The lies of PUA/Game

Chinese men are far more ruthless (alpha) than European men, as we can see in the treatment of Muslims like the Uyghurs. Yet, Chinese men are less popular with women. Think of it.

Hot brunettes: Elliot Rodger didn’t want them…

 

 

 

http://beyoungandshutup.com/2014/05/27/elliot-rodger-and-masculinity-as-a-culture-of-violence/

 

Rodger frequented an anti-pickup forum that exposed PUA as a scam, rather than one exposing it as harmful to women, suggesting that he may have at once tried these strategies and found them wanting. PUA techniques and strategies embody this binary. They argue that in order for a man to attract women, the man must have it together, himself. Not a bad ideology on the surface. But there is an extreme conflation with confidence and dominance. They advise that men should not “put the pussy on a pedestal,” and yet the measure of success is based on the “accomplishment” of getting laid.

Comment: As I said, PUA/Game is creepy and misogynistic. And only wanting sex with a certain class of women like long-legged blondes is indeed “pedestalizing”. We should understand that Elliot Rodgers is the result of yellow fever. And yellow fever is a form of racialized sexism, that requires the female half to internalize white supremacism. It is very telling that Andrew Anglin dabbled in yellow fever when he was in his twenties.

Anders Behring Breivik ≠ mra ≠ white nationalism

Tradcons Let Feminists Define Their Reality

http://www.antifeministtech.info/2013/04/tradcons-let-feminists-define-their-reality/

If a feminist says X, doesn’t that mean that someone saying not X or anti-X is an anti-feminist?  Your initial impulse might be to say yes, but the answer is not necessarily.  It depends on what X is and what feminists mean by X.  It also depends on whether feminists actually want X or are just saying it.  If a feminist says X, picking the opposite position of X without analyzing what the feminists actually mean and whether feminists are being honest when they say X is letting feminists define your reality.  Increasingly, this is what tradcons are doing.

A good example of this is the word, “equality”.  When a MRA like Paul Elam says the word, “equality”, he is talking about things like equality before the law (fair trials, innocent until proven guilty, etc.).  In other words, Paul Elam is speaking in standard English.  When a feminist says “equality” they are completely redefining the term to be something else, namely men and women being completely the same (with enforcement by a large oppressive government).  This is not standard English, but that isn’t the worst problem.  Even by “feministese”, feminists are lying because what they really want is female supremacism.

What tradcons do in this case is blur the standard English definition of the word, “equality” and the “feministese” definition.  They then use this as a platform to say that there’s no difference between MRAs like Paul Elam and actual feminists.  Then the tradcons take the position of being “anti-equality” so that they’re “anti-feminist”. What has happened here is that the tradcons have completely failed to actually analyze the situation.  If you look at the context in which a MRA talks about equality vs. a feminist talking about equality, it’s obvious that the MRA and the feminist mean two completely different things.  Plus, the MRA is honest while the feminist is dishonest.  To say otherwise like the tradcons do, only helps the feminists because tradcons are implicitly saying that feminists are honest and speaking standard English.  Both of those are wrong, and a big part of the anti-feminist argument is to show that feminists are redefining language when it suits them and that feminists are dishonest.  Tradcons are sabotaging actual anti-feminist efforts.

“Equality” isn’t the only example of tradcons doing this.  You can see the same thing with Mark Richardson’s (Oz Conservative) “autonomy theory”.  It’s a long philosophical treatise that uses common English terms (like “autonomy”) are completely redefines them.  In many cases, it redefines them into the “feministese” version of those terms.

Trying to confront tradcons about this is useless.  They just hide behind “philosophy” when you confront them.  The problem is tradcon thinking and language has been completely taken over by feminism.  Saying the opposite of what the feminists say when your ideas and language is completely controlled by them, does not make you an anti-feminist.  All it means is that you have let feminists define and control your reality.

Comment: Never adopt the frame of your enemy.