I get that he’s a fag. We’ve got that.

But what did Puff Daddy actually do?

It looked like he sodomized Justin Bieber, but he’s not being charged with that.

What did he do?

Does anyone know?

This is looking like a Weinstein type situation, frankly.

I don’t know what he did.

Is he in the Illuminati?

I don’t agree with pissing on people or whatever, but is that against the law?

Since this website is so censored that it no longer has the ability for popular reach, I’ve developed a general rule against “explaining it to the retards.” But with a recent barrage of criticism by the retards, I think there is enough to discuss that will be edifying to non-retards that it is worth responding and explaining why this particular criticism of me is retarded.

I posted the above clip in an article earlier this week commenting on Sam Rockwell’s appearance, which I find impressive for his age. I also noted that the clip is hilarious, with Rockwell talking about how he developed autogynephilia after engaging in rampant sex in Thailand for several years. I lurk in some Telegram channels where people share my articles in order to get an idea of what people think, and found a bunch of people condemning me for posting “degeneracy.”

Firstly, this is the gayest form of virtue signaling, because it is being done by people who claim to oppose virtue signaling. Do people know what “virtue signaling” is? The term is a transparent compound, so you already know what it means assuming you are familiar with the words “virtue” and “signal.” But why do people do it? It is something done by losers and pathetic people who want to feel like they’re better than other people. It is about gaining social status among a group.

This behavior is obviously most popular among women.

But men do it too.

Being in a right-wing group chat and announcing to the world that you are outraged that Anglin would post a clip of someone talking about deviant sexual behavior could only serve the purpose of making yourself feel like you’re a superior person, and the only reason you would do that is because you are a pathetic human being, with nothing else in your life to boost your personal confidence.

It’s possible that a valid response would be: “Anglin shouldn’t be propagating disgusting material like this,” if that is your opinion. It could at least be framed as a valid opinion. I don’t think it is a valid opinion, because we have been buried under tranny propaganda for nearly a decade now, and it has been inescapable for anyone on the internet, so the idea that someone could be seriously shocked by that clip is not believable to me. If I went and showed it to the Amish, I could see that as being gross, but if you’re telling me you’ve been on the internet in the last ten years and were shocked by that clip, then I’m no only calling you a liar, I’m calling you a pathetic human being who lies about his own moral purity for the purpose of making himself feel better about how pathetic he actually is.

But the problem is not that you are pathetic. At least, that is not my problem, and I wish you the best with figuring out some healthier way to boost your self-esteem. The problem is that flooding discussion with this virtue signaling nonsense serves to shut down discussion of topics which might be meaningful (even if the topic is not meaningful, shutting down discussion of it is cancerous behavior). You obviously couldn’t talk about black crime statistics or IQ averages when some woman was screaming at you about how you’re evil if you don’t simply accept that white cops are going around murdering black people because they hate the color of their skin.

Someone who just thinks “oh this clip is talking about gay shit” is going to miss the actual relevance of the thing, and why it is so hilarious. It’s hilarious because it’s subversive, and like much of what is in White Lotus, it’s shocking that it’s allowed on TV given the current social and cultural climate.

The themes in White Lotus are all a scathing indictment of modernity, as well as an analysis of human nature that stands in stark opposition to the liberal orthodoxy. Virtually every theme in the show is in line with a traditional Christian or classical philosophical view of man’s nature. Infidelity, hedonism, pride, the emptiness of the cycle of material desire in general, sexual roles, the indulgences of women, the lust of men, the nature of guilt, repentance, and redemption. There is a lot there, and none of it is stuff that the most of the audience would agree with if presented with it in a straightforward manner.

Part of why the show can get away with this is that they frame it in such an artistic way, nothing is spelled out in the way that would trigger some screeching woman on Twitter. Someone could watch the show, and most people do, and simply see it as yet another visual spectacle like every other one of these streaming shows. Further, it is vulgar, featuring an excessive amount of nudity, which implies that it is embracing rather than criticizing modern norms. The other reason is probably that the writer/director of the series, Mike White, is a homosexual. Regardless of the reasons, however, the show is able to address themes that I don’t recall any popular media having addressed in decades.

The clip in question, where the Sam Rockwell character describes in a frank tone that he spent 1,000 nights having sex with Thai hookers before realizing that what he really wanted was to become a small Asian girl and be fucked by himself is an absolute description, if not an outright indictment, of the overwhelming majority of the tranny movement.

The trans movement has been framed as an identity phenomenon. Sometimes we hear the term “gender dysphoria,” which means that the man feels as though they are trapped in the wrong body, that his soul is actually that of a woman. Though this does exist, and is a legitimate mental disorder, what is not discussed is that if we remove the children who are being manipulated into becoming trannies by the school system, the overwhelming majority of adult men who become trannies have something called “autogynephilia,” which is not an “identity” but a paraphilia (often called a “kink” in modern parlance), a disorder purely related aberrant sexuality. It has nothing to do with identity or some incomprehensible thing about the soul being trapped in the wrong body.

From the abstract of a 2011 peer-reviewed paper on the topic available on NIH:

Autogynephilia is defined as a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female. It is the paraphilia that is theorized to underlie transvestism and some forms of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism. Autogynephilia encompasses sexual arousal with cross-dressing and cross-gender expression that does not involve women’s clothing per se. The concept of autogynephilia defines a typology of MtF transsexualism and offers a theory of motivation for one type of MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia resembles a sexual orientation in that it involves elements of idealization and attachment as well as erotic desire. Nearly 3% of men in Western countries may experience autogynephilia; its most severe manifestation, MtF transsexualism, is rare but increasing in prevalence.

…

The concept of autogynephilia can assist clinicians in understanding some otherwise puzzling manifestations of nonhomosexual MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia exemplifies an unusual paraphilic category called ‘erotic target identity inversions’, in which men desire to impersonate or turn their bodies into facsimiles of the persons or things to which they are sexually attracted.

Most people have not even heard about this phenomenon, so for me, the Sam Rockwell bit in White Lotus was quite incredible in its content, as well as being hilarious. The way Rockwell says it all so calmly, as if he is describing the most mundane topic, as Walton Goggins sits there listening is so funny to me. And then that his solution is to become a Buddhist takes it into the realm of the greatest satire vignettes I’m aware of.

The other thing to consider is that the process through which autogynephilia and many other extreme paraphilias is described. Rockwell explains that it was after spending a thousand nights picking up hookers in Thailand that he began to develop the thought that he wanted to become a small Asian girl. This is exactly what happens in real life when men have access to unlimited amounts of sex and choose to engage in it without limits: they increasingly get bored with normal vaginal sex with attractive women and will go into increasingly more bizarre sexual practices. The same thing happens with compulsive pornography use, with the user getting into weirder and weirder material, needing something that he would once have considered disgusting in order to get the same level of stimulation he would have once gotten from “hot blonde gets fucked hard.”

The reason this is all of core relevance to society right now is that unlimited sexual “exploration” is encouraged by the society. It has effectively become a first principle of liberal democracy that all forms of sexual perversion should be embraced and continually expanded on. And the issue is that this all gets very dark, very quickly. A few years ago, the actor Armie Hammer, a handsome celebrity in his mid-thirties who had no doubt experienced a serious amount of normal sex with beautiful women, was canceled because he had apparently gotten into cannibalism. At least, in published texts, he expressed a desire to experiment with it. In 2013, Ian Watkins, the lead singer of a semi-popular British rock band, Lostprophets, again in his mid-thirties having had unlimited access to normal sex with beautiful women, was exposed for having sex with infants.

We you consider how dark this can all get, you can see how an elite with no limits on their sexual behavior could degenerate into the sort of thing we heard about during the “Pizzagate” era of internet activism. I won’t endorse all of the claims of Pizzagate, many of which were obviously untrue, and became increasingly more ridiculous as the “movement” went on, but when you look at human sexuality and the way that unlimited exposure to every kind of sex leads to increasingly bizarre behavior, it would almost be impossible if some of the darkest things imaginable were not happening among our current decadent ruling class here in this gloriously equitable democracy.

This society is very dark, and it might be unfortunate, but these topics need to be discussed freely. Whining moralizing doesn’t make the issues go away. Please disregard those who wish to flood discussions of complex and relevant issue with womanlike moral outrage.

Donald Trump is trying to vaccinate the world against the woke mind virus, but the Europeans are having a negative reaction to the vaccine and having woke myocarditis from the DNA changes caused by this Warp Speed vaccine against woke.

Now these wokies in Europe are claiming that women don’t have to have sex with their husbands.

Do women have to do anything in the woke world?

The Guardian:

A woman who refuses to have sex with her husband should not be considered “at fault” by courts in the event of divorce, Europe’s highest human rights court has said, condemning France.

The European court of human rights (ECHR) sided on Thursday with a 69-year-old French woman whose husband had obtained a divorce on the grounds that she was the only person at fault because she had stopped having sexual relations with him.

The ECHR held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of the woman’s right to respect for private and family life as part of the European convention on human rights.

What about the human rights of men to have sex?

What wokie wookie wrote this law?

The woke kikes?

It ruled against France, saying a woman who refuses to have sex with her husband should not be considered “at fault” by courts in the event of divorce.

The court identified the woman only by the initials HW, saying she lived in Le Chesnay in the western suburbs of Paris. The woman did not contest the divorce, which she had also sought, but rather complained about the grounds on which it had been granted by a French court.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR said any concept of marital duties needed to take into account “consent” as the basis for sexual relations.

“The court concluded that the very existence of such a marital obligation ran counter to sexual freedom, [and] the right to bodily autonomy,” a court statement said. “The applicant’s husband could have petitioned for divorce, submitting the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as the principal ground, and not, as he had done, as an alternative ground.”

Woke women are refusing to have children, and the governments are complaining about that and offering them endless bribes and meanwhile they are so woke they won’t enforce men’s right to sex!

The woke mind virus is going to obliterate Europe and then people will realize that woke was wrong and they will realize patriots were right for forcing women to have sex.

There is a lot of confusion among men about women’s sexual attraction mechanism, largely because women want it that way, but also because female characters in media are all written by men.

The first and most important thing to understand here is that sex is about reproduction. That’s the only reason humans or any other animal does sex. The fact that modern society has separated sex from reproduction doesn’t change the fact that the underlying biological mechanisms that drive us to sex are solely driven by the internal drive to pass on the genes.

As a man, you understand your own sexual attraction mechanism. You see a woman’s body, with your eyes, and it you see signs of fertility – youth, health, fat and muscle deposits in the correct place – this creates sexual arousal. It’s very straightforward: you are attracted to her because she is capable of producing healthy children.

Aside from physical form, you look at signs that she is in heat. You can’t see those signs now, because women all wear makeup, which is designed to simulate the way their faces look when they are ovulating: they redden their cheeks, they darken their lips and eyes. Makeup is a big nasty trick women do, because without it, they would only be especially sexually attractive for 72 hours a month, and this would vastly reduce their ability to manipulate men.

Aside from the physical body, there are other attractiveness measures, which are minor: innocence, submissiveness, a childish disposition. But these are highly secondary.

The most relevant secondary attractiveness characteristic is appearance of availability. This can obviously go against the attraction to innocence and submissiveness, but it can be more powerful. If a woman demonstrates low availability, either because she has no interest or because she appears to already be owned by another man, you risk wasting your time or being injured or killed for pursuing her, and this is a turnoff. In this current time, women try to maximize signs of availability, again to increase their ability to manipulate men. Showing their bodies off is a sign of availability, as is speaking in a way that is provocative and making a lot of eye contact. They are doing this to manipulate you.

It’s All About the Biological Imperative of Passing on Genes

Perhaps slightly more esoteric, but still obvious is this: sexual attraction not about feeling good, it’s not about love. It is about a desire to inseminate, because living things have a drive to reproduce, and mammals reproduce sexually. The good feelings around sex and the feelings of “love” are simulated in your brain in order to cause you to engage in the reproductive act, and then to a lesser extent to cause you to stay with the woman and raise the child, which obviously gives your offspring a better chance at survival.

Modern men are extremely susceptible to these emotions because for many generations, since the dawn of civilization, reproductive success has been based on men acting as fathers to children. Before civilization, you could roll through a tribal village and rape some woman and then slip away, and there would be a high likelihood that the child would be raised in a group setting by the tribe to which the woman belonged. After the start of civilization, the nuclear family has played a key role, and children without fathers had a low rate of survival (that has obviously changed now since the government started funding single mothers, but we haven’t adapted to that yet).

To this day, black people put a very low premium on marriage and fatherhood because their time in civilization has been so minimal. In Africa, where the blacks evolved, up until a couple hundred years ago, children were raised communally, and it didn’t really matter who a child’s father was, the tribe was going to look at it. Blacks have a lot of different problems, but their lack of concern over monogamy, marriage, and two-parent households is a direct result of the fact that this is new to them and has never been necessary for their survival.

You’ll also note that blacks are a lot more likely to say things like “we don’t love these hoes,” whereas whites make faggot emotional music about how much they love women and all of these strong emotions they feel about women.

It’s not love. It’s just fucking. All of this stuff is total dress-up for the sexual act, which helps men justify it all in their minds.

I’m not saying you don’t love your wife, but that is something that happens over a period of years, and it is not related to sex. The “eros” of sexual emotion gives way tot he “philia” of mutual care during the process of marriage. Historically, this was a seamless transition, but nowadays, people have become fixated on sexual infatuation and think this is what “love” is. So you have situations where people say “I don’t love her anymore” and what they mean is that they are no longer sexually infatuated with her because they’ve gotten bored. If someone is saying that, they never developed real love in the first place, and simply did not understand the difference between sexual infatuation and actual love. Probably, it is impossible for sexual infatuation to turn into real feelings of love if you don’t have children. That appears to be what creates the bond.

So, What About Women?

While virtually 100% of men’s sexual attraction mechanism is based on what a woman looks like, women have a more varied set of needs.

The underlying drives of men revolve more or less entirely around a healthy body that will produce healthy children. Further, a man can impregnate unlimited amounts of women and just abandon them, and is only restrained by his own psychological mechanisms which cause him to have these “love” emotions.

A woman, on the other hand, is pretty well locked into place if some man impregnates her. She has to have some reason to think that man will stick around and take care of her for the 5 or so years where she is going to have to first be pregnant, then care for a small child who can’t do anything for itself and has to be watched constantly.

Most relevant here, however, is that if she is to bear this man’s child, and he is to become her protector, she wants him to be as powerful and influential as possible. She wants that for herself and for her child. If she’s going to commit to him, which she basically has to do in a post-tribal age when the nuclear family is necessary for the survival of women and children, then she wants the most resources she can possibly obtain, and she wants the highest possible social status. Generally, wealth and status are going to be linked.

Status, then, is the key determiner of women’s sexual attraction to a man. That is why rich and famous men in their fifties and sixties can easily obtain attractive women who are 1/3rd their age.

This is also why women, all things being equal, tend to be attracted to men who are older than them. While the most attractive age for a woman is 18 (actually significantly younger if you were allowed to do those studies), men reach peak attractiveness at 50.

Part of that is obviously due to differences in the way the sexes age, but that is obviously connected to fertility with women and status with men.

Insofar as Women Have an Attraction to a Man’s Body

I would not say that the physical attractiveness of a man is something that is totally unconsidered by women, but it should be viewed in a very strict context of the man’s physical appearance being representative of status.

Most obviously, we can see that being overweight is a serious sign of low status in our society, so obviously a woman is going to find a physical fit man more attractive than a fat slob. The same is true of height, with tall men typically having higher status in society, being more respected by other men, more likely to be leaders. (In many ancient tribes, whatever male was the tallest was automatically made the leader, because male height is such a natural marker of status.)

That does not mean, however, that a short and fat man with extremely high status is not going to do extremely well with women. Of course he will.

What is not true is that women are attracted to extremely muscular men. I’ve spent most of my adult years in pretty great physical shape, and while I would get constant comments about this from men, the only women who ever commented on it were paid prostitutes (who are obviously looking at different things in men than a normal woman).

The symmetry of a man’s face has become more important in recent decades, because it is more associated with status, because of the entertainment culture. The “looksmaxxing” stuff on the internet is not completely wrong, but it is totally wrong in the assumption that looks are anything other than a marker of status.

In terms of the situation where black men, who are certainly not wealthy, are considered attractive by white women, there are several factors there. Firstly, being aggressive and quick to violence is considered by some women to be a marker of status. “He must be doing pretty well if he doesn’t care about anything.” Secondarily, blacks have a sort of special status in Western society now, and a white woman dating a black man can be looked at as a sign she has high status and is enlightened in some way. Still, BMWF relationships are relatively rare.

Birth Control Using Women and Their Botched Sexual Mechanisms

All of the above applies to a natural situation in a civilization. However, in the modern situation, we have these things called “birth control pills” which many or most young women are on. For those who don’t know, these are estrogen pills. Obviously, the sexual mechanisms are based on hormones, and these pills effectively completely wreck a woman’s endocrine system, turning them into something very different sexually.

This is a topic of it’s own, which is mostly beyond the scope of this essay, but it is worth mentioning that these women may exhibit totally unnatural sexual impulses.

On these pills, the reproductive impulses of a woman completely shut down, so effectively, instead of looking for a traditionally attractive mate (as defined above), they look for a man who can serve as an emotional support item, similar to a pet. They also want a man who will work as a kind of servant, so do not look for the dominant and powerful men who would normally be attractive to them. This is what most “boyfriends” are, and it is why you often see women with men who are pudgy, low status, and clearly below their own sexual attractiveness level.

There have been several different studies on this, but one 2019 PNAS study showed that women who had a partner and stopped taking birth control often lost all attraction to the man and wanted someone who met traditional standards of attractiveness.

There is No Point in Even Thinking About Women

My advice to men is to not think about women at all, at least until you are where you want to be in life, or on that path.

If you have uncontrollable sexual urges, it is better to go to a prostitute (in Christianity, this is no more of a sin than any other form of fornication, and is arguably more ethical).

There are only actually two kinds of women, and those are wives and whores. Professional whores offer a service that can be useful when you are working to become a successful man. Unprofessional whores, i.e., women you meet on Tinder or at the bar, do not offer much other than suffering.

If you do what is good for you, which is build a career and establish yourself as a powerful member of society, you will also be making yourself attractive to the kind of women who you would want to have as a wife. Age is completely irrelevant, and as shown above, you will be more attractive to 18 year old girls when you’re in your thirties or forties.

The sexual emotion can be very powerful, but it needs to be suppressed if you wish to be successful in life. Ironically, this includes reproductive success. Spending your teens and twenties, when you have the highest levels of energy, when you’ve got that dog in you, chasing women is a completely retarded way to behave, especially in this current environment. The women you will have access to will not be of the quality you are looking for, and insofar as you do get access to a high quality woman, it will be temporary access, and she will leave you. If you have money and are established in society, you are in a much better position to keep the woman around than if you have no money or status.

Unfortunately, you have to plan your life logically, rather than just making decisions based on what feels good or seems intuitive.

Imagine using a condom.

For years, my slogan was “FUCK HOOKERS WITHOUT CONDOMS – ANTIBIOTICS ARE CHEAP AND VIRUSES ARE FAKE.”

That’s not my slogan anymore. I don’t really have a slogan these days. I was using “YO, JOE!” but then I found out that was the slogan of G.I. Joe, an American military propaganda toy.

If someone put a gun to my head and said: “TELL ME YOUR SLOGAN OR I PAINT THE WALL WITH YOUR BRAINS, FAGGOT!” I would probably say: “Machines are gonna fail and the system’s gonna fail…then, survival. Who has the ability to survive? That’s the game – survive.”

But in general, as a middle aged man, I think I’m post-slogan.

Still, bag-fuckers get what they deserve.

Reuters:

A new lawsuit on Monday claims that Trojan condoms are not safe because they contain toxic “forever chemicals,” which have been linked to cancer.

In a proposed class action filed in Manhattan federal court, the plaintiff Matthew Goodman said Church & Dwight’s products, advertised as “America’s #1 Condom,” are unfit for their intended purpose because they contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

Goodman said independent lab testing of the Trojan Ultra Thin condoms that he bought at a Manhattan pharmacy found a presence of organic fluorine, which is “practically nonexistent” outside its use in man-made PFAS chemicals.

“Based on the label, he reasonably believed the product was safe for use on his genitalia,” the complaint said, referring to Goodman.

“Had defendant disclosed on the label that the products contained PFAS chemicals, and the harms that can result from contact with PFAS chemicals, he would not have purchased the products, or at the very least, would have only been willing to pay significantly less,” it added.

…

In July, the consumer advocacy blog Mamavation said tests, opens new tab of 29 popular condoms and lubricants found several with a possible presence of PFAS, including Trojan Ultra Thin condoms.

The penis is especially succeptible to absorbing these chemicals into your body.

“#Penis & #vagina #skin is thin and the organs have a high level of blood vessels, which makes them particularly dangerous organs to expose to #PFAS“: https://t.co/TC4AIGkwhs from @guardian #PublicHealth

— A Chronic Voice (@AChVoice) August 18, 2024

These PFAS shrink your penis.

Probably, anyone using a condom probably already has a tiny penis.

There is no reason to use a condom. Frankly, fornication is gay. Going around having sex with sluts without the intention of having children is literally mimicking homosexual behavior. If you’re going to have sex with sluts, you might as well get them pregnant. You can then just disappear like a ghost in the night while listening to Bob Seger.

This is what I listen to while abandoning a woman and leaving her and my bastard child to fend for themselves:

No, no.

I joke.

That’s unethical.

I’m not really joking, but it is unethical.

But there’s not much ethical these days. I mean, I also poison homeless people. I’m sure that’s not great.

But what are you gonna do?

You gotta do what you’re gonna do and every day you do it is the current day that you are doing what you always do. What can be, unburdened by what has been.

People look at women in Afghanistan and think “wow, the Taliban sure solved that problem.”

This is true insofar as “they solved it as much as it is humanly possible to solve this problem.”

But the reality is, if the Taliban had “solved” the woman problem, they would not need to keep them in bags. They would be able to allow women to walk around and participate in public life, not to run anything or be equal participants or whatever, but allow them to just go around normally like humans.

You can’t do that though. You can’t let women act like normal humans, or they will just start trying to destroy everything, immediately, for no reason anyone can even understand. This has been the case since Eve. Adam left that bitch alone for ten minutes and she’s getting all sexy with a talking snake, then she’s convinced by this dashing snake to do the one thing that will cause the destruction of paradise.

Women are in fact an unsolvable problem. There is no solution to the fact that as soon as you give women any freedom at all, they use it to start destroying things, because it excites them. When you understand that women are excited by causing problems, and they also cannot help themselves, and don’t think it’s wrong or have any moral qualms at all about it, you realize that this is a problem that cannot be solved and simply needs to be managed.

This is like if you have an open wound that cannot heal. That’s the metaphor here, okay? You have an open wound that cannot heal; the only thing you can do is try to keep it clean to prevent it from being infected. If you let it become infected, the infection will spread throughout your entire body, and you will be oozing green and yellow pus out your eyeballs.

That is what is happening in America and in the West: we have failed to control women, instead let the infection spread and take over our entire body, and now we are oozing green and yellow pus out of our eyeballs.

There is no “solution” here.

There is no series of moves that tricks women into not taking any opportunity that presents itself to them to turn everything into a total nightmare on earth, where it’s all sluts, abortions, gay tranny children being handed over to state homosexuals, gun control, black mania, mass abortion, endless war everywhere for no reason anyone can explain, legalized crime, and on and on and on. Those are all things that women will always do, if they get the chance to influence society.

And before anyone starts with “oh but there are men who support that too” – just shut the hell up, faggot. The reason there are men that support any of those things is that women have power, and therefore have power over men. Most men who support those sorts of things are in a state of trauma, having been abused as a child by their mothers and female school teachers to the point where they do not even have a personal identity at all, and thus get all of their understanding of reality from women. Other men will take on these views because women have so much power that they will destroy you if you don’t just go along with their bullshit. Women have an absolute ability to destroy men in this society, because they completely dominate it. Men know that, so they will say “okay, whatever, sure, open the border and let the niggers loose – just please let me keep my job and my gaming PC.”

In Afghanistan there are no men, with the notable exception of homosexuals, who support a female agenda. Boys are raised to be men by their fathers and other male relatives, and they do not develop deranged trauma syndromes that cause them to lose their ability to develop a personal identity and instead defer to female authority to avoid pain. Maybe they have some of those men hanging around now since they were occupied and socially engineered by the US for decades, but they can just bully and beat them until they man up and start acting like men.

Obviously, there are different levels of influence that women have in different societies, and you can restrict them without going full-Taliban. But they’ll still cause trouble, to the best of their ability. In the “open wound that will never heal” analogy, this is like letting it become a little bit infected, and spread a little bit, but then clean it some so you don’t get to the point where pus is coming out of your eyeballs.

For example: the East Asians are pretty strict about women. If a woman starts getting out of control, any man will say “hey, bitch – settle down, okay?” and she will understand that this is backed up by the threat of physical violence, and settle down. But Asians have allowed women to work and make their own decisions about marriage, and women have decided to just stop having kids (because it’s more fun not to, or just because they don’t ever want to do what they’re supposed to do). This has resulted in an “extinction level” birthrate in both Japan and Korea, and China’s birthrate is not high (even though China is definitely the least feminized of the Asian states, they allowed women to work and be involved in public, and women decided to stop having kids).

China is trying to turn this around, and they are weighing their options. They’ve outlawed “feminism” as a foreign ideology, and they will probably figure something out to get women to at least replacement level births. But it’s very difficult. Very difficult.

It is my proposal that when the West falls for real, which is going to happen any day now (look out your window – it has maybe already started happening since you started reading this article), we stop trying to figure out some tricky solution to this problem, and implement Taliban-style restrictions on women, because that is the only thing that we know for a fact works. The Taliban is the only group which has actually fully restricted women, and has kept them from causing problems, and they’ve done it by throwing trash bags over their heads and banning them from interacting in public with anyone.

That’s what we have to do. Then we have to just keep it that way, forever. We don’t say “well, maybe we can at least allow them to learn how to read…” No. As soon as you start down that road, you are on the road to green and yellow pus bubbling out your eyeballs.

We don’t have any choice.

This is why I be telling niggas: “just hit that shit raw, dog.”

That’s what I be telling them.

Don’t put them condo or them jellies on your penises, just put it in the hole fresh.

Don’t pull out either.

If she gets pregnant, just disappear.

The Guardian:

Several brands of condoms and lubricants contain alarming levels of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals”, including styles of Trojan and K-Y Jelly, new research finds.

The testing conducted by the Mamavation consumer advocacy blog comes just as researchers found human skin absorbs the chemicals at much higher levels than previously thought.

Penis and vagina skin is thin and the organs have a high level of blood vessels, which makes them particularly dangerous organs to expose to PFAS, Linda Birnbaum, a science adviser for Mamavation who previously ran the Environmental Protection Agency’s toxicology program, wrote in the report.

PFAS are also considered to be reproductive toxicants and endocrine disruptors linked to low birth weight, reduced sperm counts, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, infertility and shorter duration of breastfeeding.

Putting PFAS on the penis, on the balls – this is wild.

I don’t know why people didn’t think it check these before.

Lubricants are always filled with PFAS.

Previously: Ana Kasparian Looks Like Joe Biden Now

Remember Tomi [sic] Lahren?

She was a leading figure of the “Bimbos for Trump” movement in 2016. She was a 22-year-old sex kitten purposefully done up to look like a porno film actress and heavily featured on Fox News as – wait for it – an expert commentator. She was then given her own show by “The Blaze.”

Just so you understand – I just want everyone to be perfectly clear about what was going on here – these are the kinds of photos she was posting on her social media in 2016:

You probably haven’t heard about her in a while, and that’s because she looks like a pile of dog shit.

You see, this is the problem with women. With the help of a lot of makeup, they are attractive when they are young, and then they stop being attractive rather rapidly. What’s worse, white women all end up looking like trannies. At least American white women. (If you do 15 minutes worth of research into what a “birth control pill” actually is, you’ll get your explanation for that one. That’s for another article.) Look at that face. No one wants to say it, but I’ll say it: I’ve seen trannies that looked better. If you had never seen that woman and I told you that was a tranny, you would not question it.

This “Tomi” bitch was the talk of the town. So much so that you half-expected that when you where leaving Chipolte, you’d see her pull up and get out of the back of a limo in a top hat twirling a cane like the Monopoly Man.

Now she’s nowhere and nothing. I only found out about her because I clicked on a Piers Morgan stream. He’s been doing a bit where he brings on D-list internet celebrities to yell at each other. It’s entertainment on about the same level as “The Naked Gun” films. The aged “Tomi” appeared with lispy rat “Destiny” and some much better looking old Filipina slut I did not recognize.

It’s no secret that old women look like shit and no one wants to have sex with them (save possibly the same sickos having sex with trannies, because it is literally the same thing).

This whole idea of bringing in 22-year-old porno sluts to comment on politics grotesque in a particularly American way.

I remember when rapper 50 Cent invented vitamin water. He said: “I’m taking vitamins, I’m drinking water – so why not put the vitamins in the motherfucking water?”

At first glance, this is the same logic as “men like watching porno, they like watching the news – so why not put porno women on the motherfucking news?”

But it’s not the same logic. This latter logic is more like a Palestinian saying “I like playing soccer, I like throwing rocks at Israeli tanks, so why not play soccer with a rock?”

You can’t just mix any two things together because you enjoy them both.

Just imagine the reverse: imagine they had pornos where the man is a Republican and the woman is a Democrat and they debate gun control as they rut. I would argue that this would actually make more sense and would be less viscerally offensive than having porno women on the news. Because, let’s be real here: the implication Fox News was making was “you can jack-off to this news show.” This was especially true when The Blaze gave her her own show, because then it was just: this woman, her tits, and the news.

Tomi [sic] Lahren was not a news reader. That would be one thing, but Fox News doesn’t even have that feature. She was (and based on my research, apparently still is) a “news commentator.”

I don’t want 22-year-old bimbos commenting on the news. A 22-year-old woman can’t even drive a car or cook pancakes. Why would anyone think I care about their opinions on politics?

I want 75-year-old men with distinguished professional careers commenting on my news.

Either that, or fat Irish retards.

This whole thing with women just has to stop.

It’s gone far enough.

Men should not be constantly baited into sexual arousal everywhere they turn. It’s not fair.

Men don’t really understand what is happening, because they don’t break it down to the basic level. They see a sexy woman, presenting herself in an available manner, and the chemicals in their brain turn on and the brain says: “yo bro, look – it’s an attractive woman and she’s presenting herself as sexually available.” The subconscious mind doesn’t understand what TV is, what the internet is, it doesn’t understand what billboards are. When you see sexy billboards, the subconscious mind believes an available woman is gazing at you, longingly. When you are watching a sexy woman on TV talking and giggling, the subconscious mind believes there is a woman in the room with you, presenting herself to you. The brain chemicals tell the subconscious mind: “Go, go, go! this is an open opportunity for reproduction, baby!”

However, living in a society like this, where sexual imagery is literally everywhere, you become desensitized to it. If a man from Afghanistan saw a 50-foot half naked woman on a billboard, he would immediately get an erection, because he isn’t used to seeing it. We are all so used to seeing it, that it is mundane, and just causes a kind of dull sexual frustration, which results in various psychological complexes.

Men should be calling for an end to women in public. It should be as obvious of an issue as immigration, gun rights, trannies, turbo diesel powered trucks, or any other issue that normal men tend to agree on. But no one talks about it because they were born into it and they don’t understand what is happening. Western believe that it simply the nature of reality that you are in a constant state of nagging sexual frustration.

I’m here to tell you, my dearest brothers: there is a better way.

The full 8 minute conversation is worth listening to. Imho- this calls for “cancelation”

Part 2 of 4👇 pic.twitter.com/zHlfnCw2s8

— Children of Darkness🇵🇸🇿🇦 (@brokenmirror33) April 27, 2024

Cancel all three of these arrogant hate-mongers. Utterly incapable of self reflection. This is beyond the pale.

Part 4/4 👇 pic.twitter.com/295I56XB3i

— Children of Darkness🇵🇸🇿🇦 (@brokenmirror33) April 27, 2024

In comes the sleazy, ratlike Jew pervert to use sickening Freudian gibberish to accuse everyone who is against the mass slaughter of infants of being incels.

Never mind the fact that the two biggest groups involved in the project are Arab men and white women, who are obviously going home (or into a public bathroom stall more likely) and having sex with each other after the protests.

This is an attempt to denigrate the current protesters, but also an attempt to preempt the involvement of large numbers of white men in these protests (which is obviously going to happen as the fire rises).

New York Post:

NYU professor Scott Galloway said that college campuses were increasingly becoming reminiscent of Nazi Germany — and attributed the reason partly to young people not having enough sex.

“We need to enjoy sex,” Galloway offered to some initial confusion during an appearance on “Real Time” with Bill Maher Friday.

“I think part of the problem is young people aren’t having enough sex so they go on the hunt for fake threats and the most popular threat through history is [antisemitism].”

“It’s easy to poke fun at these kids, but history has a way of repeating itself, and this is how it starts. In ’30s Germany, a progressive community, a thriving gay community, excellent academic institutions. And how it started, was it was fashionable to wear a brown shirt and mock students at the University of Vienna,’ Galloway said.

“And quite frankly, I’m really disappointed more Jews aren’t speaking out.”

These Jews always turn everything into some kind of sexually perverse gibberish. The Jews are a filthy group. They are obsessed with sex and poop. That’s why you have such abominations as Seth Rogan being promoted as pillars of entertainment culture. (The only Jew who made this material funny was Woody Allen, and then largely copying Allen, Larry David did the same bit and was also funny. Most of it is just puerile and abominable.)

It is in many ways a benign observation that young men – really all men under the age of forty – spend much too much time thinking about sex. We already understand this.

However, that does not somehow imply that everything men do is sexual in nature, and it certainly does not imply that men expend energy on things that are not likely to lead to sex because they are “sexually frustrated.” This concept of “sexual frustration” is a Jewish spook.

You could talk much more meaningfully about “sexual distraction,” and point to the oft-observed reality that men don’t achieve their great heights until after the sexual emotions calm down.

But if we were going to talk about the Palestine protests, we would instead be compelled to talk about the co-belligerent of young male sexuality, which is romanticism. Romanticism, which leads to idealism and a seeking of justice, is perhaps fueled by the sex hormone testosterone, and it can overlap with sexuality (in the obvious case of romantic sexual infatuation), but is distinct from sexuality.

Furthermore, the claim by the Jew in question asserts that the male protesters are unsuccessful sexually, and this leads them to want to stop the Jews from slaughtering children as a way of sublimation of the sexual impulse. In reality, the sexual impulse of the young man is fundamentally insatiable. This is to say that if you are a young, horny male, there is no amount of sex which can satisfy you. This goes back to the concept of “sexual frustration.” If sexual frustration were real, it would apply just as much to men getting no sex as it would to men having a lot of sex, given that there is always a desire among young men for more sex. The man getting a lot of sex does not have a lower sexual impulse than the man getting no sex at all.

It is unfortunate that we are forced to think in such vulgar terms, due to the Jews inserting these ideas into the public space, but there are ideas worthy of consideration here, even though none of them relate to the student protests in any way whatsoever.

The French have always been opposed to anglo type puritanism. Usually, that was probably a bad thing, creating more sexual sins. In more recent times, it’s protected them from the insanity of feminism.

RT:

The President of France Emmanuel Macron has come under fire after saying he was in favor of incorporating the notion that a sexual act without consent should fall under the country’s criminal definition of rape.

The statement came as a surprise for the public, given that Paris had opposed the same idea in a European Union (EU) directive last month.

Macron’s statement was made on March 8, when he met members of the feminist association Choisir la cause des femmes (Choosing Women’s Issues), to mark International Women’s Day.

According to a video seen by AFP this week, the French president told the women’s rights group: “I fully agree that it should be incorporated into French law, that consent should be enshrined,” adding “I’m going to enshrine it in French law.”

The legal definition of rape in France includes the notions of “violence, coercion, threat or surprise,” but makes no mention of “consent.” Women’s rights advocates have been calling for the law to be tightened by including the concept so that any sexual act without consent constitutes rape. Only a tiny fraction of rapes or attempted rapes lead to a conviction, they claim.

If you watch Macron, his entire agenda surrounds making France somehow relevant again using various gimmicks (instead of actually building things of value). His insane statements about the Ukraine he’s been making lately are the most obvious example. But under his rule, he’s also attempted to bring French culture even more in-line with that of the Americans as a way to demonstrate that France is ready to be a leader in this new world order.

I’m not at all surprised he’s now endorsing lunatic “positive consent” laws that basically mean you have to ask a woman if she will permit you to have sex with her (which is a real mood-killer).

Just to restate for anyone new here: actual rape is impossible without physically harming the woman. You basically have to punch her in the face and/or seriously choke her. (That one is tricky because a lot of women/all women like being choked.) The only way to not physically harm her is to hold a gun or a knife to her head and tell her you’ll kill her. Technically, a third method would be surreptitiously drugging her, and then carrying her someplace and having sex with her while she’s passed out. (But women voluntarily take so many drugs that this one is hard to prove.)

Basically: there shouldn’t be laws against against “rape.” There should be laws against physically assaulting women, threatening them with guns, and secretly drugging them. There are, in fact, already laws against all of those things.