Skip to content

I missed the news for this?

March 4, 2013

I am not the most informed man by any metric. Someday, I may suffer for that lack of information. If I were focused on uncovering facts with most of my free time, I’d have less to fear, though not necessarily less to be wary of. One of the few benefits I think I have of ignoring most of the news is that I get to ignore the inanities associated with it.

I didn’t watch the Oscars, because I knew it had nothing to offer me. Not everyone thinks like me though, so of course that means some people are taken in by faked displays of hate. Once again, “misogyny” was the real star of the show, and the Worst Troll went to that Onion tweeter who called a child a cunt. You want to know why these things are as fake as WWE? It’s because the tweeter wasn’t fired and forced to apologize in front of cameras. It’s because whatever fun was had at some actresses’ expense, they were part of the uber-privileged Hollywood set and in no real danger as a result of vulgar humor. The purpose of the internet fury over such a weak-ass industry event was to get another hit of the same old drug*.

Man threatens vulnerable woman…

The (lack of) fun doesn’t end there. Let’s take out the “vulnerable woman” part so it’s just “Man threatens”. Now change “man” to “boy”. Thanks to the gun hysteria that our government can’t help but be pleased with, some ignoramuses are seeing boys threaten their utopian fantasies. Boy tries to make a mountain from a Pop-Tart? Too bad! It looked more like a gun! Boy shows a picture of a BB gun! Oh noez! He must be planning a bloodbath! Change “boy” back to “man”, and beware men in public watching videos of guns not part of movies, music videos, or videogames!

The collapse of America must really be around the corner, given the way that anything truly threatening to the ruling elite can immediately be found and suppressed, but things that are meant to scare the proles just happen to find a way to get disseminated with little in the way of punishment.

* – The same old drug that’s only bad for you when it’s part of a fictional work in which justice (usually embodied by another man) saves the day.


Willing suspension of sensitization

February 23, 2013

Something is wrong with the state of media criticism when it comes to violence. It’s obvious and yet most discussions about it will be drawn back to either a thought-terminating cliche or a reactionary defense against the cliche. We don’t need to keep arguing about whether parents need to control their children more, or if gun control will benefit the public more than it would leave them vulnerable. If you want to look it up, you’d be likely to find a study agreeing with your argument. Therefore, I’d rather look at violence in media in another way. For this post, the term “violence in media” will refer to the use of firearms.

Last year, I was slightly disturbed that I could watch violent movies and play violent games without even flinching at most deaths inflicted by bullets. There were even times where I’d chuckle at someone getting shot to death. I thought that I had unwittingly bought into and embodied the idea that repeated exposure to murder made me desensitized to murder as an act. Then after watching The Expendables 2, The Dark Knight Rises, and Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning, I decided to think for myself about my reactions. What did I find? First, the more obvious any use of CGI was, the more humorous the violence became. Second, shooting deaths carried less impact than severe beatings and stabbings. Finally, torture and nasty-looking medical procedures were both less prevalent and more unnerving.

Suddenly, it made sense why those ever-common shooting deaths inspired less gasping and more laughing. I’d even go so far as to call them modernist slapstick. I bet if a mainstream journalist had the balls to actually ask a sufficient enough sample of men, they’d find that all those matches of Halo and Call of Duty and whatever other FPSes have similar player numbers feel more like playground mayhem than means by which they seek to oppress others. It not like those games are about slowly killing one’s victims through extreme torture and psychological abuse, just the relatively merciful beheading via headshot in most cases.

Until the point where one’s willing suspension of sensitization breaks, simulated acts of violence fail to trigger meaningful emotional stimuli.

That is a good thing, by the way, unless you’d rather break down into a sobbing mess after every on-screen death. One problem with the way we approach violence in media, if not the problem is that it’s automatically assumed that there is no place for willing suspension of sensitization. Anything that can be linked back to fictional gun violence is treated as though the fiction is greatly responsible, as if the person committing acts of violence has only a sliver of free will that is easily overrun by images on a screen. It’s an ugly way to view people, but it’s what they’ll keep saying.

Why shouldn’t we all be aware of our willing suspension of sensitization while being told to think that violence in media automatically makes us more aggression-prone? Who gains from it besides fear-mongers in positions of power?

Need I go on?

February 16, 2013

If you’ve ever wanted to de-lurk on this blog, now is a good time.

The day might be near where I’ll go on a much-needed hiatus from reading blogs and opinion pieces on the internet. Wiser people before me have considered these things poison, and I’m beginning to really agree, most likely from exposure to what is usually called The Red Pill within the Manosphere/Androsphere/etc. It’s something about reading the same few predominant lies and distortions of reality that must be leading to all this “depression” others on the internet will claim to experience, and most won’t admit it.

Maybe I should go back to playing more games – to spite David Cage and all of the other leftist asshats who whine about violence in games today. There’s a rich irony in women deriding videogames as “power fantasies” even as they gain incredible power from misrepresenting male feelings and shouting down enough dissidents to make themselves feel really threatened. A major media figure has yet to ask why a bunch of leftist women don’t just form a studio and put in the hard work to make real games. I’m sure of this because if one had asked the question, it would have been all over the media with hollow cries of sexism and misogyny, never mind the fact that this is what men are expected to do. They ask why so many games rely on men saving damsels in distress or blowing up hostile forces, but never why there aren’t nearly as much women saving men or fighting off enemies. It’s like they’re admitting that women shouldn’t have to do anything worthwhile to get what they want.

Maybe I should go out and talk to more people (in a controlled environment) – to remind myself that this whole male = creepy rapist thing is an internet meme and not an epidemic. It terrifies me a bit how many men are spending their early years learning that the world is right to fear them and treat them like crap because a few men’s crimes are far more important than most men’s freedoms. I’ve talked to some women who were probably wanting me to take the conversation further, except that I was too scared to come off as desperate or invasive. I should be testing my hypothesis that less exposure to internet feminism results in less social anxiety and less fear of predatory men. The theory is sound, and we all know that men have no problem treating women like people.

Maybe I should put far more work into my projects – because practicing an instrument for about 30 minutes twice a week can’t be good. Having some kind of practical or artistic ambition should be a necessity for any adult, and yet all I seem to see is people fixated on sex, drugs, and/or anger. I fear that I’m becoming some kind of snob because of this, but then I see the alternative and feel like I know where our culture’s intellectual bankruptcy comes from. If every mother who complains of going crazy from being stuck at home alone for a few hours a day was told to get a hobby and suck it up (like we tell men), we might have less nutcases being let out into the rest of the world.

There might be some point in my continued blogging, though I haven’t done any groundbreaking posts or kept up a proper daily schedule. The problem is the inefficiency that comes with a post sometimes taking hours to finish, due to obsessive over-checking of links and paragraphs. If I’ve resolved to not be beholden to refuting whatever politically-motivated lie erupts in a particular week, that kinda limits some of what I can cover. If I do refute the lies, they keep coming like the cannon fodder in a zombie apocalypse and the internet depression sets back in…deeper. Maybe I’m overestimating the amount of the outside world that regards straight men as more than boring, untrendy strawcreatures to pull out when one needs to re-commit to their ideology, but then that just makes things worse. Something seduces women and liberal men about the idea that because a particular institution has more men than women in its prestigious positions, it automatically benefits more men than women. That isn’t surprising given that as society is now, everyone but those boring, untrendy straight men get to be unique, diverse people. It just so happens that they’re the ones online that might be the last line of defense against an expanding state, bent on power and spreading fear.

The internet soured me on sex

February 2, 2013

Back in my high school days, I had regular interactions with girls. Some of these interactions included some friendly flirting. Other than the Biblical instruction to not have sex outside of marriage, I never felt any serious problems with my sexual identity.

Years later, I struggle with lots of things. I have to regularly battle with the many guilt trips foisted on a heterosexual man. I am repeatedly told that the least common denominator of sexualized entertainment represents me. Even thought I’ve never doubted my desire for a woman, I’ve made the idiotic mistake of suppressing it in hopes of not being “creepy”. Why do I have to deal with this?

It’s (a part of) the internet, that great driver of social isolation and meme dissemination.

Because I’ve had regular employment for a few months now, I get to hear some of my male co-workers’ conversations. There’s been talk about hot sex with hot women, getting wasted at parties, women over 30 still being attractive and fuckable, and so on. What’s missing? Rape, misogyny, and other things the leftist blogosphere pushes out. Gay men are disgusting, men and women are different, and women are only open about their sexuality if they have a boyfriend. It’s almost enough to make me think that leftist sexual pathologies are less effective if one does not spend too much time on blogs. I even think that this is why social media is supposedly such a great thing now compared to a few years ago. Back then, since more men were thought to have a social media presence, it was horrible, but women run the show now and things are just so much better, according to the chattering classes. If a man says something (sexually) offensive and he has something women want, like some decent earning potential or a high position, they can have him out of that position, possibly with a crappy apology to follow.  What’s not great about that?

Thanks to feminism washing over more of society, a population trained to hate men more than ever is being subject to scare tactics and concern trolling. It’s not just how Sandy Hook was used to promote gun control and hate on masculinity, but many other things that have a similar feel to them.

Last post, I ragged on an “Objectify a Man Day” event planned for February 1, even though it was cancelled a few days before then. I wish the cancellation had been explicitly due to the organizers realizing how stupid the idea was. Instead, that point is buried under the proper liberal jargon about how not everyone is straight and male with icky straight male feelings. Not mentioned? The lack of genuine sexual interest in men that feminism encourages. I can only be exposed to so much politically-motivated outbursts of newfound sexual desire in women before I question whether that intense sexual desire can exist otherwise. If women don’t care much for traditional gender roles, then what can explain their silence about sexuality in public and refusal to approach men? Oh, that’s right – it’s also what happens when feminism provides incentives for women to fear men and only notice them when given reason to feel that fear.

What is it about pushing an image of average straight male as predator that feminism likes so much, despite protestations to the contrary? Is it just the dark side of the apex fallacy? If judging most men by the successes of the top few is so liberating to women, then maybe judging most men by the crimes of the bottom rung is even better for them. It could explain the surprise that we are bombarded with upon realizing that men can still be straight even if they’re not threatening or feminist suck-ups.

Back so many years ago, I naively thought using the internet to learn about sex would have held some kind of benefit. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Now my mind just bounce between paranoia and contempt. When will the next controversy come along to tell us that one man’s offense is every man’s sin? What new ad campaign won’t temporarily invoke paranoia in me by making me wonder if I am merely being pandered to by some marketer that mocks my sexual preference even as they want money for catering to it? How badly do I hate these people for giving the feminist media machine what it wants? Do I start praying to God to destroy some Hollywood director’s career? Do I applaud the rapists that are required story components for any feminist story on their sexual experiences? Will purging myself of any and all blogosphere reading also purge these demons from my mind? Is it even possible to live life these days without sexual neurosis of some kind? If it is, then the root of the problem must be identified and fought.

The root of the problem is with our sexualized culture* and what some take that to mean. Thanks to being told crap like “romance is an illusion” and “sex is liberating”, people can be made to believe complete bullshit. So many infuriating trend articles have been published out of a need to continuously reinforce the expectation that modern sexualized culture is the preferred default in a majority of the public mind. Anything that opposes this notion is only permissible with sufficient leftist twisting of an otherwise simple idea. The media blares out “sex!, drugs!, psuedo-rebellion!”, and my mind responds “DO NOT WANT!”. I don’t care for raunchy music videos and internet pornography precisely because it feels like that’s all the elite are comfortable with me enjoying. Not only do I think romance and intimacy are possible even now, I also think that they are enemies of feminism and can oppose it when harnessed properly. Why else does everything have to be pushed toward sex, or rather the idea that men are invasive predators of otherwise unbothered women? The real objectification out there now – that the media will not properly cover anytime soon – is the idea that men should preferably be noticed for their actual or potential evil before anything else. Tie this to sex, and it’s easy to see where such garbage as “rape culture” comes from. This is what happens when sex is stripped of any emotional or spiritual connection and used as a way to attack one’s ideological enemies – we all suffer for it.

* – link from Angry Harry

Another stupid feminist idea

January 25, 2013

Elie MacDowell from Zero no Kiseki

Obligatory sexist sexy image of Elie MacDowell from Zero no Kiseki. Taken from Danbooru (ads may be NSFW).

Somewhere out there, a malicious meme has inserted itself into the minds of liberals.

“Men complimenting women on their appearance belittles everything else about them!”, the meme goes. As soon as someone says this, you know that person is a misandrist nutcase who believes male + attraction toward female = danger! It is a religious belief that should be mocked, and mock it I will.

For the newest male guilt-a-thon of games culture, there’s “Objectify a man day”. Such an inane concept could only come from the minds of feminists who betray their hatred and ignorance of male sexuality.

Why else would a day like this be necessary other than for feminists to show their self-inflicted neurosis to the world? To assume that taking one measly day to compliment men on their appearance is somehow going to gain them political converts makes me question the sanity and sexuality of some women in game journalism. It’s as if they think men love hurting women’s feelings by admitting that they find something physically appealing about them (so much for being vulnerable and opening up). With such an attitude, I suppose trying to ironically flip the script is all that could come to mind. Sincerely finding men attractive without having to first be told that women aren’t as visual as men must be asking for too much, and yet the sexes are undeniably equal, so they say.

Posting screenshots of women with something that could turn a man on is sexist, but talking about men as if they’re only noticeable when they are violent isn’t. Men being out and proudly heterosexual about finding women pretty is sexist, but women ignoring the much larger amount of potential beefcake isn’t. In short, if men direct sexual desire toward women, it’s sexist, but when women do not direct sexual desire toward men, it’s not sexist. When you put it that way, I think I get it, but then I don’t get what’s wrong with men sexually desiring women. The bigger problem is women being disgusted about it.

I never did compliment a female journalist on their appearance, but being exposed to this garbage almost makes me want to. Reminding these women that men might find them attractive seems to be so horrifying to them that only a man could do it. If there’s anything feminists notice and love in a man, it’s the threat he poses to her. All the repeated internet drama that they cook up is its own proof.

With shit like this targeted at heterosexual men, it’s no wonder why more gays, transgendered, asexuals (etc.) are popping up on the internet. Someone other than a bunch of crazy women have to prove their radicalness by hating heterosexual men in a totally acceptable way.

All part of the plan

January 13, 2013

It’s not a coincidence that the same week we get another feminist hate session against low-tier men, we also get a government hate session against low-tier men. Internet hate against “nice guys” and government attempts to ban “violent gamers” are both rooted in obfuscating problems that aren’t the fault of average men but must be blamed on them to protect feminist egos everywhere. Thanks to these obfuscations, the ruling elites have a society in which achieving population control and an unarmed citizenry isn’t too far off for them.

Hate on “nice guys” all you want, but they’re the product of lying women and a society that provides incentives to lie. Some women lie and say they desire men who are non-threatening and attentive to them. Some women lie and say that they’re creeped out by aggressive, muscular men. After listening to all these lies, usually at a young age, boys take it as truth that lying women say these things because the women really feel that way. After enough exposure to reality, a man will realize that these lies are promoted so that women can have their feminist-traditional cake and eat it too. Between these states though, men have to endure the torment of being shamed for believing what they were told, with no sincere though toward getting women to be honest with themselves and whoever they talk to about sex. Because these lies rob men and women of satisfying relationships in the best (young adult) years of their lives, we see a jaded populace and lowered chance of successful families, just as the elites want. Even better (for feminists), there’s a bunch of women that don’t have to deal with so many icky men and their icky bodies – until they get old and desperate, then out comes the fat acceptance campaigns and shaming language. All because feminism taught women to lie about what brings men and women together in the first place.

If anything, all these “nice guys of okcupid” are missing out on is being a social validation ticket for a marxist fem-loon too scared to be a real lesbian.

The more we hear about Sandy Hook, the more the elites make their agenda clear. To them, we are to fear violent games with their guns (favored by men) and love gun control (favored by women). They’re not at all serious about lowering the amount of mass murders, and even if they were, government cannot do the job that an energetic, life-loving citizenry must be around to do. So go ahead, you powerful, soulless bastards: make it harder for a man to buy and play the next console generation’s shoot-or-slash games in peace. Make it easier for them to miss out on meaningful social connections that don’t lazily rest on heterosexual males being the worst of the worst as a foundation. Eventually, another man with nothing and no one to live for will give you and the grief-porn consumers of the public more dead innocents to fap to because faked orgasms aren’t just for penis-in-vagina sex anymore. While we’re on the topic of weapon bans, can we find out what weapon women commit most of their gruesome murders with and propose more strict controls on it too – because women are responsible – or would that make too many women faint for our white-knighting legislators to be serious about?

Don’t be fooled by how unconnected these two situations appear to be on the surface. The greater social effects of repeatedly telling men that their desires and interests are oppressive and must always be criticized if not criminalized are meant to lead to the endgame. Once no man can be found among the expendable lower classes that will resist the elite, they will declare victory and everyone not of them will realize their defeat. Celibate nice guys becoming sexually active players and high-budget FPS games with armed citizen rebellions against corrupt western governments would be the sweet music to my ears, if only because it would show that the fight is not yet completely lost. As it is now, I wonder if we’re truly just waiting to die so that our bodies will match our spirits in terms of no longer living.

Further reading:

Nice Guys of OkCupid (or victims of society’s attempts to make despised feminine women out of men):
The Crime of Being Nice (contains 3 more relevant links)

The aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting (in which Sandy Hook sounds like a better horror movie than school name):
The Jimquisition: Desensitized to Violence
Why game developes shouldn’t meet with Biden
More questions at Sandy Hook

A rough theory on mass murder [2]

December 30, 2012

Two weeks after the Sandy Hook shooting, I’ve once again seen the same list of causes from both sides of the political divide. If I were to believe enough of what they say, I’d conclude that the average newsworthy atrocity is made up of a combination of various bugbears. These bugbears go by many names – gun culture, violent entertainment, abortion, toxic masculinity, male entitlement, misogyny, homophobia, godlessness, feminism, patriarchy, culture of death – but they are all ways of missing the forest for the trees when used as thought-terminating cliches to win a political argument. As such, I don’t believe that any of those things are the real cause for despicable, cowardly murders.  They are at best visible symptoms.

What does a person live for? Their family? Power and influence? Personal passions and interests? A desire to do things with others? The tenets of their beliefs, applied civilly? Any of these answers could suffice. At least the answer isn’t nothing at all. Now, assuming that the average mass murder is premeditated and ends in the murderer’s suicide, a state has to be reached where all of the above things to live for no longer matter or are deemed acceptable losses in return for dead innocents. Now do you see what is missing from common news punditry? Even if Grand Theft Auto, eye-searing gonzo porn, or satanist metal bands could put the ideas for violence in someone’s head, it still has to be deemed worthy of acting upon to go beyond mere thought-crime.

Normally (or ideally), a society would work its hardest to make happy, productive people out of as many members as possible. A supposed patriarchal society would have ways to give a man something pleasing to live for, or if that man has to die, he would be encouraged to seek an honorable death. To witness men who seem to have a bright future ahead if they aren’t already living easy become ticking time bombs then suggests there are problems. Believing that these men are just blind to their privilege and always seeking more is adopting the mindset of a woman that envies a man’s external appearance without caring what’s on the inside. Sure, they may wish they had it all too, but they would be oblivious to the spiritual rot that awaits them. What good is mere wealth and status in the face of a sick culture that tells you you’re wrong just for having it, and that you should constantly apologize for any other offense that the squeaky wheels take?  In fact, if wealth and status were enough, why not just use it to do any of a million better things than a murder-suicide?

One’s soul would have to die or undergo massive numbing before otherwise senseless aggression could be acted upon, and that is all that happens in these cases.  The best defense, then, is to preserve the liveliness of one’s soul under any civil, minimal means necessary.

Further reading:
“You scum. I’m going to kill you all.” – L. Sorenson”

The folly of disarming evil