries and definitions of marriage have changed—and over the course of the nation’s history, they’ve changed dramatically—matrimony is still seen as the normal state of a responsible adult.

And this is why you can rest assured that tradcons are not your allies.  You may have the same political and economic beliefs as they do, but they don’t want you in their club.  It’s like how MGTOW don’t want incels hanging around them – tradcons don’t like single men and will never accept them.  For some, it’s even a religious thing.  Just remember that.

The Founders categorized men into four types, Coontz says. The lowest-regarded was the bachelor, who took care of no one’s needs but his own.

The average member of the modern-day public is even more rabid this way.  Here’s what feminists and tradcons alike see in a single man: a bunch of resources that should be going to a woman, but aren’t.  They see your wallet, and they see an arrow going to a woman.

America’s self-image soon became bound with the idea that families were the building blocks of the nation, and that putting the family first was a moral virtue. “The family is the digesting organ of the body politic,” the popular minister and speaker Henry Ward Beecher said at the time. “The very way to feed the community is to feed the family.”

Traditionally, they wanted to see you supporting a wife and kids because those people cannot take care of themselves; now it’s more that they want you supporting a woman, kids or not kids, and not because she can’t support herself but because she’s the cow they all worship now, with her golden vagina.  This is gynocentricism 101.

Recent history suggests that the American public might actually care more about the existence of a spouse than about whether the marriage is a good one.

. . .

It could be that, at least for a politician’s loyal base, those marital highs and lows are relatable signs of humanity.

And why?  Well, the bad boys in the top 20% have set the standard: competence as a romantic partner is not the point anymore – the point is simply not to be an incel.  Incels were pariahs before the modern era…now they’re super-pariahs.

But Chafe suspects that voters, as suspicious as they are of presidential spouses, would be even more skeptical of a candidate with no spouse or marital prospects at all. “You could be a widower or widow and it would be less important—there’s a sense of it being a normative kind of pattern,” he says. “If you haven’t had that kind of relationship, if you haven’t been married, if you haven’t had a family, you are potentially like a Rorschach. You can read anything into it you want to. And that can be dangerous.” That could be the ultimate challenge for a single candidate: A marriage, even a bad one, is largely understood, but singlehood leaves much to the imagination. And there aren’t many models for how to neutralize the mystery.

I don’t know if it’s really fear of the unknown, but it would make you think that it was, because any sign of incel turns into a feeding frenzy.  Naturally they’re going to assume the worst.  They enjoy assuming the worst.

Here’s the deal: you’ve got to realize that if you’re MGTOW or incel, you’re in a war with everyone around you…it’s not a war fought with guns or fists, but with words and, if it gets really nasty, pieces of paper.  You’ve got to look at everyone around you as the enemy – at least in this one sense.  Unless you move to the barrens of the arctic, you’ve got to be strategic in order to navigate your way through the minefield.  Hell, even if you are headed for no man’s land, you’ve got to find your way out of the minefield.  Yes, I know..  “Thou protesteth too much”…  But we’ve been conditioned to make that point of wisdom the guiding principle, and it has been used to corral us into social traps.  They have their ways of getting us on the hot seat..

Here’s the choice you have: you stonewall at the outset, and brace for however much flack that gets your, or you dig yourself a hole and make everything worse.  It’s a choice between bad options and worse options.

Just remember…it’s their fault, not yours.  They’re the bad guys, you’re the good guy.  You are single because females put you there.  You had no choice over what life you parachuted into.

Senator Ben Sass, the Gynocentric Cuck



There has been a lot of buzz lately about about Virginia Gov. Ralph Gosnell Northam’s recent comments, supporting the idea that the fate of a baby born alive, resuscitated if necessary/desired and made “comfortable” should be up for discussion after that point – a suggestion many are calling infanticide.  That controversy seems to be getting lost in subsequent cascading scandal for Northam, after a black-face and KKK costume picture of him and someone else surfaced in a 1984 medical school yearbook, which he apologized for and, at the time of this writing, is backtracking on and denying that it was a photo of him (I think it may have actually been Democrats who did that exposé, as a way to make that governor go away, and making the infanticide stuff go away with it – yeah, good luck on both accounts).

But there’s a finer point that I don’t want to see go away.  Senator Ben Sasse from Nebraska, a never-Trumper, gives an absolutely shameful gynocentric appeal to females in the above video, referring only once to “babies” of both genders (probably on accident), and referencing baby girls no less that five times.  Is he essentially saying that only female babies are worth worrying about?  Is it a political calculation that you’ll get more mileage from female voters with that rhetoric?  Whatever the case, this is some of the most cringe-worthy mass simping of females I’ve seen in a while.

I would love to see a rebuke for antics like this from females, as voters, customers, chat room participants – everywhere you see shameless politicians or thirsty cucks acting like morons by sucking up to women from a distance.  You don’t see it though.  You see women defending guys who are giving them free attention, provided that the simps are far, far away and there is no chance of their toxically undesirable incel semen getting anywhere near their eggs.

Well, I’ll rebuke him.  Fuck Ben Sasse.

Having said that, clearly he’s right on the political issue here per se.  For anyone to decry Third Reich-style eugenics but maintain that it’s okay to snuff out a baby’s life (boy or girl), inside or outside the womb, for what are truly petty reasons, is the height of hypocrisy.  They are really no better than any other misanthrope who doesn’t respect human life at any stage.