Over on Black Pill, there’s a new deconstruction of the feminist critique of space exploration. It’s a response to some kooky feminist babbling about how the space race is “patriarchal” and etc.

Black Pill Author writes:

The environment is a red herring.  It is not the real issue.  The real issue is that on Earth there is nowhere to escape the gynocracy.

What Black Pill misses is the point, which suggests that no one cares less about the environment than wimminz. Look at the most matriarchal cultures in Africa, for example, and you’ll find the most poverty-stricken, famine-ravaged areas on earth. The minute women got their sexual liberation, the population shot up, as wimminz started reproducing with no thought of the future, generally with the trashiest cohort of men available.

It is men who concern themselves with the future, and wimminz who live in the eternal now. In this regard, wimminz are not unlike children, with the important difference that children respond positively to a kind man’s correction, while wimminz hate a good man and will rebel at every turn.

This process is generally visible in microcosm. If we look at relationships, we find men who want relationships with women who respect them, and wimminz who will go through life with a “don’t need no man” attitude, having sex with men who positively do not care about them. Simon Sheppard points out, in his “Introduction to Procedural analysis,” that both men and women have identical sex drives, but that evolution has overlaid the female drive with instinctual aversions which cause neurosis. This is largely due, in his analysis, to the real dangers women faced if they encouraged the men they had sex with to meek (or civilization-inducing behavior). A wimminz will always see decency as weakness, and will instead choose to mate with the most potentially violent man in her vicinity.

As Black Pill points out, wimminz are so insecure that they instinctively realize that space colonization will be led by the best (i.e. most violent, most daring, and most novelty-prone) male specimens. Wimminz desperately need validation from these men. The men who will stay behind will not interest them. Moreover, wimminz know they have neither the skills nor the drive to get into a spacecraft bound for Jupiter’s largest moons.

Wimminz know their own lack of worth, on a subconscious level. This is something that a brother can use to his advantage. If you are comfortable with debasing yourself by putting on a convincing show of your own brutality (I am), and hold out validation as a reward (I do this), while never actually giving it to a wimminz, she will do almost anything for you.

The flaw many young brothers have is a tendency to give these filthy wimminz the validation that they seek. Once that is gifted over, it can not be taken back, and the spell is broken.

He who hath ears, let him hear:

The little green book says it was 02 March that I met Amanda. She seemed pleasant, as I chatted her up at one of my usual haunts, and we almost immediately went off to her place for some fun.

Ya boy Boxer has gotten slack of late, and he did almost no due diligence before running off with this wimminz. He also broke another rule, in that he let her take him to her place.

After the deed was done, Boxer started to grok the neurotic tendencies of this ho’. She has an insane attraction to all manner of drama and lunacy.

Amanda has a married female family member, and Amanda was actively engaged in destroying that marriage, through double-talk, rumors, and general witchcraft. She introduced me to her sister and brother-in-law, who, while I’m sure isn’t perfect, seemed to have absolutely nothing wrong with him.

As a historical note, I’m starting to see why the puritans burned witches at the stake. The witch is not someone who has literal sex with the nonexistent devil. That’s just a metaphor. The witch is a wimminz like Amanda, whose loyalty is to novelty and troublemaking, at the expense of high culture and civilization.

What’s a boy to do, when he is in such a situation? I do the slow ghost. I reply politely to every attempt at her communication, but never initiate. When pressed, I delay for a couple of hours, and then reply with an apology that work is hectic.

Every word I say (my text is in blue) is accurate. After I’d text her an apology and an explanation about how hectic work was (also true) she’d text back a one-word answer like “OK” or “Sure”.

Her general tone in this conversation will be confusing for the young brothers. She’s acting here like she’s some sort of goddess. She wasn’t. She was a troublemaking ho’ who was attractive, but by no means beautiful. On her best day, she might have been a 7.

Learn this well. If you follow a woman (like a dog) to her house, she will consider you a supplicant. In the end, it was just as well, because it allowed me to eject via this (cowardly but safe) method.

The careful reader will note that I demanded specifics, and she immediately shifted into “I’m gonna dump you” mode. This was entirely predictable, and when it happens to you, this is what you want.

The most humorous part of this looney charade comes at the end. Amanda was truly “old school” when she was down on all fours, with a stranger, in her cluttered bedroom, less than two hours after he met her. That’s really “old school,” no?

And if you think I’m the first person Amanda took home, my man J.T. will tell it to you straight…

These were submitted by anonymous sources. I found them humorous. It’s almost as though these people aren’t human any longer.

“I was raped by my wife’s boyfriend… My wife has broken up with him and will be visiting him one last time this weekend…”

Planned Parenthood whiners recently got thrown out of the halls of the U.S. Congress, after they tried to hold a disruptive sit-in. Paul Dillon appeared in the press shortly afterwards, to tell us that women will die if they don’t get taxpayer-funded abortions. He also told us that physiognomy is real.

One of the good parts of my folk tradition is the notion of agency and accountability. Mormon kids (whether they are raised in the LDS or Community of Christ faiths, or one of the smaller spinoffs) are never baptized at birth. This is a round metaphysical rebuke of Catholicism, which I think is valid.

There is a difference between a toddler and a grown-up. We know this intuitively. Western legal traditions usually recognize the differences by setting an arbitrary age of adulthood. Most contracts, in the USA, are only considered valid if they were entered into by someone at least eighteen years old, for example.

And so it is very strange for me to converse with my Mormon relatives, who bend over backwards to excuse Mormon women for truly evil deeds, with the idea that these women, of age to enter into the Mormon baptismal, endowment and marriage covenants, are somehow not responsible for making proper moral choices. A good example recently erupted over on Dalrock, given by our brother Swanny. Let’s see what my man has to say:

So, there is a Mormon woman at Swanny’s place of business, who is encouraging other women to have children out of wedlock. Mormons will understand, immediately, that the Mormon woman in question is encouraging this misbehavior in non-Mormon colleagues. Mormon women do not tolerate this behavior in other Mormons, but they like to encourage it in outsiders. Mormons hold two sets of standards (as many people do). Setting aside the fact that there are general problems with the way Mormons treat outsiders (I’ve written about that at length) we will now get specific, and analyze this (extremely fucked up) behavior in microcosm.

It is a mistake for Mormon men (and I know some of you mofos read this blog) to continue to tolerate this sort of behavior in Mormon women. Whenever I make this statement, I’m given a plethora of excuses, which usually boil down to the evildoer being capricious, childish, or not understanding the well-defined and easily foreseeable consequences of her actions. In other words, Mormon men will treat Mormon women as children, whenever they are doing something that’s obviously evil. Of course, Mormon men will simultaneously assert their moral superiority over other peoples, based upon the fact that we recognize the difference between adults and children. This is an internal contradiction in contemporary Mormon ideology which is equal parts stupid and dangerous.

To my Mormon brothers, I have a couple of questions.

1. Is Mormonism good for the world, or only good for Mormons?

If Mormonism isn’t good for everyone, then we really ought to abandon it and assimilate. Of course, any Mormon I ask this to will immediately swear up and down that Mormonism is a great blessing for the entire planet, including non-Mormons. Which leads me to my second question.

2. Would it be cool with Elohim if I paid someone to rob for me, or to murder for me?

If it is a sin for me to rob and murder, then why is it less of a sin for me to cause robbery and murder by proxy?

Mormon scripture says it is sinful to have sex out of wedlock, and this has constantly been upheld by the prophets. It is also a sin to give birth to bastard kids. Yet, Mormon women are commonly cheerleading others to do exactly this. Why are they less accountable than those women who do such things themselves?

Mormon women are not merely having a good time at the expense of foreigners. They are intentionally inflicting foreseeable harm. Mormon women are not children. A child’s bad behavior is forgivable. We recognize that children need guidance, and children are usually responsive to it. Mormon women, in contrast are completely resistant to any form of correction, and their behavior is intolerable.