How To Deprogram Yourself After Becoming A Male Feminist

Male feminists seem ridiculous, but it’s a serious matter. Enabling feminist dysfunction makes things worse for all guys, including themselves. It’s bad for women too.

What made you a male feminist?

Most of you simply care about women and want what’s best for them. However, there’s no reason you must believe a weaponized ideology for that! We care too, but traditionalism has better answers.  Note well, what’s good for women is not identical with modern feminism.

Perhaps you have a guilt trip. For example, if you took a women’s studies class, you got a very one-sided spiel. The professor said the last six thousand years were all about oppression of women—and it’s your fault (as if you could change the past). You weren’t told about all the men who sweated in the fields, factories, and mines year after year. They were doing this for their families, by the way. Sex roles work both ways, get it? It was the men who got drafted to fight for their nations; millions came back badly injured, or in coffins.

Others mistakenly believe that espousing feminism will make women like them. It doesn’t work that way. First of all, most women actually don’t support feminism, and it continues to lose credibility. Also, subduing your “toxic masculinity” and reciting talking points like a Chatty Cathy doll won’t get you a single girlfriend—trust us on this. If that’s you, how’s that worked so far? What women really want is someone who looks and acts like a man. So forget about virtue-signaling your way into someone’s panties.

What does modern feminism want?

Everyone has heard feminism is only about equality, still a common belief. When it began, that’s basically what it was. They finalized their major objective of universal women’s suffrage in 1920, and the job was finished with the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Since they got equality under the law, why is there still feminism? It’s simple: they moved the goalposts. Then it became hostility and radical demands to rearrange society, and even create a unisex world.

By the 1960s, feminism had changed drastically. Radicals, neurotics, lesbians, and others with a grudge against society came to the forefront—while claiming to speak for all women. Their rhetoric became extremely shrill and divisive. In a healthy society, the sexes have good regard for each other. So feminists sought to achieve their political goals by driving a wedge between women and men, a very foul deed. Radical feminism poisoned the social environment, and that’s good for neither women nor men.

Perhaps you’re thinking—“But that’s not real feminism!” Indeed, it has dozens of offshoots—now a sometimes self-contradictory hodgepodge—so we’ll have to consider the general consensus. The most radical are still the loudest, and the moderates can’t (or won’t) rein them in or even disavow them.

By the way, they certainly expect their male feminist allies to shut up and follow the Party Line. If you dissent about something—perhaps you say that paternity fraud is unjust, for example—there’s a good chance they’ll denounce you over just one item. All your past support will mean nothing.

Modern feminism seeks to turn women into a radicalized social class, united against men by unending grievances and victimhood rhetoric. They want government power to grant them advantages, typically involving income redistribution and reducing the consequences of bad life choices. Is that a formula for a healthy society?

What about male privilege?

At least these men have their male privilege.

Quite effectively, feminists have delegitimized “male privilege” (as they see it), although life certainly isn’t as easy for us as they think. However, they’re certainly not relinquishing advantages that society still gives them. Feminism only demands equality when it serves their interests. They want to have their cake and eat it.

Divorce law is still grounded in 19th century notions, providing the ex-wife an allowance long after the relationship ended, among other problems. Women still don’t get drafted in most countries. They’ve also acquired new advantages, such as hiring quotas and set-asides. Criminal law gives them preferential treatment. Then there are multitudes of women-only scholarships, social agencies, associations, and government programs. Feel privileged yet? Tell your feminist friends that this has to be changed because it’s structural inequality, and see how far that gets you.

How about the “wage gap”? What they don’t tell you is that comparatively few women choose high-paying STEM careers, because they’re not interested in nerdy stuff. They also don’t like dirty, exhausting, and dangerous jobs either. Further, men work more overtime. Why does being extra productive make us the bad guys? The truth is that the “wage gap” results from individual career choices, but feminists dishonestly blame “The Patriarchy”.

What about rape culture?

She lied because she got dumped, and then wanted attention.

It’s a dirty lie to say that we live in a “rape culture”. Since it’s a felony punishable by a prison sentence, that means it’s not culturally approved. Feminists trying to make men look like savages—including you—are fundamentally dishonest. The truth is that this (along with other violent crimes) has declined greatly from the early 1990s. The job isn’t finished yet, but demagoguery for shock value won’t help.

Early on, they may have merely intended to draw attention to the crime. However, things got worse when they started using phony statistics to bolster their argument. Further, they altered the definition of rape far beyond what it actually means. Lately, they include several other things under the category of “rape culture” (like flirting or “the male gaze“), conflating things that are impolite—at most—with dreadful crimes.

The resulting witch hunt climate led to a wave of false accusations. Some very highly publicized cases have turned out to be complete fabrications. With all the redefining and inflammatory rhetoric, consensual encounters which are later regretted (“buyer’s remorse”) can get you falsely accused. Campus tribunals resembling Star Chamber proceedings have the power to expel students without due process. When a crime actually takes place, the police should handle it.

This is bad for genuine victims who may face more doubts and scrutiny after this witch hunt. It’s also bad for all the people whose lives have been ruined unjustly. That could be you some day. Being a male feminist will not save you.

How feminism affects society

For half a century, radical feminists have been pushing their toxic ideology on the public, aided by useful idiots in the media. Even women who don’t identify with feminism have soaked up some of this. They’ve been told that it’s okay to get a divorce without good reason, single motherhood is super, abortion is wonderful, and so forth. It’s irresponsible to change the things that made society work. Much of the civilizational decline over the last fifty years is attributable to the feminist agenda’s unquestioned acceptance.

By themselves, the feminists couldn’t have gone nearly as far as they did without help from men. Most of their allies misunderstood the nature of feminism, considering it simply a matter of equality and justice. It’s time to stop supporting these dishonest radicals who have taken advantage of your benevolent instincts and will show you no gratitude in return, no matter how useful or self-abasing you are.

Being a male feminist is like being a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. After all they’ve lied to you, do you still want to be their useful idiot?

 

I would add another step would be to understand the history of feminism and its Jewish role in destabilizing the west by destroying the family.

It Was A Nightmare To Work In A 90% Female Workplace

by William Adams

William Adams is a European explorer and straightforward intellectual. Rooted in the West, he temporarily leaves home for more exotic excursions. Focuses primarily on Western and East Asian culture, and global economics.

Two years ago in Sweden I had a one-year contract at a 90% female environment, a college workplace dedicated to subjects such as beauty and fashion, where I observed many patterns regarding sex differences.

Before I continue, it is pertinent to add that there is significant variation among women. Even in schools with somewhat lower average grades and test scores, some girls are intelligent, diligent, talented, and showcase agreeable behavior. Some are even relatively competent, easy to work with, and not overly sensitive. With that said, this was a predominantly negative experience for a variety of reasons.

Widespread neuroticism

A constant problem was crying, yelling, and being absent as a consequence of depression and various psychosocial health issues. After a while all I could do is sigh.

Far-reaching coddle

Another troubling component was the never-ending coddle of female students, mainly from the female co-workers. The underlying pedagogic idea is that a safe and pleasant environment will create happy and motivated individuals. Girls need special treatment in order to fully thrive, some suggest.

Although it is indeed true that more authoritarian manners may severely backfire, coddling girls leads to a vicious cycle. If no one draws the line, it will constantly be moved, at the expense of self-discipline and responsibility.

If the principle and teachers take ridiculous claims seriously, mainly from manipulative, histrionic or neurotic girls who are the least likely to make substantial assertions on just about anything, the organization puts itself in a tenuous position.

Additionally, the entire concept of treating people, soon to be adults, as borderline retarded kids appears to be pure nonsense that only further accelerates social decline.

Backstabbing and herd mentality

If only one percent of the females decide that they will not accept that you yelled at them once when they were acting moronic during class, or they have identified “offensive” thoughts about Oriental women on your personal blog, many of their female friends will follow suit and band together. They’ll quickly flock around the female staff, the principle in particular, and even involve parents, with the aim to restore their notion of justice.

Such obstacles can be solved in the end, often through strategic diplomacy and benevolent manipulation, but they will nevertheless create stress and unease.

Male workers hunker down or quit

Two consequences of a female-dominated workplace, where masculinity has to be severely curtailed, are that males hunker down or quit. I saw a gradual decline of the percentage of male workers within the small span of just a year.

When you are not allowed to be yourself, sometimes not even in the slightest, you have to dwell inside a shell. Although it would be quite pathetic to complain about such conditions, a majorly masculine man simply wants to spend time in an environment which does not decrease his overall well-being.

The secondary becomes the primary

Instead of focusing on results, skills, and enabling students and teachers to work undisturbed, silly campaigns became the major focus. For example, for one week everyone had to say “Hello” to just all of whom they happened to meet. Even the students with the weakest intellectual faculties considered this idea, which unsurprisingly a female co-worker came up with, as peculiarly inane and stupid.

Females are generally more emotional and gregarious, whereas men are more rational and assertive. When the female elements become the dominant forces, the environment will change accordlingly.

In summary

To work in such a female-dominated environment may likely have a negative impact on a man’s well-being and is not to be recommended. The quality of work may also decline because of females’ penchant for emotional and interpersonal nonsense. A more balanced demography or a male-dominated environment are obviously preferred.

For more of William Adams’ material, check out his website Syncretic Politics.

 

Man Faces 15 Years In Prison After Recording His Wife Having Sex With Another Man

Female Privilege: “Mom” Who Viciously Beat Her Daughter Gets a Slap on the Wrist and the COLLAPSE of the West

Collage

An Anglo mother who beat her little girl with a spoon got a slap on the wrist in court

Proving modern Anglobitches are far from the oppressed victims of evil white men the corrupt American media makes them out to be – and that women actually have all rights and privileges, and no responsibilities or accountability in an insanely gynocentric culture, here’s the story of a woman who beat her daughter with a spoon, leaving the child with massive bruising and psychological trauma.

What did Lorien Norman get for the vicious attack on her daughter Evie? A slap on the wrist. From Daily Mail:

Evie’s mother walked free from court last week with a good behaviour bond after a judge found the baby’s injuries were ‘likely to resolve’. Despite the [fact her] offence carries a maximum sentence of 13 years Norman did not spend a day behind bars, instead given bond and ordered to pay $500.

The injustice system strikes again. Of course, if a man had beat his daughter like Lorien did, he wouldn’t have got off with such a light penalty. But men don’t get a pussy pass in Anglo culture.

Of course, mommy dearest tried to lie her way out of the crime. (TNMM has repeatedly quoted Schopenhauer when it comes to the innate female talent for lying and deception.)

Initially her mother attempted to claim the youngster had become bruised following a fall in a playground, before later pleading guilty aggravated assault causing harm.

White girls are a special kind of evil. A man doesn’t need much more proof than this.

There’s a reason I typically avoid white girls, and break my back trying to save enough money to make my way off the Anglobitch plantation as often as I can.

I won’t even go into the full story of how the last time I dated a white girl she spent 6 months trying to get me to knock her up and then faked a pregnancy, saying she was carrying my child to try to tie me down on the Anglo-American plantation. She continued with the ruse even after I had left the country to live abroad, just out of spite. It’s scary to think of what she had planned once I had become her child support slave, forced to pay up or go to debtor’s prison.

Gentlemen, there’s ice running though those veins behind cold, calculating blue eyes. Want proof?

Gloating about her escape in the hours after facing the District Court, Norman sent a series of messages to her former partner.

“So I’m not going to jail. What’s your next move?”

“I’ll send you photos in October. Cute family photos of myself, Indi, Evie, my sister, her partner and my nephew, Hudson.”

Of course, dad was treated like garbage. Nothing new here.

Speaking to Daily Mail Australia on Thursday, Mr McMahon said he was “speechless” at the soft sentence handed down.

“I’m disgusted – I’m truly speechless. Where is Evie’s justice?’ he told Daily Mail Australia. I’ve raised both these girls [Evie and India, the second child he had with Norman] single handedly, and she gets 10 months of a sentence that carries a maximum of 13 years!”

Thanks to gyncentrism in modern courts, women know they can behave however they want with impunity. Lorien told Evie’s sperm donor father:

“Even with everyone on social media against me, I still made it. And I’ll be having part custody within a year.”

If you want to know why white people are dying off en masse, look no further than white women. What man wants to have kids that will be taken away from him with evil like this skulking around society, enjoying nearly total privilege?

The end can’t come soon enough for this culture’s dominance on the world stage. The world is ready for something new. Something with less estrogen, gynocentrism, and overt female malice.

More Proof Feminism Left American Women Broke: They’re Selling Sex on Dating Apps

people-2562438_1280

The realities of the Anglo-American dating and mating markets continue to defy the culture’s Hallmark card mental imagery it foists upon millions

In the past week we’ve already established the retail collapse and the education bubble are directly tied to feminism. This morally bankrupt ideology is also financially bankrupting American women, who remain powerless against the powers of feminist persuasion.

Even as their lives turn to shit as a result of the feted fantasies of feminism, they adhere to its doxy like mindless lemmings. Modern American women are hostile, degenerate, government dependents or wage slaves of the corporate establishment, alone, broke, and statistically sterile, yet they think they’re “empowered” in ways their grandmothers never dreamed of.

The delusion is almost beyond belief. But wait, there’s more.

Witness, mainstream dating apps in major cities filled with women who have dispensed with the guise of “Looking for Mr. Right” altogether. (Which any man experienced with women knows is a ruse, anyway.) Now, Anglo-American females are going directly for the red meat: trading sex for money. Money they “need” since Big Daddy Government only doles out gibsmedats in paltry amounts, the corporate life only yields women a basic existence, and men are wising up to the child support annuity and frivorce lottery games hoes play.

Incidentally, sex for resources is the foundation of the human sexual market. TNMM has reported in the past that all marriages (and relationshits) are at their core, buried under layers of sophistry, sex for resources. (If not cash, the promise of present or future male utility.) We’ve also shown how even females in the animal kingdom trade sex for resources.

That’s just how it works. Every woman has her price. It is what it is. This state of affairs has been the norm since time immemorial, but in dystopian modern times the state has rendered men useless to women as it cucks them by providing women with resources it steals from Beta males. This is the chief reason the dating and mating markets have become completely dysfunctional in Anglo America.

Now, we have another confirmation of this idea as I did some poking around on POF, OkCupid, and Badoo dating apps, investigating the new depths our society has sunk to. It seems the dating market in America has reached an interesting new low. I didn’t go in looking for the conclusions I’m about to draw; rather these findings came up organically as I searched for eligible ladies while traveling around America.

I sent out a flurry of messages to women in several major American cities the past few weeks: New York City, Atlanta, and Chicago. At least 50% of the time, women would respond back with either innuendo the street savvy man knows meant they were looking to trade sex for money, or would send back unmistakable replies like these:

  • “$$$$”
  • “60/100/150” meaning the cost in dollars of different intervals of time for sexual encounters with her. $60 for 15 minutes, $100 for 30 minutes, $150 for 60 minutes, etc.
  • “I’m looking for a sugar daddy.”

So, once again we find feminism has not empowered women but weakened them. It’s turning them into hoes.

But, why dating apps? Because the American Police State leviathan regularly terrorizes its sex-hungry populace with constant “stings” on victimless crimes like when Beta males (loathed and turned into pariahs in modern Anglo America) find a willing ho on Backpage. A conviction for soliciting for prostitution could render a hapless corporate worker drone destitute in this age of credentialism.

Read: You dumbfuck police, useful idiots of the power structure that you are, some things aren’t going away. Like the world’s oldest profession. Your ham-fisted stings just push this normal female behavior underground onto the black market.

Personally, I believe prostitution should be legalized. The ban on sex for hire needs to end along with other pseudo-moral prohibitions foisted upon the populace by a totally immoral American government. I see nothing wrong with it, especially since it dispenses with the ridiculous façade dating has become in a post-feminist world. Feminism has exposed the reality of women and the sexual market, as a direct “sex for resources” transaction is the default setting in an uncivilized society.

Meaning, modern women just want a man around long enough to extract sufficient cash from him to power their next fix of materialism or recreational drugs.

The fact women are now selling themselves on mainstream dating apps – of their own volition – proves the matrix is beyond delusional when it purports to “protect” women from evil sexual predators by rounding up “Johns” in prostitution stings around the U.S. In reality, the men they’re rounding up are timid and/or lonesome Beta males left out in the cold, masturbating ad nauseum post-feminism.

The reality is, women make the rules for sex in any society. Men only follow them. The rules used to be sex for marriage or commitment. But now, the rules have returned to their default setting of overt sex for cash. (Rather than clandestine sex for cash via marriage/commitment.)

This isn’t new knowledge. Our society has just become dysfunctional and insane as a result of social engineering and Cultural ((((((Marxism)))))). The lessons about women and sexuality we are learning anew – the hard way – were written down in Bronze Age texts long ago.

If a woman bothers to respond to you at all these days on dating apps, there’s at least a decent shot she’s finally stopped pretending she’s interested in you as a human being, and like Capital One, is interested in “What’s in your wallet?” Have you noticed this latest social trend in your city?

Women, Unsecured Debt and the Woes of the Anglosphere

Feminism and the financial chaos left in its wake has proven women cannot remain solvent without men in their lives

Rookh Kshatriya is the creator of the Anglobitch blog, The Anglobitch Thesis and the author of Havok: How Anglo-American Feminism Ruined Society.

RF recently posted an interesting article (The Retail Collapse) on the decline of retail stores and shopping malls in the US. Let me point out that exactly the same phenomenon has beset Britain in recent years: C&A, Woolworths, BHS, Comet, Blockbuster and Phones4U have all ‘gone West’ since the Millennium. And other retailers have had to write-off hundreds of stores just to survive. RF’s plausible argument is that women – society’s inveterate shoppers – now lack the disposable wealth to indulge their dubious passion. The jobs they hold are generally not very remunerative; and men are no longer prepared to support their profligate ways.

This incisive analysis is also supported by the figures on female debt. Most Anglo-American debtors are women, by a considerable margin; and much of their debt arises from paying expensive college fees for worthless qualifications in the arts and humanities. From Fortune magazine:

Women are now the majority on college campuses across the United States—representing 56% of all students enrolled as of fall 2016. And according to a new report, they’re also shouldering the lion’s share of the nation’s student debt problem.

A report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) found that on average, women hold $833 billion—or almost two-thirds—of the country’s $1.3-trillion student debt, compared to the $477 billion that men hold.

Overall, after completing a bach­elor’s degree, women’s average accrued student debt is about $1,500 greater than men’s. African American women take on more student debt than any other group of women, with an average of $30,000.

In the UK, most college loans are never repaid and most graduates get jobs they could have had after leaving high school. In sum, the majority of students pursue higher education out of snobbery (it is still mistakenly considered ‘middle class’), outmoded parental expectations and the (largely false) promise of hedonistic excess.

Reality soon bites, however. Newly armed with irrelevant qualifications, the average college graduate quickly learns that a line of computer code outweighs a million lines of poetry. Now, culture is a wonderful thing and yes, it should be studied and transmitted to succeeding generations. But do we really need half the population studying it? Besides, times were when the humanities were hardcore disciplines requiring mastery of ancient languages and intimate knowledge of the great canonical works of western civilization. Since the Sixties counter-culture infiltrated academia, those rigorous days are long gone; any clown can do Cultural Studies.

In many ways, the problem of student debt arises from a long-standing mismatch between reality and expectation. The western worldview is still rooted in the post-War era, an age of unprecedented prosperity and opportunity. In those days, going to college automatically made someone ‘middle class’ for life. Although that era ended in 1974, it continues to define the West’s general outlook – a legacy worldview, if you will. Even today, most middle aged people still assume that a college degree in any subject from any institution will confer privileged status on their offspring. Indeed, the whole ‘happy families’ narrative to which Tradcon politicians cling is also a legacy of those times. These mistaken beliefs are incredibly stubborn and persistent, something only fully apparent to someone from a non-western cultural heritage.

And in many ways the misty-eyed nostalgia for those golden years is understandable: they were times of unprecedented opportunity for ordinary Brits and Americans. However, this nostalgia has become problematic now the West faces tough competition from regions armed with higher IQs and the Confucian work ethic.

Anglosphere nations are so maladjusted to existing conditions that young people can no longer expect rational guidance from their elders. This is especially true for young men, whose parents told them ‘the right girl’ would happen along if they conformed to societal expectations; or that girls prefer ‘nice guys’ to criminal thugs. Indeed, the Manosphere in all its glory arose to fill this ‘advice gap’ that yawns like a crevasse in the lives of younger men.

But the post-War legacy hobbles women, too. Armed with pointless degrees in finger painting and Womyn’s Studies, they waste their prime years riding the thug carousel (or snarled in sterile hyper-hypergamy) and shuffling papers in a ‘beauty sinecure’ (most companies keep a few babes around as morale boosters, even today). When their Wall approaches, most ‘educated’ women hastily revert to the post-War Tradcon narrative: surely Prince Beta will ride up on his white charger, write off her debts and save her ageing ass with a wave of his credit card?

Sadly, it ain’t happening. Thanks to the Manosphere, Prince Beta knows the score. Besides, with sex tourism booming in South America, Slavic Europe and the Far East, he needs dusty Anglo tail like he needs a kick in the nuts. And so our crusty Anglobitch stumbles towards middle age, accruing ever more debt, her SMV sinking with each passing year. We know where this ends: a broken-down cat lady abusing opiates on Welfare, renting her rancid ass out to gammas for the price of her next fix. The economic repercussions will be seismic in the decades to come.

I don’t claim to be an economist but even I can see that if a huge proportion of women take out massive loans they can never repay, someone somewhere must be getting shafted. Limiting college access would probably go some way to fixing things, as would expanding intermediate technical education. However, that would greatly reduce female enrolment rates – complete anathema in the gynocentric Anglosphere. In any case, American women must believe they are ‘middle class’ – a superior caste – for the post-feminist narrative to work. Even if this ‘status’ is illusionary, the illusion has to be sustained to keep females ‘onside’; an absolute imperative in our gynocentric civilization.

Ultimately, it is hard not to link the rise of Anglo-American feminism to the Anglosphere’s economic woes. Permitting trillions of dollars of unsecured debt so that mediocre Anglo princesses can feel successful, superior and ‘middle class’ is totally irrational in the competitive twenty-first century. This mass pandering to women first began in the prosperous post-War era, and doubtless hastened its end.

Essentially, women are clowns; and building societies around their infantile whims is a recipe for disaster. By nature, women are not productive; they cannot create, build or innovate. Though many of them study the arts and humanities, their contributions to these fields amount to zero. Jurisprudence, the only ‘serious’ field where they outnumber men, predictably requires no imagination. However, law does allow women to indulge their atavistic yearnings for social destruction and systemized misandry, abetted by the Pharisaic Anglo-American obsession with punitive legalism.

In Blade Runner 2049, can a relationship with a hologram be meaningful?

‘We are defined by what we love’

Photo: Alcon Entertainment

In conventional love stories, boy meets girl, boy falls for girl, girl falls for boy, and some pivotal plot point happens. Unless there’s a sequel, we assume that afterward, they live happily and inconsequentially ever after. But, what if in the future, it’s boy designs girl? In Blade Runner 2049, Officer K (Ryan Gosling) lives with his AI hologram companion Joi, who was manufactured by Wallace Corp and tailored as the perfect companion. Her product tagline is, “Everything you want to see. Everything you want to hear.”

Spoilers ahead for Blade Runner 2049.

Screenwriter ((((((((((((((((((Michael Green)))))))))))))))))) told The Thrillist, “I knew we’d be telling the story of his character’s aspiration toward ascension, so since we are defined by what we love, what he loved needed a story as well. Now, if that story is merely a projection of his fantasies combined with excellent programming, or if she is a ‘special’ version of herself who became something more because she was involved with someone unique — that’s something I hope people struggle with. When he sees the advertisement for a different Joi at the end… it hurts my feelings. And a Blade Runner film should hurt one’s feelings.”

K is an artificial person known as a replicant, but he isn’t immune to loneliness and longing. And though he and Joi seem to love each other, the tragedy lies in the illusion. If something has the illusion of being meaningful, is it still meaningful? The idea of what’s “real” and what’s not is blurred in Blade Runner 2049’s love story, but it’s clear that K takes comfort from Joi’s presence, and that she makes him feel like an individual. She gives him a human name, and with it, some sense of purpose and belief that he’s more than what he’s been designed to do. From an outside perspective, their relationship is an illusion, but it’s real to K — which means it’s real, period.

Like Theodore, the main protagonist in ((((((((((((((((((Spike Jonze))))))))))))))))))’s acclaimed Her, K projects his desires onto an AI-powered woman named Samantha, but he still derives real emotion and positive personal meaning from their relationship. It’s a paradox: he’s feeling what the AI is designed to make him feel, but the feelings still have meaning. And even if his relationship with Samantha, or K’s with Joi, is based on something artificial and designed, they still have lasting real-world consequences. K’s love gives him a purpose that drives his choices in ways with long-term ramifications for many other people.

There’s a kind of underlying hope in Blade Runner 2049 that Joi is growing to be more than her programming — that she loves K of her own agency, and isn’t an empty fantasy. Her caring behavior when he’s hurt, or when her existence might threaten his, suggests that she’s devoted to him. When her data is destroyed, K realizes how she defined him. The ascension Green references comes as a surprise to him, but it leads him to commit to the higher purpose of saving Deckard and reuniting him with his daughter. K molds Joi into what he wants her to be, but she molds him in return. They both seem to be moving beyond their programming, because of their love for each other. Their relationship — between an android boy and a holographic girl, each looking to be something more — makes for one of the most thought-provoking pairings in recent science fiction.

On another note:

The Left want to abandon math.

The Road to Matriarchy (TFM 42O)

Instead Of Accusing Leftists Of Racism, Point Out Their Agenda: Vampiric Parasitism

Every now and then, the Left accidentally tell you exactly what they are thinking and what their motives are. Although the University of Pennsylvania has not actually fired her, Stephanie McKellop got in some hot water for speaking the pure Leftist reality-doctrine:

In the Leftist view, equality is the goal, and so anyone who is doing better than mediocre needs to have their wealth and power transferred to those below the mediocre line. That way, everyone will be the same, and each person’s ego will be satisfied that no one has gotten ahead of them.

Through that lens, it is acceptable to — as McKellop argues — discriminate against whites. But, from a conservative perspective, no one is discriminating; they are self-sorting. Conservatives do not concern themselves with racism, classism, sexism, homophoia and other Left-terms at all because we know that people sort themselves out by flocking like to like, and so every group will exclude someone else.

This is why DR3 is a loser strategy for conservatives; any conservative who uses the term “racism” to express a concern for forcing everyone to like one another is in fact a cordycepted crypto-Leftist (including neoconservatives, lolberts, classical liberals, RINOs, cucks, SWPLs and Buckley conservatives).

To McKellop, non-whites can never be racist because whites are above-mediocre, therefore should perpetually be punished by taking the fruits of their labors to redistribute. In her mind, this can and should go on indefinitely. That shows us her real motivation: while she speaks about ending racism, what she really wants is to keep the benefits chain going.

An honest person concerned about, say, African-American issues will argue for African independence. Same with an honest feminist, homosexual, transgender, other minority group or minority religion. Instead they want to maintain the wealth transfer, which means they must simultaneously try to subjugate us and demand funding from us.

Even if they simply wanted to conquer us and wipe us out, that would be more honest. After all, every ethnic group has its own self-interest, and that includes displacing any possible competition. But for SWPL Leftists like Stephanie McKellop, they want something else entirely: vampiric parasitism. They want to make us into livestock for them to milk and fleece forevermore.

Many people disagree with the assessment that the core of Leftism is individualism, but demands for parasitism always are individualistic, favoring the needs of the individual over the group, nature and society as an organic whole. However, this individualism only makes sense to people who secretly suspect that they are weak, since anyone strong simply goes out and makes something better for themselves.

This means that the agenda of Leftism has been to leech off of us all along. They are merely parasites. All of their high-minded talk about morality and justice is just the cover story for a bunch of common grifters who want to find a sucker, get their hooks into him good, and drain just enough of his lifeblood every day that he will never wake up and be a threat to them again.

Parasites: