Blackpill Compilation of Blackpill (Megathread)

dreamcake1mo

dreamcake1mo

Master
Joined
May 12, 2022
Posts
1,675
Reputation
2,171
Hey.
Here's a compilation of truth/conspiracy/female nature/blackpill etc/ posts submitted and typed by various ORG users across this and other platforms.

Lately, i have noticed there has been reports of this forum to bad actors, as well as observable server downtime. For this reason, i think it may be beneficial to amalgamate high effort discussions and posts, so that if one day this forum goes bye bye, it could still be possible to reintroduce these posts and topics to the next boat. Feel free to copypaste/archive these texts or add to the collection. Also, i apologize if i fail to source you or the original author in some texts. A lot of sourcing information is lost in translation.

WARNING. LONG TEXT POSTS.















I'm not missing that fact, its just that emotions don't mean anything, everyone has them and they don't really have any importance except to that individual. Except the real world is unforgiving no matter who you are which is why we have to judge things objectively and not through each persons individual lense. If you want to treat women as children that get stressed out and struggle with minor things then they should also have all rights and responsibilities stripped down to a child like level. You cant give women all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men while simultaneously claiming that they need to be constantly forgiven and made special care for because they're actually incapable of handling all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men.

Capable people and incapable people should be treated accordingly and the instant you start straying from this, it can only result in incapable people being thrust into positions that they should never have been in and cant handle. Unconditionally forgiving women's flaws for no other reason than "its their nature" is as ridiculous as saying men should be allowed to rape and murder at will because its "in their nature" and we should just be understanding of that. The purpose of civilization is to overcome nature which is why we place rules and expectations on peoples behavior instead of just allowing them to act however they want at any given moment

But there's literally no need to understand the emotional perspective of an individual since it doesn't matter. How is any one individuals emotions relevant to anything that actually takes place in the real world? Understanding women is very easy and every culture in human history came to the same conclusions: if women, or anyone for that matter, are not capable of getting over themselves and thinking/behaving rationally instead of being slaves to their emotions then what they think or say doesn't matter. Not everyone's perspective is important, especially people who can only see things from the lens of their own emotions and ego instead of just seeing things the way they are

A good example of this is your own response. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it or not, civilization is the opposite of a natural state and cannot exist without controlling peoples nature and their base instinctual urges which is why every civilization in human history has had strict laws and rules on what people are allowed to do and not to do. You don't have to like it and it also doesn't matter whether you do but the more civilization advances, the further and further we are removed from our natural state. It is unhealthy to go too far over the edge but its still happening anyway and will continue to happen. This is achievable, every first world country on the planet currently operates like this and areas of the world that did not set increasingly strict control on human behaviors never developed past the third world because everyone constantly engaged in their most primitive urges with no sense of order which makes it impossible to advance

If rape and murder were not a part of human nature then why do they exist so commonly through human history and why has every properly established culture have laws against them? An example of what's not a part of human nature is grazing in a field or swimming up stream to birth a bunch of eggs. It doesn't matter how you feel about rape or violence, they are a part of human nature and that's why we create laws to control and prevent it. Entirely hypocritical to say that civilization is not about conquering nature and then say that rape and murder is "beastly" when in our most primitive and pre-civilisation eras, these things were extremely common. Go to any third world country on the world where there is a breakdown of infrastructure making it difficult to control the worst of human behavior and you'll see just how common it all is


evil can sometimes be described as militant ignorance. the original concept of sin is a process that leads us to miss the mark and fall short of perfection. While most people are conscious of this, at some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness check. Those that are evil attempt to escape and hide from their own conscience (though means like self deception and such etc.). Now thing of the evil of see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil archetypes. The unwilling to listen to clear truth and such. Ignorant mindsets in todays time where people actively and popularly disregard and have a sort of "happiness to disregard" things of good consciousness.

Antichrist was never referred to be a person, but instead a spirit. They are many people with the antichrist spirit.

Donald Trump just posted this image on his Instagram page. Many will say this picture represents Jesus being by his side through persecution. That is not what this photo represents. This is Trump’s persecution being likened to Jesus’s persecution, as has been done many times before by many including his son, Donald Trump Jr as I’ve pointed out before. Make no mistake, Trump in his heart believes he is a Christ-like, messiah figure that will save the world so he can take credit for it. Trump sees the praise and adoration Jesus receives and wants that for himself. His entire life philosophy has always been about being number 1. This is exactly why the religious zionists in his corner are and will continue to push for him to fulfill these messianic prophecies of protecting Israel and bringing peace to all nations. So that he can claim to be the messiah. Lucifer fell because of pride. And so too will the Antichrist be led into perdition. Because he magnifies himself in his heart. That’s what the biblical Antichrist is, a man with the prideful characteristics of Lucifer who tries to be Jesus. This is exactly the strong delusion talked about in 2 Thessalonians 2:11. Keep your eyes and heart on Jesus Christ alone, and look not to earthly princes to save you.


@justlolatthisworld7917 "Einstein" means "a rock" in German. "Einstein" was literally "as dumb as a rock". Open mocking in plain sight. I thought of this yesterday and it made me think of you anon, since I've heard you rightfully mention how Einstein was a literal moron.


Honestly its a lot of complication in the bible. Many things are not to be taken literal, or to be taken BOTH literal AND nonliteral. And i dont think this is because the bible was made to be inherently complicated, but even moreso the fact that language translations lose meanings overtimes. This is the reason strongs concordance exists.

We have to remember were reading the book in english. Theres so many double meanings in the English language, and words that categorize new meanings outside of the predecessor synonyms ETC.

For example, the beasts referenced in the bible. Clearly that is not literal but moreso referencing a country/system (technology hub in todays time) sort of thing. Christ was also implied to be the living law. Its even hard right now to explain in words.

But the point im trying to make is, i think the whole categorization of "demon", to a singular independent being, is kind of shallow thinking. The word demon is limited to what we learn about it. For many, this means some singular metaphysical deity. But lets look at it from a physical perspective. There has to be a system to everything. Thats the physical world we live in. Anything that materializes or influences behavior in such a manner has to sort of have some sort of physical(or metaphysical) process to incept or influence. Especially a demon, which has questionable authority over life. For example, the body in itself i guess could be a called a demon, or a host of wickedness, and that being dedicated to fulfilling the bodys desires leaves you "possessesed" into the bodies lusts. Hence why demons and body sickness are strongly correlated. Technically all of the prerequisite boxes would check off. Meaning the fruit of the "demons" which is posession (leaving you to do its own will, weather the lust is the satification for abusing, or all the other carnalities that people grow to adapt and be proficient in).

Not saying this is exactly how things work, but just to give a perspective. I feel like your question in itself is too narrow and it reminds me that sometimes the confusion is not in truth, but perspective of whats actually going on.


You lot of you would be better off learning how to be more cunning in society as that's how most social normies operate.
Also realising how they are taken by appearances. Not just appearance of your look but appearance of your general demeanour, as they use this to both gage how good life is going for you and whether you are a social success.
Learning that beauty standards are higher in major cities like London, LA, Miami, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Toronto, Sydney etc. No shit. It's a city. The rate race is stronger.
Most normies are not that talented at much. They just conform with mannerisms, slang, mainstream ideological narratives, shit they wear and what they believe in. They are followers and very agreeable until they see you being disagreeable to popular culture. They aren't that insightful, interesting or humorous.
Even guys with their own minds and that are not followers learn this. Unless you are making a deeper connection with a person, all that matters is how you appear on the surface. And if they are a matrix plugged in normie you should not even be making a deeper connection. They should be your associate to connections.
Realise everything is about immediate identifiable perception with normies. While you might be more open minded before sussing what somebody is all about, they ain't the same way lol. They are so plugged in that they run on autopilot and everyone needs to be in a box that they can understand otherwise something is off and fishy about them. So identify yourself before they identify you and treat you the way they think you are. This is very subtle.
And yes if you are someone bordering on chadlite you will be even more under this scrutiny, because the last thing a normie wants to see is a guy that looks stand out good and is not plugged into normie wavelength of communication


This is because the concept of being a "loser" was created to shame men by other men. Men created the concept of being a "loser". Now, since women hold so much power in society and the dating market the idea of being a loser has shifted toward a more superficial end. Where you were judged in the past by other men, now you are judged mostly by women who aren't rational and will judge you off how you look rather then what you do. Men in power are meritocratic, whereas women in power are emotionally unstable eugenicists. Whats worse is there is now no checks and balances to control these power that women hold. Affirming these ridiculous, and useless standards for an actual flourishing society.


About trying to settle the deal about inceldoom to official channels. They have there own skin in the game to keep this ideology from spreading. Skimming the paper, It doesn't seem to really consider WHY this ideology is becoming popular, just how to stop if from doing so. Now, it is written in a journal of criminology so I can see the reasoning, but why is it even in a journal like that in the first place? You would think a sociological or cultural journal would be better. They only wish to understand the blackpill because it's becoming a threat to the social order, and to women. I would be more sympathetic to these authors (both of whom are women, which could lead to some subconcious bias) if they would try to consider the plight of these men that fall into this ideology, but all it appears to be is more damage control from a system that is inherently against men's interests and intends on fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.
This.


when it comes to animals (carnal humans), a human (in this case a "spiritual" focused person) needs to cage them up or structure them somehow less they themselves get killed or affected by animalistic behavior. Why do you think religion is always what follows after truth seeker movements, after the few individuals that actually gave a crap about truth. Thats why i call it a derivative. Pest control. Carnality is the way of the animal. Religion is the ordinance of the animal nature. Islam, christianity, whatever. Its the same thing. And they are all flawed. The frustration behind the argument for your religion is misdirected and carnal imo.


Cancer growth and metastasis in a fueled by the immune system being in a hyper allergen state (TH2).
Fasting greatly reduces allergic reactions to food, promoting a TH1 mediated immune response which is required for cancer cell clearance.
Excess histamine = Excess cortisol = Estrogen dominance = TH2 mediated immune response.
Liver and gallbladder function play a crucial role in these issues.
The problem is, when the allergen sensitivities stop, and TH1 mediated immune response turns back, the immune system will start going after any latent infections you were harboring.
This is known in holistic health circles as a “healing crisis”.


I don't wanna bring a son who will suffer in a matriarchal society or a daughter who would turn to OF hoe while i can't do nothing, we need to keep old school ideologies, it's even helps against hypergamy
Your better of creating or starting your own movement. Islam is already toast. Its doing what its always done. But for the animal, a country sized fence is almost as if it were no fence at all. Its going to have to be a new religion or derivative. Ultimately to get the attention of the carnal nature your going to have to use different tactics. Marketing, deception, favoritism etc. Look at how "hebrew isrealites" secluded the bible and used the race bait as a pull.


Areas with high population density (many people in an area) and high interaction (something as simple as seeing someone, even online or on a newspaper counts as an interaction, independent of if they know them or not) creates inequality. The more dense and the more interactions, the worse the inequality.
This is because, if there's a group of 5 people, things are more equal in every domain compared to if there were 500, or 5 million or 5 billion. The more people, the more outliers there are. These outliers create inequality (economic, dating, etc.)
The population density allows people to see the gap of their situation to their outliers. This outlier affects the normie.
High population creates outliers.
High population density allows people to be aware of the outliers.
These environments created what John B. Calhoun called "behavioral sinks". Basically, a behavioral sink is a collapse in productive social behavior, where increased negative emotions, disrupted social structures, and abnormal behaviors prevail.
The rats formed social and dating hierarchies, Chads got the women and the non-Chads usually either...
  • Developed non-straight sexualities
  • Became timid, weak, apathetic, withdrawn asexual hikikomoris/neets (adolescents and young adults who become recluses in their parents' homes, isolated from society)
  • Or desperate, erratic and unsuccessful (pickup autists and redpill roaches)
Chads became aggressive, and since the non-Chads were all withdrawn from society and responsibility, the women had to fend for themselves and protect Chad's children (with humans, it's either the cucked normie's child or she's childless, since Chad doesn't want to reproduce with her, only sex). The female rats became aggressive, neglectful of their children, and non-motherly.
Infant mortality rose due to neglect, male and female rats gave up on dating due to discontent and negative emotions, birth rates dropped, and the new and smaller children grew up to be asexual since they never really learned sexual behaviors due to their parents giving up on mating. The rat society aged to death due to population collapse and low birth rates.
Of course, this isn't perfectly applicable to humans, remember that. For humans, economic, and other kinds of inequalities also play a major role in behavioral sinks, but if if the trajectory of society keeps going where it's going, we could very well get a comparable result as human beings to what the rats got. Birth rates are plummeting and our societies are mentally ill, just like the rats.

Anyways, Why am I showing you all of this?

Because dating environments differ in blackpill severities. Due to population density and population count.
There could be "tiers" to the blackpill.
Basically, in some dating environments, you'll need to literally be perfect, in other environments, you have to be HTN at least.
Also, consider that the fact that dating environments men and women have been in the past also can influence their mating decisions.


Anti oxidants can actually be pro oxidants if you have mitochondrial membrane complex issues or NAD metabolic problems / imbalance with age.
How do free radicals get quenched and removed from the body? The body cleaves electrons off of the substance, reducing its reactivity, making it less dangerous and easier to incorporate or dispose of.
But what happens if large amounts of anti oxidants rapidly quench and reduce free radicals and pollutants in the body, releasing massive amounts of electrons?
Normally, those electrons would be shuttled into the electron transport chain and used to make ATP. But, as you get older, or if you have mitochondrial membrane complex 1 to 4 issues, your body is less able to handle a flood of electrons.
This can lead to metabolic bottle necks or even overflows.
What does this mean? Those electrons can lead to a flood of hydrogen peroxide in the body. If the H2O2 levels overwhelm the ability of Catalase to quench it all down to water; If it builds up: greying hair, stem cell issues, mtdna number decreases and telemorase issues, leading to lowered maximum replicative lifespan of stem cells and mitochondria.
Rapidly increased aging.
Vitamin E, a powerful anti oxidant, can significantly lower lifespan. The studies can never accurately tell you why. I can. It's the overwhelming flood of electrons into the ECC.
Resolving electron transport chain issues is important for healthy aging.
As for NAD+ and Nadh. NADh is an electron donor. If you have too high NADh, it shows metabolic disorder. Shows you have electron transport chain issues.
If you don't resolve them, it's possible supplementing NAD will just rapidly convert to NADh, adding fuel to metabolic fire.
The fix for that, in leiu of fixing the electron transport chain, is combining all anti oxidants with electron acceptors or getting more in the diet.
They can mop them up, order them properly, recycle them for use, or help dispose of them.
We need more electron acceptors and less electron donors in our diets. Especially when combined with NAD or anti oxidants.


I dislike most quotes and similar forms of socially popular truth "memes" shared online.
Theres no influence of truthful behavior (teaching people their own faults and to not do the same) without proactive and introspectively constructive honesty. Without this constructive honesty, there becomes a influx of people who highlight other people who know the truth, but are not even honest enough to recognize their own behavior and warn against that instead, as that would require actually knowing (being proactive and introspectively constructive), and not just speculative or socially influenced to think or perceive. When women or men repost or rethink about common troupes against each other, they don't really have any intellectual depth, but is sort of low effort, simple minded bait content used to alleviate common (sometimes unaware, or misguilded) frustrations. The reason i dislike this, is because its not coming from a place where the individual (viewer or even reposter) is actually self reflective on their own behavior that may have enabled such frustrations to occur, thus usually no intellectual response from the poster thus, usually no intellectual discussion or gain to the viewer. Think of the common trope that; “men are not shit”. Or even low iq incel bait posts like “women are this” etc, where the lack of intellectual discussion (in depth questions such as why, how, what, etc) do not occur on an individual level due to the format of the post not engaging the viewer to do such. I highlighted proactive honesty because only when a person is able to be proactively honest and introspective about these questions, and are honest about their behavior that may or may not enable such things, real discussion and data analysis can occur, Instead of just reposting. Think of how airplane investigations work. Constructive analysis where there is no side taken, where the women or man admit (be honest) of their behavior and the data is unbiasedly discussed and analyzed for accuracy and future correction. But of course this does not happen with these posts, nor does the UX structure (or even sentencing format the OP would use to create simple posts) allow introspective discussion or constructive analysis to happen. People see it, agree with it, and move on. Holding tight the building frustration until eventually the simple frustration becomes a trigger of hatred, regardless of if that person is actually enabling their own frustrations or not (which may often be the case). For this reason i strongly recommend and prefer data rich communication, no matter how "long", "aspie, autistic, or socially weird it may seem. Ultimately when working with data, its best to receive the best quality.


The following text was taken from the website “Shedding of the Ego” by Mr. K and reviewed by Savage, it's been adapted by John Cracovizk (literally me) for an easier (and less MGTOW) read to my LooksMax.org fellas. The link to the original text is available in the end of the thread, good read!

1. INTRODUCTION - What is Hybristofilia? The Joker and Quinn example

"Ok, gentlemen, today we are going to discuss hybristophilia, a term that seems to me to best summarize the female penchant for the “Bad Boy”.

First, the definition of the term according to an online medical dictionary:

Hybristophilia - Paraphilia in which a person is sexually attracted to someone who has committed a bombing or horrific crime.

It may be best to start with some examples found in pop culture and work our way up to real-world examples.

Many consider the dynamic duo of the DC comics universe, the Joker and his equally psychopathic companion, Harley Quinn, to be a clear example of the “Florence Nightingale effect” (In reference to the dedication of Florence Nightingale, who many consider to be the founder of modern nursing, demonstrated in her patients).
The Florence Nightingale effect is a situation in which a caregiver develops romantic and/or sexual feelings for their patient, even though there is very little communication or contact outside of basic care. The feelings may disappear when the patient no longer needs care, whether through recovery or death.

I believe this is a misdiagnosis of Quinn, or at least only a partial diagnosis.

If you're well-versed in the origins of Joker's bitch, you'll know that Quinn started out as an asylum psychiatrist in Arkham and her name was Dr. Harleen Frances Quinzel, M.D, who was tasked during her internship with the psychoanalysis of some of the worst and greatest psychopaths and criminals of Gotham, one of which was the Joker himself. During the interview process with the Joker, Quinn was mesmerized by his Charisma (personality pilled once again
:soy:
), a trait psychopaths often cultivate to hide their true nature.

Swayed by the strength of the Joker's personality and charm, Quinn fell deeply in love with him, culminating in helping him escape, unleashing one of the most dangerous psychopaths in the DC comics universe back onto the streets (women), until she finally gave up her comfortable life as a psychiatrist and joined him on his crime spree, taking on the persona of Harley Quinn, as we know her today.

Harley Quinn suffered not only from this “Florence Nightingale effect”, but from an advanced case of hybristophilia.

Furthermore, we speculate here that hybristophilia is a condition that is still poorly understood, which appears to be categorized into a very simplistic classification of women who are hybrostophilic and women who are not hybrostophilic, without there being a middle ground between the two.
2. EVOLVING DESIRES - The Complex Relationship Between Violence and Attraction
Now, think back to our remote existence, when human beings led prehistoric, short and often violent lives.

The comforts of our modern, technologically advanced civilization simply did not exist.

The caveman, who sought to have reproductive access to the female sex, had to offer something in return.
  • He needed to assure the females he wanted to mate with that he would provide them with resources, shelter, and sustenance on a regular basis.
  • He had to be violent enough to kill enough animals to feed himself, his women, and the children he would have with them.
  • He also had to have an innate ability to kill other men who wished to move into the resource-rich land that he controlled or that was controlled by the women he had sexual access to.
To put it bluntly, violent men have been selected by women for reproduction since time immemorial, and despite the fact that we have, through a manipulation of evolutionary impulses, built a civilization that largely mitigated this burden of violence, many women still yearn for violent men.


The average woman, of course, does not want to date a violent psychopath, at least not one of the status of a serial killer like Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez. But she longs for some of that caveman violence to emerge through the civilized exteriors of the men she is occasionally attracted to. In essence, women seek to ensure their security and provision in society through a kind of standardized double assault.

Simply extracting male provision via taxpayer subsidy is not enough.

The obsession with protection and provision that we see for women is expressed on a macro scale, through the occasional application of laws involving violence against women, such as “Rape Shield Laws” and “primary aggressor laws”, etc.

Spoiler: What is a Rape Shield Law?
Spoiler: What are Primary Aggressor Laws?

These laws often do not fully consider concepts of equality, such as due process and the luxury of a legal system that presumes innocence before guilt has already been established (this made me remember of this thread of mine where I talked about how your friends would probably leave you be eaten by wolves if someone came accusing you of rape, even though there isn't any proof).

To the collective unconscious, the hive mentality that drives the female masses, due process is irrelevant, they are voting with their hindbrain and therefore vote to ensure that their most primal needs and desires are met and satiated.

The problem is that women can never be satisfied; they point out and demand more security and more provisions… always.

In this way, while female involvement leverages the electoral process in her favor, and after the legal system implements as much gynocentrism as it can handle without collapsing, the individual woman also simultaneously cultivates her particular instinct for her own protection and provision.

In the form of what we call: “Alpha Brute”.
3. THE ALPHA BRUTE - Low Inhib and Dark Triad? Yes, but also a tool for the feminine

An individual prone to violence and physically imposing enough to do a lot of harm with hostility, who is also usually not intelligent enough to understand that he is in a servile position to the woman he is involved with, existing as a hired criminal who gets paid with sexual access.

It's like a pincer attack, designed to maximize benefits for the female collective, and frankly, men's lives, health, or rights have never influenced this process in any meaningful way.
This is just gynocentrism at its maximum power.

Take the following video as an example, preceded by a quick synopsis.

> The woman enters a cafeteria and skips the line.

> The man responds to whoever was on the phone that a woman jumped the queue.

> The woman hears and immediately intimidates him by staring at him, in a very rude, incisive and, finally, violent way.

> By chance, the boyfriend, a 150 kg ex-convict, enters the conversation, and at that moment there is a brief confrontation between the man and the boyfriend.-Out of nowhere, the boyfriend [ex-convict] punches the man, beating him violently.

See for yourself.

So... what do we witness here other than a vicious attack? Well, let's start from the woman's perspective.

Let's assume, hypothetically, that this woman could have started this confrontation without her boyfriend to protect her and that the man who attacked her in self-defense after she initiated the violence.
This woman would probably have no problem trusting the front line of gynocentric protection at her disposal, that being the macro-scale protection of a police force or a white knight who jumps to her defense without even questioning who initiated the violence.

This is why women advocate for first-offender laws, as blame almost universally falls on the man in domestic violence disputes, despite evidence to the contrary, if any. Once again, women want it that way, they are not concerned with due process and equal rights for men, they are concerned with leveraging the State and strengthening their fundamental reproductive habits.

However, in this case, it was her boyfriend who was nearby, who was, for all intents and purposes, the alpha brute we've described. He is prone to violence, physically imposing, and almost seems to take pleasure in subjecting another man to the brutality he can unleash in his master's name. This is an extreme example of what all women want to some degree, community protections from non-violent men in the form of a legal system, and individual protections from violent men in the form of these thugs who are more than willing to disregard those legal protections.

This is what drives the female tendency toward hybristophilia, which appears to only be pathological in the most extreme examples, but which actually lies on a continuum.

This is a spectrum of hybristophilia that ranges from the woman who prefers a beating from her man behind closed doors, to the “serial killer fanatics” who gained notoriety for fainting with excitement in the presence of hyper-violent serial killers, such as Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez, during the fanfare of his trials.

Every woman who asks you to choke her, spank her, spank her ass, or spit on her in a safe, controlled environment during consensual sex is acting on this misunderstood desire.

She is asking you to release your inner caveman, she is asking you to become a violent weapon that she can use for her protection, and in doing so, she receives vast sexual stimulation.

I don't hate women for that, much less do I expect them to change. I believe this is an innate quality of female sexual attraction. Nor do I absolve them if they act on these impulses in some way in real causes of violence, rather than simulated, against other human beings like the woman described above.

Women who are so dependent on their primitive impulses to the point of directing one of these brutes to harm others through violence should be locked up and kept away from civilized people. But in terms of desire, of female attraction to violent men, I suspect there's very little we can do to combat that.
Spoiler: Is there a solution maybe?

We will have to understand women's tendency to select violent men and we have to manage and discourage it as best we can. And so I begin my efforts here with a simple material.

5. EXAMPLES - Abandon all hope, ye who enter here

First, we start with , the “cultural Marxism” conspiracy theorist who killed 77 souls, most of whom were young teenagers. An article titled Norway’s mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik gets hundreds of love letters a year states the following:

STOCKHOLM (AFP) — She calls him by his first name, sends him letters every week and promises to wait for him.

It could be any love story, but Victoria's heart belongs to a mass murderer: Anders Behring Breivik. Responsible for Norway's worst peacetime murder since World War II, Breivik, like many other famous killers, has his share of admirers, a phenomenon that can be accompanied by sexual attraction and, in this case, there is even a term: hybristophilia.

“I really wouldn’t want to live a life without him,” says “Victoria,” who doesn’t want her real name published. A young Swedish woman in her 20s appears distant and impassive, ignoring her fresh cup of coffee in the lobby of a Stockholm hotel. But her voice breaks when she talks about her “dear Anders”.

From a small town in Sweden, she is doing everything she can to get Breivik's prison conditions eased: he has spent the last four years isolated in a high-security penitentiary. He is currently serving a 21-year sentence, which can be extended if he is still considered a danger to society.

Breivik killed 77 people on July 22, 2011, when he detonated a bomb near government offices in Oslo and opened fire at a summer camp for young workers on the island of Utoya. For Victoria, Breivik's isolation amounts to “torture”.

“I worry about him even more now that he's in such a vulnerable situation,” she says.

Unemployed due to health problems, she writes to him to encourage him—far more than the 150 letters ever written—or sends him small gifts, including a dark blue tie that he occasionally wore during his trial. In return, she received two letters from him — which she showed to AFP — the others were blocked by prison officers tasked with censoring his correspondence.

Marriage proposals:

It is not easy to define her relationship with Breivik, a man she has never met, since all her requests to visit him were denied.
She describes him as her “old friend” and as a kind of “brotherly figure” and protector, but admits that she finds him attractive and “there were romantic interests, at first, at least on my part.”
:lul:


She says that their first contact dates back to 2007, when they met through an online game. He cut ties with her two years later, presumably to focus on planning her attacks. But in early 2012, Victoria reconnected with the man who had by then become the most hated person in Norway. And she is not alone.

The Weekly Morgenbladet (A Norwegian weekly, intellectual newspaper, covering politics, culture and science.) reported last year that Breivik receives “at least” 800 letters a year, many of them from admiring women.

During the 2012 trial, a 16-year-old girl (a JB ) asked him to marry her.

Hybristophilia is a term used by criminologists — but not scientists — to describe a sexual attraction to violent killers in prison, who often receive racy love letters or sexy underwear from their fans. Also known as “Bonnie and Clyde syndrome,” it exists across time and place, .Josef Fritzl of Austria, who held his daughter captive and repeatedly raped her for 25 years, and American killer Charles Manson also have their own fan clubs.

According to Sheila Isenberg, an American author who interviewed 30 women for her book "Women Who Love Men Who Kill", says that these admirers often have a history of sexual abuse.

“It's a chance for a woman to be in control (the man is behind bars for life and has no control over anything), when previously she was abused by her father (or) by other men,” she explained to AFP.

“Plus, it’s romance with a capital R: exciting, thrilling, a never-ending rollercoaster. Nothing dull or ordinary about these relationships.”

However, there is no scientific evidence to support the widespread belief that these women feel they are on a mission to help the killer get on the right path in life, said Amanda Vicary, assistant professor of psychology at Wesleyan University in the United States.

“Some women tend to be attracted to famous men — it's possible that the reason some women are attracted to men who have done horrible things is not so much what they did, but the fame they received from their actions,” she said.

Victoria, Meanwhile, she says she's not looking for fame. Her involvement with Breivik has already cost her relationship with her sister, who, upon learning of her ties to him, told her: “You are dead to me.” And she distanced herself from her friends. She admits to “more or less sharing” Breivik's Islamophobic ideology, but says she opposes violence.

So how can she love a man who slaughtered dozens of terrified teenagers, some of whom begged him to spare their lives?

“I think I had to separate Anders from the real Breivik. I think of Anders as my old friend and Breivik as the person who did all these things. The years pass and yet she refuses to give up on him. “I miss you more and more every day. I think my feelings got a little stronger.”
Another interesting article I stumbled across will give you some real insight into the nature of this phenomenon, titled Editorial: On Love, Sex and Murderers and it's quite long so I'll only publish the parts I judge relevant:

At the same time, we are both repelled and fascinated by studying sociopaths and their quest for blood — and most of the time, men seek women's blood. The idea of the “good” Dexter-style serial killer is relatively new, but it is a known fact that women flooded Ted Bundy with love letters, a woman married Richard Ramirez while he was in prison, and there are countless other examples. of lesser-known criminals and their fanatics. Montages with Ted Bundy? Why? We wonder why serial killers do what they do all the time - perhaps that's where the fascination begins for people who identify as "hybristophiles."

A few years ago, I met a sixteen-year-old girl (another jb, I'm starting to see a pattern
:feelsthink:
) who identified herself as Ted-Head (a Ted Bundy groupie). It was easy to ignore the romanticization of a man whose horror she had never experienced. Other interests of hers were, like many of mine, dark and subversive. My thought at the time was that one day she would grow up and realize that finding a person interesting is not the same as finding them emotionally or sexually attractive. After all, Bundy used the fact that he was a handsome man to kill women. He's not exactly the kind of guy you'd want to date (you wouldn't want to go on a date with Rodney James Alcala either, but he won The Dating Game).

I wanted to write a little about the Ted Bundy phenomenon and how it continues into a new generation. I started on a site called Bundyphile, hoping to start at the source in my efforts to write about gaining some understanding from the young women who followed Bundy (one Facebook page referred to him as “The Misunderstood Voice of a Generation”) .

The themes presented on these sites were repetitive:

Bundy wasn’t “that bad.”

Bundy was misunderstood.

Yes, what Bundy did was wrong, but you can love and admire him without idolizing his crimes.

Many of the women and girls who are obsessed with Bundy and other serial killers seem to think that they could be the special person who would change or train them, or be “the one” who would be there for them and stop all the bad things that happenned. In one blog entry, a woman calling herself “Lolita” proclaims, in all caps for all to see, “EITHER WAY, IF MY OWN DEATH COULD FILL TED BOUNDY’S HOLLOW SOUL, I [REALLY] WOULD LOVE TO BE HIS LAST VICTIM." (Can you imagine being adored like this?
:feelsgiga:
)

She claimed they were similar, claimed to understand him. He was “different” (
:coffee:
) from other killers (remember, Ted Bundy was probably dead before this woman was born). Within minutes of my research, it became clear that you can't search for Ted-Heads without encountering Dahmer's “fangirls” and the obsession that many Internet fans have with gay male sex (suddenly fujoshi reference?
:dafuckfeels:
). Specifically, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer engaging in gay sex (wtf?
:feelskek:
). It was around this time that my research took a sharp left turn. Up until this point, women had not only seemed emotionally invested, but obsessed. They seemed to believe that a woman's love for them could have saved the violent men they so idolized.

When I reached the Mrs.Dahmer’s Infinityland website, it became clear that there was much more to this phenomenon than the tendency of high school/college girls to fall in love with “misunderstood” and “shady” men. The whole point of it was about sex. OK yes. I think we knew that, but this was deeply dark and disturbing sex, based completely on how violent and terrible these men were. A post on Tumblr says:

- Most girls: you've seen his big body, right?

- Me: You saw his death counter, right?

The page “Mrs. Dahmer” features several photos of Dahmer, most photos typically taken after being arrested or photos of him in prison jumpsuits. The photos have sweet captions, the same way a high school girl would caption a photo of her favorite Disney crush in her diary (
:dafuckfeels:
)

After I discovered the “hybristerotica” tag on Tumblr, things got really dark, and it happened really quickly. A Tumblr dedicated to celebrating hybristophilia drags me to a corner of the internet I never expected to find.

Sex and Crime All The Time features, among other things, photos of famous serial killers with sexually explicit “confessions” emblazoned on them and a serialized erotic story called Stockholm Syndrome, focusing on Richard Ramirez.

I want to take a moment to state here that I understand that rape fantasy is not the same as wanting to be raped and that many women with healthy sex lives are adept at this type of sex — however, I think this fantasy becomes a little different when the fantasies are focused on men known for violently stalking and attacking women.

I also wonder about this fine line, as these women proudly identify themselves as “hybristophiles” and defend the legitimacy of this attraction, although the profile of women who fit the definition is not a list of positive personality traits, and many of them admit this sexual dysfunction outside of situations where they are fantasizing about the killers.

Hardcore hybristophiles don't always bother to claim that the men they obsess over are “misunderstood” or “only half bad.” When an anonymous Tumblr fan asks if Ted Bundy loved his wife and son, the blog owner responds, “I don’t think so.” There seem to be limits, however.

One user says she is “sad” that Eric Harris’ diary featured homophobic sentiments. The blog owner comforts her by assuming that he would have overcome these feelings if he were alive (can't believe this shit). The conversation, however, had nothing to do with the way these men treated women. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, the more violent the fantasy.

It isn't over yet.
For some reason, I find the obsession with men like Bundy and Ramirez less disturbing than the sexual and romantic fantasies associated with more recent killers. There's a good chance that women who idolize Bundy will wear a pendant with his photo on it and look at his photo alive, given that Bundy died in 1989. He could be seen as a “character” like Loki from the Avengers or, yes, even something like Dexter. No one they know has had contact with him, they have not felt the fear and horror he caused personally.

But women fantasizing about Elliot Rodger were definitely alive and well when he opened fire in Santa Barbara in May of this year. Their obsession runs much deeper than their appearance — these women have studied their hate-filled videos and their manifesto. His hatred towards women had no effect on removing these hybristophiles. In fact, it seems to do the opposite, all the women attracted to Rodger have a common desire — to be his first girlfriend. Be the girl who calms your anger. Some fantasize about Rodger with Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris from the Columbine shooting, claiming they could show him how to win women. Hybristerotica presents two pieces of erotic “fan fiction” about Eliot Rodger, one written from his point of view and the other told from a woman's point of view — In Come Over and Fuck Me, she imagines herself as his lifelong friend, without realize his desire for her.

The erotica isn't well written, but that's not the point. It doesn't have to be like this. The very thought of fucking these dangerous men is what captivates the women who participate in the hybristophilia tags on Tumblr. Serial killer and hybristophile fans receive a lot of negative attention from other Tumblr users, particularly those who like true-crime but don't want to be associated with people who fetishize and idolize killers. If you go through any of the popular hybristophilia tags, you will see the defenses of hybristophilia over and over again. They insist that they are not mocking the victims or supporting the crime, they respect the victims — they are just attracted to the killer. The most interesting case is the group of young women obsessed with the high school shooter, TJ Lane.

While his fans insist they respect victims and their families, they also praise him for wearing a 'KILLER' shirt to court and share GIFs of him telling his victims' parents: “The hand that pulled the trigger to kill your children is now gone. Masturbates with the memory of them. Fuck you all,” while shocking everyone.

They call him “sass” and tag photos of him as “The King of Sass/The King of Attitude.” Almost all of TJ Lane's memes, GIFs, and collages involve this quote, either in full or just part of it. They love him, in large part, because he was disrespectful to the families of his victims. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, and the more violent the fantasy.

Some hybristophiles claim they are completely normal, one even cited her therapist in defense of her obsession with TJ Lane. Others assert that it is no different from any other paraphilia (a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depends on fantasy and engagement in atypical and extreme sexual behaviors) and as such should be respected.

It's worth noting that pedophilia is the most common type of paraphilia, and no one is suggesting that everyone supports pedophiles as normal — not even hybristophiliacs who like men who have abused children. The four most common types of paraphilia involve a rejection of consent — pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, and frotteurism — the act of rubbing against non-consenting people. Another fact worth considering in “respecting” as “normal” in hybristophiles is that paraphilia often leads to sexual dysfunction — needing what attracts them for sexual gratification.

If hybristophilia makes women [lovers of serial killers] unable to have a healthy sex life with men who don't want to rape or kill them, I would dare say it's not normal at all. These observations are not intended to judge hybristophilia communities, per se, but being fair to them also means showing the side that does not support their claims to normality.So why do women seek out sociopaths? Why does a killer with multiple victims attract them so much? There were even searches for Timothy McVeigh in the hybristophilia tags — there seems to be no limit. Some are purely sexual, some are borderline romantic, and some are downright disturbing considering the men are at the center of the discussion. Here are some of the tags about Jahar (Dzhokhar) Tsarnaev.

The deeper I dug into the hybristophilia tags and sites, the less sense it seemed to make. Going into this, I admit, I thought I would find some groups of misfits who still admired Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez. Like many, I read the published articles showing that the Tsarnaevs, James Holmes, and Adam Lanza (fucker kills lots of innocent children, females get wet) had attracted a female audience — but most of the content cited seemed to be “Wow, how hot he is,” which may be a real opinion — although Most people have a harder time separating a person's attractiveness from their actions.


The desire, the claims of love, the endless support and hero-worship definitely shook me. When I first glanced at the sexually explicit stories, I felt like I was losing my sanity. My brain really can't understand this, especially in cases like TJ Lane, who is not only someone without a shred of remorse, but also took joy in bragging about his crimes in front of the families of those he killed.

I've always watched things like Halloween, horror movies and books, and had a fascination with the dark and disturbing things, being a healthy reaction to a terrifying world. People study serial killers because we know that even though they behave like monsters, they are human. By learning about them, we gain knowledge and this helps us feel proactive and therefore safer. Because when we enter into horror and the supernatural, it becomes a terror that we can control.

It's like a paper mache skull that you can hold in your hand and know it's not so bad. What's troubling about hybristophiles on the internet, what becomes so disturbing, is knowing that they've crossed that line in some way. They went beyond a desire to understand, beyond a fascination, and into an uncontrolled obsession.

Link to the original text: http://sheddingoftheego.com/2015/08/23/hybristophilia-the-female-attraction-to-violence/

After adapting the text, I need to say this topic is DISGUSTING, but thanks for reading.


Womens wickedness is really subtle. The wicked carnal male nature is more upfront. Its like a beast. Fighting for resources, killing for pride/respect or mates.. and such carnalities. While womens are more subtle. Theirs is hypergamy, delusion, ambivalence.

I think in todays time the average person is more afflicted continuously by toxic women carnal nature than by toxic carnal men behavior. Though, as you rise/to rise in the ranks and popularity, you will be eventually gatekept by extremely toxic men behaviors (gang mentality, cuthroat, fight for resources/mates).

From what i observed they are equally toxic and work as a system. Both human carnal natures are unrighteous. But they are different in nature. But i agree, the intensity of a mans toxicity is way greater than a womans. Though, a womens toxicity is farther reaching, longer lasting, and more infectious, yet lower in potency. I compare it to water torture vs execution. Think today with feminism (90% of women now share some extremely feminist or hypergamous view, as well as a significant portion of men, of at least 50% who also share the same. And then you have women are wonderful effect). I think more women than men are legitimately toxic, but in a very small potency and in a more unidentified/hidden manner, compared to the men or masc beliefs that are so potent there isnt even a need for as much. Her toxicity (like hypergamy or the typical delusional takes and views) often goes unchecked also, and more readily accepted into society which it spreads like wildfire. Whereso a mans toxicity often requires some sort of RL force behind it to go anywhere.


One of many comments extolling the justice of God and calling Job out that his attitude was placing his own 'justice' about God

"If you sin, how does that affect him?
If your sins are many, what does that do to him?
If you are righteous, what do you give to him,
or what does he receive from your hand? Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself, and your righteousness only other people"
(Job 34:6-8)

This is one of Elihu's most important arguments, as it pointed out to Job that the righteousness of man cannot 'buy' God's favor, nor do the sins of man 'harm' God. Rather, God created his perfect law for the benefit of man. Elihu, conversely, promoted the righteousness of God in taking any course of action, regardless of the good or evil of man. He took Job to task for thinking that it was futile to be good then, if the good could face trials as well as the wicked. He pointed out that the Lord will repay men for what they have done (in this life or the next), so it is very profitable to fear the Lord even if one does not see immediate ben trying to explain the nature of God with only the limited information available to human knowledge, chrisolivertimes we are in book of job, story of cian aand abel first book of adam cain eroused by jelousy. jelousy good/bad perspective used to entice cain mimd pattern with xxxten vice city aka gta mind pattern supericial benifactors mind with story of job lesson


"God" mathematically, scientifically, and logically has to be real as long as we have a consciousness and can perceive living in any fashion. Forget how religion explains god, and forget the concept of "god" being exclusively a singular deity. Think of it like this,

Life has a paradox. The paradox of life is that something had to have created something else. Cause and effect. If aliens created humans, then who created aliens? If water and bacteria created flesh, then what created that? If energy created the big bang, what created energy? This question and paradox goes to infinity. The answer to that paradox is an equal infinity based concept. It is "god". All encompassing, or at the very least to our understanding, a thing or concept that is in that realm of infinity (nothing before it etc.). In shorter terms, the proof of gods existence is the answer to the paradox of life.


Women are not creatures of action, they operate best in a weak nature, hence why for example they are more proficient at doing things like organizing protests and social media hashtags. if they had the same mental aspect as males, their toxicity would manifest itself in much more abhorrent events and atrocities. also, the iq bell curve plays a part. almost all women are in the middle lower while men are more distributed along the curve. so more men can be unpredictably violent and impulsive.

Women nature were capable of acting out their desires like men, india, africa, and asia go bye bye. eugenics become officially government enforced policy. but they don't, instead they keep those thoughts secret and virtue signal. and all virtue signaling comes from fear of being discovered. why many male feminists are rapists. they virtue signal to camouflage their true nature and thoughts. and women and them are often the biggest virtue signallers


Its a deep rooted issue. Humanity itself is a sort of war between the animal body and the mind-(which implies higher intelligence). What differentiates us from animals are our minds. Our level of perceptions and mental and ability to manifest these things collectively. This is why i never see animals praying or deviating from the script, as much as humans are able to do.

Strong carnality is in most cases most associated with wickedness to the human level mind. As we are not just beings of the body(animal) intelligence. This is why animalistic natures such as murder are seen as okay and even righteous for a wild animal to do (as it is a being of the animal nature), but not okay for humanity(as we are not just exclusively beings of the body animal nature, and are observable to ourselves to posses a higher mind state than most if not all land animals). The essence of the mind, and the body work together, but are somewhat at conflicting states. Carnality and the ways of the heart are at odds with the higher intelligence that our mind implies. Its hard to explain exactly why, but the best way to see it is the body(the animal) and the mind as sort of separate systems. The case we have in todays time with humans are that most humans are more in agreeance with their animalistic nature, instead of their mind and higher intelligence (why this is the case is a variety of reasons to long to explain in this particular post.). But in essence, the cultivation of one side, usually means the abandonment/impairment or pain of another.

In other words, Most people operate in the carnal human body nature and are most familiar with it. Carnality is strongly attribed to wickedness, and humans are more familiar with carnality(thus wickedness). Wickedness is attractive to the human body as it usually manifest itself as carnality(animal behaviors). This is why wicked people, or popular people in general are known to be carnal. Think resource money hungry cartel boss, killer gangstar, sex fiend women. To become popular in generally usually means some sort of excessive carnal success. etc. To take it up a notch, the diety that represents evil is strongly associated with carnality. Satanists actually practice carnality. Their favorite day is their birthday.

Anyways, carnality includes standard female and male nature. For females, as an animal, carnality is what they are attracted to. Carnal male behaviors. This is why bad boys, mafia men, alpha guys who delve into that polygamous, cutthroat male carnal behavior win and imply to the female a strong sexual desire, than lets say a BETA(who plays into a feminine women nature) and even moreso a person who chooses to focus on a higher intelligence(think messiah figure), that actually is even below beta and alpha (a non participant in the dating pool).
This cycle is also why women always get left after their hypergamy, as the ones they chase are statistically more likely to be carnal, and thus toxic or toxically polygamous due to the preselection of such carnal behaviors. Also why this whole men blaming is seen as a circlejerk due to the predictability and cycle of events that occur. Ofc the war is waged, and the ones that will suffer and get the strays of hate will be the non participants.


This is wrong. Very baised. Men have it far much worst dating. While this one observation may make some sense, you fail to compare the mens side of things against women. If you were to do that, youd notice that men have at least double the amount of issues when it comes to this niche, compared to this one observation you made about women.

And while you may be somewhat right, its important to understand that this is an issue that they create for themselves due to their own hypergamy.

Hypergamy is relative. Put 1000 "gigachads" in a room with 10000 women, and the modern women nature will still find a way to statistically, and exclusively desire only the top 10-15% preselection wise. This is studies and observable in every facet of modern society.
What your explaining is post hypergamous decisions. Of course she will have trouble competing against the same men.

This issue is even more worst because men are statistically rarer than women, yet with all of the social structures that favor matriarchy and female natures, women just have an advantage socially and socioeconomically. Nor are as libido magnetized as a man. Theres no reason any men should be having trouble dating, yet here we are.

It is dishonestly wrong to claim:
" IN TERMS OF DATING. a guy has to be 1 tall, good lucking and thats it,"
No idea where you got this idea from. You must have never heard about preselection or women are wonderful effect. Anyways, men are known to have an extremely different level of qualifications to be acceptable in dating, one that literally is dynamic and ever changing relatively to all of the other men due to hypergamy. This is why old age men did not let the female nature take over societal wise and kept power(and thus their wives). If you think tall and goodlooking makes you passable then you have no idea about society and are looking through the lense of female influence. Aesthetics matter more to you, but not as much to her.


Women are very impressionable socially and are similar to children mentally. They learn and operate a different way than biological men. More proficient or prone to being; Subservient(which is why they excell in rule-following forms of academia), socially interested, impressionable and subject to subjective emotional bias. Anyways, i find it interesting why we can see in society, women or homosexual(or low T/intersex) men who are often in gatekeeping positions of power ,fame, money, and caste. Theres a reason for this. Women are generally are more influenced socially then biological men, better at following and creating a social acceptance to rule. Less divergent in thought. The male mind is more proficient or prone to being sidedly; independent(energetic to strive for freedom), deviant etc. Its been like this for a long time. Even old kings were known to have eunuchs around them instead of men in the courts due to the nature of men.

So its not just white or black. All women will naturally be programmable to propaganda, and especially social effects. Modern societys culture is their safe haven. So if the media and such tools that determine society's culture, exclusively advertise black or white men as sexy, then guess what comes next. Just look at the covid vaccine fiasco. Additionally, a women's main attraction comes from preselection. Things that imply attraction such as caste, status, wealth, money, looks. Does not have to exclusively be logically beneficial or objectively attractive traits. This is also a key to how to truly be attractive to women(also why babyalien can pull more women than 99% of people on this forum). To top it off, humanity is strongly attracted to unrighteousness, as carnality and the ways of the flesh are strongly associated with wickedness, thus wickedness more familiar and impressionable to the person than other moral levels.

Combine this with media that loves to garnish minorities who display deviantly exciting forms of poverty influenced behaviors, and you have a really interesting situation.
The most popular forms of media is hip hop and pop. Hip hop is majorly black . This sort of lights the impressionable brain that black people (as the amalgamation of western melanated people, regardless of actual ethnicity or facial looks), share the same SMV caste wise to the medias representation, especially if the person prolificates/displays the same archetypes that are socially known to be popular. This is why people say that if your not thugmaxxed as a black guy then your basically incel tier.

Think of all the old age beauty standards that we in todays time see as shit. Also think of all the supermodel faces you and people here call stacy yet i think are actually very masculine and intersex. Attraction is truly subjective, but its mainly influenced socially. Im not saying black people are ugly, but if you look at the fact that less than 50 years ago black people were considered monkeys and ugly to women, its very very very easy to see what caused the change. Media.


I think the vast majority of incels are high disgust standard-cels with more feminised sexuality than most men. We already know women are mostly Chad or HTN+ only, but that’s reasonable because they have the desirability to be so.

A lot of men get fuck all from women they are actually attracted to but the masculine imperative is to fuck by any means necessary. High disgust high inhib incels however, have adopted the female sexuality without the desirability to back it up.
Ironically this is the case i observed too.

Thats why a lot of people who are known to be traditionally incel still rave over stacy and becky, or oogle around rating men and women. I noticed them to be just as standardly hypergamous, without the actual masculine nature that equalizes the women aesthetic across board. To me, theres no such thing as a 10/10 or 1/10 women. This lack of fulfillment in the feminine hypergamous nature is what creates that typical feminine pattern i see so often with men who complain about how they cant be chad. Being traditionally masculine while still holding a high disgust leads to another form of reaction that is not "why cant he be me". This is the true level as it curbs the desirability problem through masculine imperatives.

Im conflicted about female desirability. I dont think they should have as much desirability. Its the feminine hypergamous nature within those starved men that help create such a thing. I also think its artificially inflated with social structures that favor the female nature. Truth is, men are biologically rarer than women, even moreso mentally and sex preference wise. So to me, its not reasonable for them to be hypergamous torwards an excusive class of men, considering their perception of exclusivity is relative. It was never reasonable and is always relative, and this is why men should (and have in the past) totally dominate the sexual market, even if it was by force. Like disregarding a childs cries when you take him out of the candy store. Its for their own good.


The concept of a common adversary as a unifying force in society is a notion that has been observed throughout history. The idea is that by having an external "enemy," whether it be a person, a group, or an ideology, the internal members of a community can strengthen their bonds with each other, focusing on this shared opposition rather than their internal differences. This external threat becomes a rallying point, a reason for solidarity, reducing the likelihood of conflicts within the group. My theory is that similarly, in building long-lasting relationships between individuals, a shared adversary or challenge can create a strong bond. Partners may find common ground and mutual understanding when faced with an outside force that tests their unity, encouraging cooperation and deeper connection.


W have a chameleon nature where they will learn and know the bad parts about their nature yet keep it "hidden" (conflict of interest). Part of the reason the exposed pilled information was led by mens revelations. Its like how you have a girl in a guys friend group who acts like the bros just to go around and tell her female friend group about men behaviors and such. The latter rarely happens. Its probably a nature within them built to ensure protection. On the bad side, they also have a tendency to not know shit about what they are saying and move their bais based on emotional reaction. Id say this is more biological and an estrogenic (female hormone) effect. Add that emotional bias and female nature, to the conflict of interest, to thirsty men, to harsh truths, to matriarchally dominated social structures, and you'd see this forum gone within a few months. Hence why women on this forum will eventually turn this into a shitshow. Hence why its easy to see who is male or female sometimes even based on the quality and types of post. At best this will overnight turn into a club. Also they are groups of intersex or gay/feminist women who actively sub out these types of mens communities. For whatever reason (sometimes due to cause-effect of hypergamous nature), (or even because of the significant pool of intersex men mascaraing as the rare biological men) they show a strong dislike towards men. Going as far to push the categorization of pilled truth subjects socially, under derogative labels. Just like how they labeled redpill/blackpill content "incel". Or how people who predict the goverments or wistleblow are considered socially, conspiracy theorists. Socially, they work to sort of disrupt and disturb mens spaces of this nature. Most people have no clue on what a real masculine nature is and will just label anything of this nature mysogonist or "hateful", despite the facts and statistics. Wheather its emotional bias, conflict of interest or whatever, theres a lot of reasons why this happens. Some of it is automatically encoded in their nature and DNA. It can also be a combination of all these factors. For example, subservience and this worlds natural Ai which ensures humanities progression, is observed to cull men and use women/matriarchy as a way to gatekeep excessive diversion/the (naturally proficient) male nature of mental and moral precision. This is just an example. More factors could be at play. Also, like i said before, women have a conflict of interest when it comes to subjects such as bad male nature (beta) bad female nature (feministic) and other such subjects, as they quite literally enjoy the wine of their fruit in todays time. Speaking up and encouraging mental and morally precise karmatic consequences when it comes to beta pedestaling, is for a lot of women past initial halo, seen as spiteful. Despite the behavior in itself being extremely toxic for humanity, for the male, and for society in general. They are similar cases where we can observe where we see this same conflict of interest.


Always has been like this. Love does not source itself within animals. The animal body is a automatous being. Although natural and not something like a iron artificial robot, explaining love as the ways of the body (male or female) is like observing a packaging machine to have the capability of love. Everything the carnal man and women think is love is usually sensuality or influenced by it. Giving, kissing, cuddling, sex. Its all sensuality. Its for the body. Just like how sensuality is a derivative of love, but love itself is not limited to sensuality. The capabilities of love in the human body is vastly limited and will ultimately revolve around neediness, as the human body is in a perpetual state of need, suffering, motion, decay etc. So we can only truly imply love. Some are better than others when it comes to love. Sometimes, the less sensual the derivative of love you display, the greater the essence of "love". This is why one of the greatest forms of love are known to come in a way where the reciprocate party may dislike or not agree emotionally or physically, with your action or behavior (like telling harsh truths, or mentally having the best interest for a kid).
Love is something far more complex, and in a way, love is already at full capacity as love can be described in essence, as intent. Life itself is love, and things like hate, sensuality, are also synonymous or derivatives of love.
This modern day level of love of money and resources is a real animalistic and carnal form of love. Its needy, just like the body. Its not respectable to me for a human being with a functioning consciousness to act like this. But regardless, Im no animal abuser so im not that proactive of harm, or eradication. Its just that people with these level of consciousness should not represent or be put in the position to influence others to share the same view (reason why i dislike carnality, because it proves to be the most influential behaviors). Even so, this behavior is as a animal, and people ultimately prove how they should be treated based on their level of consciousness and mental and moral precision. But to determine that, it depends. For SOME women though, paypig behavior is a common theme. Its despicable, and in most cases a telling sign of their level of consciousness as their QOL and nature relative to the male species more easily reveals their own actions and behaviors that led to this form of love to show fruit (same reason causes of such behaviors and views are so commonly predicted by many people in pilled communities).


Intersex conditions have their brain wired both sides.

That transgender statement of configuration has some truth into it, but its lacking important information. They underestimate the system we call the body. Science does also. The body is extremely complex and almost falls under the quote "physicist Emerson Pugh famously said, “If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

Think of all the electrons, atomic systems that work together, and the almost impossibly large amount of micro and macro chemicals that react with each other to create a functioning system. Testosterone and estrogen are simply the macros. Those chemicals are not even close to the only ones that actually make a man or a women, musicalized or fem. Things like DHT, Control Hormones, and other varying androgens and the varying ratios between male and female are not mentioned but are very important. This is why you cant turn a man into a women, or a women to a man via hormones or by cutting of your dick etc. If anything, the only chance you have at actually sharing both traits is intersex, and that runs though biology and genetics itself. This process is secretly referred to as "in utero"

The key is intersex. This is a personal observation, but i can see clearly that society is increasingly intersex. They are a lot of variables that would come to play. There is Evidence that shows how endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment can cause reproductive variation through dysregulation of normal reproductive tissue differentiation, growth, and maturation if the fetus is exposed to EDCs during critical developmental times in utero. But common sense, nature, humanities history, GMOs, will show you how quality of the seed will always change and vary (usually for the worst unless intently preserved, which does not happen in a society that loves the opposite of mental and moral precision). Same applies to the human body.

Anyways, even people with intersex conditions are not completely 50/50 male/female, though they are some that get close. And, if my suspicion is right, i think that the majority of human males do have intersex conditions, Maybe not entirely physical and sometimes mentally, (though, you can still observe the excessive curves in most males vs a authentic transgender, or lack of jaw in males but prevalent jaws in women models as as well as transgenders)),,,as the male biology has always since the start been rarer to produce and procure. And they are no mistakes in nature. No feature that does not have meaning behind it. Anyways, so i think the case is likely a significant amount of actual intersex women mascaraing as men, as well as the pool of regular women, intersex women, and then intersex men. The order of prevalent percentage in that order also, making authentic biologicals males (physically and mentally), very rare or last on the list. You can easily prove this by comparing and mixing traits of pre estrogen transgenders to your average men and women. You will very quickly observe prevalent traits in T men, that are not as common with your average men, and some traits of T men, which are common with average women. Reverse this process and you can reverse mix traits and eventually have a pool of different traits of males and female. Do the data right, and they will be certain types of men (physically) that you seriously do not see often. Its like how NFTs have different rarity percentages. And this isn't even classifying mental effects (since sex hormones effect the shape of your body and features), which would make the pool even more significant. So unlike what the transgender in your post said, the configurations don't stop at male/female. This is the simple delusional way of looking at it. And perhaps it should not even start with those 2 categories either.

This means a significant pool of men who are more prone to turning the other way or being attracted to the womenly way of thinking and fem nature, and also things like intersex women who associate themselves to the masculine way of thinking and such. This is clearly observed today. They are also varying studies and terms that describe this attachment of behavior like women are wonderful effect, and other observations. Then on top of that, you have the "be yourself" propaganda media which deliberately lures men to become more feminine, plus the other factors such as the significantly dominating matriarchal systems placed in modern society, which make it extremely hard to live as a male and associate yourself to the masculine mental and moral precision way of thinking. This is why i think they are a significant boost of transgenders and DL gay people.


The books of people who tried to find god should have never been introduced to normies. Its not something your average person can comprehend lest it turns into some low IQ fem/carnal slave following shit where the actual content is tossed to the side and instead is replaced with "religion" aka a social group and order that social vamps join to play around and pass time.

The books of people who tried to find god is not something your average person can comprehend lest it turns into some low IQ fem/carnal slave following shit where the actual content is tossed to the side and instead is replaced with "religion" aka a social group and order that social vamps join to play around and pass time. It has derivatives of truth but it isnt the meat of the content. Sadly though, these derivatives become more of a popular take than the meat, which influences others to share the same rock IQ takes.

Thats why you have so many people who say jesus this and jesus that as a person, not even knowing "jesus" was best used as a figurative of. Because obviously the name jesus was probably not the same name that was first introduced in the writing. Its the same with all the other religious books. If you pay attention, the redundancy becomes obvious. Good content and information turns into carnal worship and shit when these types of people blindly interpret it. "Grass is green because of chlorophyll" turns into, "grass is green because god loves you" Both could be correct, but ultimately it depends on how deep your knowledge about the situation is. And the way information works, it can get infinitely deep. The only problem in todays time ab religious thinking, is that theres no accurate foundation nor accurate progression to the knowledge of the situation. So you have people saying grass is green because chrorophyll and then you have people saying grass is green because god loves you, and none of them recons the level of understanding in both (how both of them can be true, but one more practical and considered a progression of intelligence in todays time).

You learn not to touch fire when you are a kid because your mom warns you about it. Then you learn again that you shouldnt touch it because fire is hot. Then as you get older, you learn again the science of why fire is hot, and as you get even older, you learn the science of what happens when you touch it etc. This happens repeatedly. But the issue with the books of religion is tricky, as many dont learn past the elementary infant stage, and the whole matter just becomes low IQ and non practical. So we have wars and shit, (according to the book) end time prophecies and whatnot going on, yet theres no coherence or understanding between it all with these people as they are either missing prerequisites, or further understanding.


This. By default, there will always be a massive power imbalance in a relationship that favors the woman. She can leave the relationship at any point and immediately have hundreds of other men being willing to be in a relationship with her, whereas 95% of men will never have this kind of opportunity. It creates an emotional dependence from the man on the women and compels him to be desperately submissive to her and make concessions to keep her around.

Women have no objection to taking advantage of these power imbalances when it favors themselves though. It's only a problem when men do it. Feminism in a nutshell.

That whole sub should be deleted from reddit. Its a mockery to people who actually have legitimate issues with dating and such. Most of it is relative entitlement. People who are eating grass fed ribeye complaining about never having wagyu.

Just scroll down. Many posts are about them not having "as much" attention as what pretty girls have had. I see claims with these same women claiming they get male gaze, and that they are trying to remove themselves from it. They consider it toxic. This is equivalent to a man complaining on a forum that women actually talk to them or even consider then irl. It makes no sense and ive noticed these types of women spaces are made from spite. Like purplepill debate, pinkpill, women going their own way. Its always a reaction or derivative from authentic male movements. Theres a reason why these pilled movements orgin primarily by men. Its because statistically and logically, men actually do have issues with these things.

The main problems is what women(and most people) think love is. Love as a human, is sensuality. To the human body, sensuality is love.
Men who want to have sex with you is fulfilling the requirements of sensuality they so so desire. This is why men say these women dont want to be loved, they want to be worshiped. Because actual "love" is something that everyone has without exception, and does not require sensuality and shit like constant stimulus. Love(or even derivatives of love such as hate) is akin to the act of consciousness and life itself. Proof of intent.
But human(body) love is sensuality, and this is something all of these women get to significant degrees, yet they are unable to recognize it. Instead they call it toxic. So its not like they dont have love, its that they are tired of this certain form of it. And lets not even go into how man and women work differently biologically, and how libido works. The whole concept of "he only wants me for my body, actually makes no sense at all". As people who say this fail to recognize that they are in the body.

What they desire so much is moreso of a different type of sensuality, a worship. hence why i compare their experiences of human love akin to a spoiled child. If your desired sexually by men, regardless of how toxic you think it is, regardless of how much you hate those groups or types of men, its not a problem with you not being desired, its something other than that. Its preference of the type of "love" your getting. The issue is that they dont admit this and try to act as if incels or men spaces of the same subject are on the same level.

And to top it off, they are relationship focused. Inceldom is more about relationships, its about socioeconomic status and shit too. Like how your biological composition affects what jobs you get, what your expected to do in life, friends and family and other life/death situations. Factually, 80% of men are in general, at a worst place in todays society compared to every single women. There's even syndromes and studied terms that probes this (like women are wonderful effect)

Real incel categories are things like not being sexually attractive statistically to the opposite gender. No sex, nobody wanting to have sex. Also things even branching out past just sexual attraction. Everyone has these issues, but the real issue is that a extremely significant more amount of males that have it than women, and that the discussion of the causes behind them are always blotted.
This is why i can sympathize with the male inceldom as it makes more sense, its not someone eating steak dinner and complaining about apple pie, its not someone eating shitty McDonald meals and not having steakhouse. Its someone not even having leftovers and crumbs to eat at all. Its a total non negotiable lack of life quality, no options. Though, i do believe women inceldoom could exist, i think if we remove a lot of those psudo classifications with ideas that people have not understood like "men only want to have sex with me, not "love" me""... or emotional triggers, it would be significantly less women who actually fit the bill of being incel. Id think this group would be primarily transgender's, people with mental personal conflicts, people who are widely deformed, or extremely obese to the point of high risk. Not people who have preferences.


We live in a very gynocentric society that is sexist against men. To give a few examples, men get longer prison sentences, are convicted at higher rates for the same crimes, and receive longer sentences for killing women than for killing men. (i.e. men are disposable)

We always assume men to be the aggressor in any encounter. Women actually commit more domestic violence than men, yet we always assume it's the man who is abusive. Another example, "My husband tells me what I should wear" Sounds bad right? How about "My wife tells me what I should wear." The first sounds worse because we assume that a man with some power in the relationship will abuse his power, but we don't assume the same for women.

Men have to be extraordinarily careful not to sound like they are blaming women whenever they vent any sort of frustration or emotion. For instance, "Why do women like that asshole and not me?" is something that you might find mocked in r/niceguys or r/justneckbeardthings. Yet if a woman says something like "Why does that guy like the hot girl but not me?" she would be most likely receive sympathy. Men have to be super careful in choosing their words, which is ironic because we encourage men to express their emotions more. Yet when they do, we shame them for it.

Male sexuality is considered shameful. Men are considered creepy if they have a blow up doll, for an example. Yet it's perfectly normal for a woman to have a collection of dildos. Men are shamed if they date much younger women, even if she is a consenting adult.

Perhaps this isn't too controversial, but women are attracted to status, masculinity, power, and good looks. They are more attracted to a man if other women want him. They are no less superficial in their sexual preferences than men. Weakness is unattractive to women. Being an emotional, sensitive man is a death sentence in the dating world.

RPillers have a right to be angry and upset because men are almost always blamed for everything. They are assumed to be the bad guy. TRP is the one place that they can get relief from this and where women can be the bad guy for once. I also feel like all women are partially responsible for their state. We should have been the ones to stand up and defend men. Men have a hard time standing up for themselves without being perceived as weak or misogynist.

The more power the man has in the relationship, the longer the relationship lasts and the more power the woman has, the unhappier the relationship.


@ProklysmosThe "never change" thing is pretty strange to me. There have been numerous times in my life where I've had people call me out for expressing opinions or behaving in a way that contradicts things I said or did when I was much younger. It felt like they were basically pulling a "gotcha" or attacking me for changing over time. Some people actually do stop becoming more mature or mentally developing at a younger age than other people. Those are the kind of people who have "immature" thoughts, temperament, and interests long into their adult lives. One example I'm thinking of is when I recently told my 30 year old sister that paying $400 to get her hair dyed seemed excessive to me, she brought up how when I was a teenager I would pay to get haircuts at a relatively expensive barber shop. I responded by saying something like, "yeah, but I was immature and materialistic back then" and she got offended. This same sister still listens to the same pop music she listened to back then 15+ years ago. She bought tickets to a Taylor Swift concert in 2020, but the tour got cancelled due to Covid. This year she got free tickets for the redo tour, but the resale price of the average ticket was ultra-inflated because people had been waiting for 3 years. I asked my sister how much the tickets were going for online, but she wouldn't tell me. I asked, "what, $1000?" she laughed and said no. 1500? She laughed again. 2000? She shook her head and made it obvious she didn't want me to keep asking. They were tickets for good seats in a Los Angeles tour date, so they were definitely somewhere between like $2500 and $5000 a piece. And she had two tickets for herself and her fiance. So they passed up on a free $5000 at minimum because she was very attached to a pop culture fantasy experience she's been living since the 00's. She and her fiance have been engaged for several years now, postponing the wedding for financial reasons, and they have put off having children because they don't think they've got enough money for that either. Sorry, wall of text for illustration purposes, basically I agree with a lot of what you're describing here. Our mother is extremely narcissistic and I worry that my two sisters acquired a lot of her traits, though they aren't nearly as toxic.


People who always complain about not being loved despite going through so many relationships. You see this commonly with narcy women and carnal men. Loved??? No they want to be worshipped they want to cause stress while you shoulder it, want to hold you to traditional gender roles while seeking liberation from the traditional balance to those roles, thjen claim you’re not a real if you question the hypocrisy do you not hear the attitude


A surprisingly interesting subject. For my entire life I had accepted the conventional wisdom that men and women had the same IQs on average, but that men had a greater variance, thus there were 3x as many men that scored as Genius on IQ tests (and presumably 3x as many men that scored as idiots, but that part was never clearly elucidated). But there is a huge problem with the data set, it is based almost exclusively on 18-22 year olds, and just presumes that IQ is fixed throughout life for each sex. And it appears the tests were manipulated to exclude questions that men scored considerably better on than women.


shapeshift nature of women into anything they want, this is why people dont see the truth about female nature correctly especially the nature the word speaks of.

The nature of women and male nature is automatic. the reason i feel some way about fem or male content that reveals truth about feminism or whatever is because my association to this animal. After the spiritual disassociation it becomes like looking at how animals in the field work, like learning about horses and whatnot. My anger or emotion is moreso about my situation of animalistic domination.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
  • Love it
  • JFL
Reactions: mogstars, rusian, darktriadmogger123 and 17 others
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: Christiano, Shrekguy3838, humanoidsub7 and 13 others
nice book
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Xangsane, tombradylover, TB1997 and 10 others
Great thread! I'll read it later
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Xangsane, scrunchables, TB1997 and 7 others
Hey.
Here's a compilation of truth/conspiracy/female nature/blackpill etc/ posts submitted and typed by various ORG users across this and other platforms.

Lately, i have noticed there has been reports of this forum to bad actors, as well as observable server downtime. For this reason, i think it may be beneficial to amalgamate high effort discussions and posts, so that if one day this forum goes bye bye, it could still be possible to reintroduce these posts and topics to the next boat. Feel free to copypaste/archive these texts or add to the collection. Also, i apologize if i fail to source you or the original author in some texts. A lot of sourcing information is lost in translation.

WARNING. LONG TEXT POSTS.















I'm not missing that fact, its just that emotions don't mean anything, everyone has them and they don't really have any importance except to that individual. Except the real world is unforgiving no matter who you are which is why we have to judge things objectively and not through each persons individual lense. If you want to treat women as children that get stressed out and struggle with minor things then they should also have all rights and responsibilities stripped down to a child like level. You cant give women all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men while simultaneously claiming that they need to be constantly forgiven and made special care for because they're actually incapable of handling all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men.

Capable people and incapable people should be treated accordingly and the instant you start straying from this, it can only result in incapable people being thrust into positions that they should never have been in and cant handle. Unconditionally forgiving women's flaws for no other reason than "its their nature" is as ridiculous as saying men should be allowed to rape and murder at will because its "in their nature" and we should just be understanding of that. The purpose of civilization is to overcome nature which is why we place rules and expectations on peoples behavior instead of just allowing them to act however they want at any given moment

But there's literally no need to understand the emotional perspective of an individual since it doesn't matter. How is any one individuals emotions relevant to anything that actually takes place in the real world? Understanding women is very easy and every culture in human history came to the same conclusions: if women, or anyone for that matter, are not capable of getting over themselves and thinking/behaving rationally instead of being slaves to their emotions then what they think or say doesn't matter. Not everyone's perspective is important, especially people who can only see things from the lens of their own emotions and ego instead of just seeing things the way they are

A good example of this is your own response. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it or not, civilization is the opposite of a natural state and cannot exist without controlling peoples nature and their base instinctual urges which is why every civilization in human history has had strict laws and rules on what people are allowed to do and not to do. You don't have to like it and it also doesn't matter whether you do but the more civilization advances, the further and further we are removed from our natural state. It is unhealthy to go too far over the edge but its still happening anyway and will continue to happen. This is achievable, every first world country on the planet currently operates like this and areas of the world that did not set increasingly strict control on human behaviors never developed past the third world because everyone constantly engaged in their most primitive urges with no sense of order which makes it impossible to advance

If rape and murder were not a part of human nature then why do they exist so commonly through human history and why has every properly established culture have laws against them? An example of what's not a part of human nature is grazing in a field or swimming up stream to birth a bunch of eggs. It doesn't matter how you feel about rape or violence, they are a part of human nature and that's why we create laws to control and prevent it. Entirely hypocritical to say that civilization is not about conquering nature and then say that rape and murder is "beastly" when in our most primitive and pre-civilisation eras, these things were extremely common. Go to any third world country on the world where there is a breakdown of infrastructure making it difficult to control the worst of human behavior and you'll see just how common it all is


evil can sometimes be described as militant ignorance. the original concept of sin is a process that leads us to miss the mark and fall short of perfection. While most people are conscious of this, at some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness check. Those that are evil attempt to escape and hide from their own conscience (though means like self deception and such etc.). Now thing of the evil of see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil archetypes. The unwilling to listen to clear truth and such. Ignorant mindsets in todays time where people actively and popularly disregard and have a sort of "happiness to disregard" things of good consciousness.

Antichrist was never referred to be a person, but instead a spirit. They are many people with the antichrist spirit.

Donald Trump just posted this image on his Instagram page. Many will say this picture represents Jesus being by his side through persecution. That is not what this photo represents. This is Trump’s persecution being likened to Jesus’s persecution, as has been done many times before by many including his son, Donald Trump Jr as I’ve pointed out before. Make no mistake, Trump in his heart believes he is a Christ-like, messiah figure that will save the world so he can take credit for it. Trump sees the praise and adoration Jesus receives and wants that for himself. His entire life philosophy has always been about being number 1. This is exactly why the religious zionists in his corner are and will continue to push for him to fulfill these messianic prophecies of protecting Israel and bringing peace to all nations. So that he can claim to be the messiah. Lucifer fell because of pride. And so too will the Antichrist be led into perdition. Because he magnifies himself in his heart. That’s what the biblical Antichrist is, a man with the prideful characteristics of Lucifer who tries to be Jesus. This is exactly the strong delusion talked about in 2 Thessalonians 2:11. Keep your eyes and heart on Jesus Christ alone, and look not to earthly princes to save you.


@justlolatthisworld7917 "Einstein" means "a rock" in German. "Einstein" was literally "as dumb as a rock". Open mocking in plain sight. I thought of this yesterday and it made me think of you anon, since I've heard you rightfully mention how Einstein was a literal moron.


Honestly its a lot of complication in the bible. Many things are not to be taken literal, or to be taken BOTH literal AND nonliteral. And i dont think this is because the bible was made to be inherently complicated, but even moreso the fact that language translations lose meanings overtimes. This is the reason strongs concordance exists.

We have to remember were reading the book in english. Theres so many double meanings in the English language, and words that categorize new meanings outside of the predecessor synonyms ETC.

For example, the beasts referenced in the bible. Clearly that is not literal but moreso referencing a country/system (technology hub in todays time) sort of thing. Christ was also implied to be the living law. Its even hard right now to explain in words.

But the point im trying to make is, i think the whole categorization of "demon", to a singular independent being, is kind of shallow thinking. The word demon is limited to what we learn about it. For many, this means some singular metaphysical deity. But lets look at it from a physical perspective. There has to be a system to everything. Thats the physical world we live in. Anything that materializes or influences behavior in such a manner has to sort of have some sort of physical(or metaphysical) process to incept or influence. Especially a demon, which has questionable authority over life. For example, the body in itself i guess could be a called a demon, or a host of wickedness, and that being dedicated to fulfilling the bodys desires leaves you "possessesed" into the bodies lusts. Hence why demons and body sickness are strongly correlated. Technically all of the prerequisite boxes would check off. Meaning the fruit of the "demons" which is posession (leaving you to do its own will, weather the lust is the satification for abusing, or all the other carnalities that people grow to adapt and be proficient in).

Not saying this is exactly how things work, but just to give a perspective. I feel like your question in itself is too narrow and it reminds me that sometimes the confusion is not in truth, but perspective of whats actually going on.


You lot of you would be better off learning how to be more cunning in society as that's how most social normies operate.
Also realising how they are taken by appearances. Not just appearance of your look but appearance of your general demeanour, as they use this to both gage how good life is going for you and whether you are a social success.
Learning that beauty standards are higher in major cities like London, LA, Miami, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Toronto, Sydney etc. No shit. It's a city. The rate race is stronger.
Most normies are not that talented at much. They just conform with mannerisms, slang, mainstream ideological narratives, shit they wear and what they believe in. They are followers and very agreeable until they see you being disagreeable to popular culture. They aren't that insightful, interesting or humorous.
Even guys with their own minds and that are not followers learn this. Unless you are making a deeper connection with a person, all that matters is how you appear on the surface. And if they are a matrix plugged in normie you should not even be making a deeper connection. They should be your associate to connections.
Realise everything is about immediate identifiable perception with normies. While you might be more open minded before sussing what somebody is all about, they ain't the same way lol. They are so plugged in that they run on autopilot and everyone needs to be in a box that they can understand otherwise something is off and fishy about them. So identify yourself before they identify you and treat you the way they think you are. This is very subtle.
And yes if you are someone bordering on chadlite you will be even more under this scrutiny, because the last thing a normie wants to see is a guy that looks stand out good and is not plugged into normie wavelength of communication


This is because the concept of being a "loser" was created to shame men by other men. Men created the concept of being a "loser". Now, since women hold so much power in society and the dating market the idea of being a loser has shifted toward a more superficial end. Where you were judged in the past by other men, now you are judged mostly by women who aren't rational and will judge you off how you look rather then what you do. Men in power are meritocratic, whereas women in power are emotionally unstable eugenicists. Whats worse is there is now no checks and balances to control these power that women hold. Affirming these ridiculous, and useless standards for an actual flourishing society.


About trying to settle the deal about inceldoom to official channels. They have there own skin in the game to keep this ideology from spreading. Skimming the paper, It doesn't seem to really consider WHY this ideology is becoming popular, just how to stop if from doing so. Now, it is written in a journal of criminology so I can see the reasoning, but why is it even in a journal like that in the first place? You would think a sociological or cultural journal would be better. They only wish to understand the blackpill because it's becoming a threat to the social order, and to women. I would be more sympathetic to these authors (both of whom are women, which could lead to some subconcious bias) if they would try to consider the plight of these men that fall into this ideology, but all it appears to be is more damage control from a system that is inherently against men's interests and intends on fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.
This.


when it comes to animals (carnal humans), a human (in this case a "spiritual" focused person) needs to cage them up or structure them somehow less they themselves get killed or affected by animalistic behavior. Why do you think religion is always what follows after truth seeker movements, after the few individuals that actually gave a crap about truth. Thats why i call it a derivative. Pest control. Carnality is the way of the animal. Religion is the ordinance of the animal nature. Islam, christianity, whatever. Its the same thing. And they are all flawed. The frustration behind the argument for your religion is misdirected and carnal imo.


Cancer growth and metastasis in a fueled by the immune system being in a hyper allergen state (TH2).
Fasting greatly reduces allergic reactions to food, promoting a TH1 mediated immune response which is required for cancer cell clearance.
Excess histamine = Excess cortisol = Estrogen dominance = TH2 mediated immune response.
Liver and gallbladder function play a crucial role in these issues.
The problem is, when the allergen sensitivities stop, and TH1 mediated immune response turns back, the immune system will start going after any latent infections you were harboring.
This is known in holistic health circles as a “healing crisis”.


I don't wanna bring a son who will suffer in a matriarchal society or a daughter who would turn to OF hoe while i can't do nothing, we need to keep old school ideologies, it's even helps against hypergamy
Your better of creating or starting your own movement. Islam is already toast. Its doing what its always done. But for the animal, a country sized fence is almost as if it were no fence at all. Its going to have to be a new religion or derivative. Ultimately to get the attention of the carnal nature your going to have to use different tactics. Marketing, deception, favoritism etc. Look at how "hebrew isrealites" secluded the bible and used the race bait as a pull.


Areas with high population density (many people in an area) and high interaction (something as simple as seeing someone, even online or on a newspaper counts as an interaction, independent of if they know them or not) creates inequality. The more dense and the more interactions, the worse the inequality.
This is because, if there's a group of 5 people, things are more equal in every domain compared to if there were 500, or 5 million or 5 billion. The more people, the more outliers there are. These outliers create inequality (economic, dating, etc.)
The population density allows people to see the gap of their situation to their outliers. This outlier affects the normie.
High population creates outliers.
High population density allows people to be aware of the outliers.
These environments created what John B. Calhoun called "behavioral sinks". Basically, a behavioral sink is a collapse in productive social behavior, where increased negative emotions, disrupted social structures, and abnormal behaviors prevail.
The rats formed social and dating hierarchies, Chads got the women and the non-Chads usually either...
  • Developed non-straight sexualities
  • Became timid, weak, apathetic, withdrawn asexual hikikomoris/neets (adolescents and young adults who become recluses in their parents' homes, isolated from society)
  • Or desperate, erratic and unsuccessful (pickup autists and redpill roaches)
Chads became aggressive, and since the non-Chads were all withdrawn from society and responsibility, the women had to fend for themselves and protect Chad's children (with humans, it's either the cucked normie's child or she's childless, since Chad doesn't want to reproduce with her, only sex). The female rats became aggressive, neglectful of their children, and non-motherly.
Infant mortality rose due to neglect, male and female rats gave up on dating due to discontent and negative emotions, birth rates dropped, and the new and smaller children grew up to be asexual since they never really learned sexual behaviors due to their parents giving up on mating. The rat society aged to death due to population collapse and low birth rates.
Of course, this isn't perfectly applicable to humans, remember that. For humans, economic, and other kinds of inequalities also play a major role in behavioral sinks, but if if the trajectory of society keeps going where it's going, we could very well get a comparable result as human beings to what the rats got. Birth rates are plummeting and our societies are mentally ill, just like the rats.

Anyways, Why am I showing you all of this?

Because dating environments differ in blackpill severities. Due to population density and population count.
There could be "tiers" to the blackpill.
Basically, in some dating environments, you'll need to literally be perfect, in other environments, you have to be HTN at least.
Also, consider that the fact that dating environments men and women have been in the past also can influence their mating decisions.


Anti oxidants can actually be pro oxidants if you have mitochondrial membrane complex issues or NAD metabolic problems / imbalance with age.
How do free radicals get quenched and removed from the body? The body cleaves electrons off of the substance, reducing its reactivity, making it less dangerous and easier to incorporate or dispose of.
But what happens if large amounts of anti oxidants rapidly quench and reduce free radicals and pollutants in the body, releasing massive amounts of electrons?
Normally, those electrons would be shuttled into the electron transport chain and used to make ATP. But, as you get older, or if you have mitochondrial membrane complex 1 to 4 issues, your body is less able to handle a flood of electrons.
This can lead to metabolic bottle necks or even overflows.
What does this mean? Those electrons can lead to a flood of hydrogen peroxide in the body. If the H2O2 levels overwhelm the ability of Catalase to quench it all down to water; If it builds up: greying hair, stem cell issues, mtdna number decreases and telemorase issues, leading to lowered maximum replicative lifespan of stem cells and mitochondria.
Rapidly increased aging.
Vitamin E, a powerful anti oxidant, can significantly lower lifespan. The studies can never accurately tell you why. I can. It's the overwhelming flood of electrons into the ECC.
Resolving electron transport chain issues is important for healthy aging.
As for NAD+ and Nadh. NADh is an electron donor. If you have too high NADh, it shows metabolic disorder. Shows you have electron transport chain issues.
If you don't resolve them, it's possible supplementing NAD will just rapidly convert to NADh, adding fuel to metabolic fire.
The fix for that, in leiu of fixing the electron transport chain, is combining all anti oxidants with electron acceptors or getting more in the diet.
They can mop them up, order them properly, recycle them for use, or help dispose of them.
We need more electron acceptors and less electron donors in our diets. Especially when combined with NAD or anti oxidants.


I dislike most quotes and similar forms of socially popular truth "memes" shared online.
Theres no influence of truthful behavior (teaching people their own faults and to not do the same) without proactive and introspectively constructive honesty. Without this constructive honesty, there becomes a influx of people who highlight other people who know the truth, but are not even honest enough to recognize their own behavior and warn against that instead, as that would require actually knowing (being proactive and introspectively constructive), and not just speculative or socially influenced to think or perceive. When women or men repost or rethink about common troupes against each other, they don't really have any intellectual depth, but is sort of low effort, simple minded bait content used to alleviate common (sometimes unaware, or misguilded) frustrations. The reason i dislike this, is because its not coming from a place where the individual (viewer or even reposter) is actually self reflective on their own behavior that may have enabled such frustrations to occur, thus usually no intellectual response from the poster thus, usually no intellectual discussion or gain to the viewer. Think of the common trope that; “men are not shit”. Or even low iq incel bait posts like “women are this” etc, where the lack of intellectual discussion (in depth questions such as why, how, what, etc) do not occur on an individual level due to the format of the post not engaging the viewer to do such. I highlighted proactive honesty because only when a person is able to be proactively honest and introspective about these questions, and are honest about their behavior that may or may not enable such things, real discussion and data analysis can occur, Instead of just reposting. Think of how airplane investigations work. Constructive analysis where there is no side taken, where the women or man admit (be honest) of their behavior and the data is unbiasedly discussed and analyzed for accuracy and future correction. But of course this does not happen with these posts, nor does the UX structure (or even sentencing format the OP would use to create simple posts) allow introspective discussion or constructive analysis to happen. People see it, agree with it, and move on. Holding tight the building frustration until eventually the simple frustration becomes a trigger of hatred, regardless of if that person is actually enabling their own frustrations or not (which may often be the case). For this reason i strongly recommend and prefer data rich communication, no matter how "long", "aspie, autistic, or socially weird it may seem. Ultimately when working with data, its best to receive the best quality.


The following text was taken from the website “Shedding of the Ego” by Mr. K and reviewed by Savage, it's been adapted by John Cracovizk (literally me) for an easier (and less MGTOW) read to my LooksMax.org fellas. The link to the original text is available in the end of the thread, good read!

1. INTRODUCTION - What is Hybristofilia? The Joker and Quinn example

"Ok, gentlemen, today we are going to discuss hybristophilia, a term that seems to me to best summarize the female penchant for the “Bad Boy”.

First, the definition of the term according to an online medical dictionary:

Hybristophilia - Paraphilia in which a person is sexually attracted to someone who has committed a bombing or horrific crime.

It may be best to start with some examples found in pop culture and work our way up to real-world examples.

Many consider the dynamic duo of the DC comics universe, the Joker and his equally psychopathic companion, Harley Quinn, to be a clear example of the “Florence Nightingale effect” (In reference to the dedication of Florence Nightingale, who many consider to be the founder of modern nursing, demonstrated in her patients).
The Florence Nightingale effect is a situation in which a caregiver develops romantic and/or sexual feelings for their patient, even though there is very little communication or contact outside of basic care. The feelings may disappear when the patient no longer needs care, whether through recovery or death.

I believe this is a misdiagnosis of Quinn, or at least only a partial diagnosis.

If you're well-versed in the origins of Joker's bitch, you'll know that Quinn started out as an asylum psychiatrist in Arkham and her name was Dr. Harleen Frances Quinzel, M.D, who was tasked during her internship with the psychoanalysis of some of the worst and greatest psychopaths and criminals of Gotham, one of which was the Joker himself. During the interview process with the Joker, Quinn was mesmerized by his Charisma (personality pilled once again
:soy:
), a trait psychopaths often cultivate to hide their true nature.

Swayed by the strength of the Joker's personality and charm, Quinn fell deeply in love with him, culminating in helping him escape, unleashing one of the most dangerous psychopaths in the DC comics universe back onto the streets (women), until she finally gave up her comfortable life as a psychiatrist and joined him on his crime spree, taking on the persona of Harley Quinn, as we know her today.

Harley Quinn suffered not only from this “Florence Nightingale effect”, but from an advanced case of hybristophilia.

Furthermore, we speculate here that hybristophilia is a condition that is still poorly understood, which appears to be categorized into a very simplistic classification of women who are hybrostophilic and women who are not hybrostophilic, without there being a middle ground between the two.
2. EVOLVING DESIRES - The Complex Relationship Between Violence and Attraction
Now, think back to our remote existence, when human beings led prehistoric, short and often violent lives.

The comforts of our modern, technologically advanced civilization simply did not exist.

The caveman, who sought to have reproductive access to the female sex, had to offer something in return.
  • He needed to assure the females he wanted to mate with that he would provide them with resources, shelter, and sustenance on a regular basis.
  • He had to be violent enough to kill enough animals to feed himself, his women, and the children he would have with them.
  • He also had to have an innate ability to kill other men who wished to move into the resource-rich land that he controlled or that was controlled by the women he had sexual access to.
To put it bluntly, violent men have been selected by women for reproduction since time immemorial, and despite the fact that we have, through a manipulation of evolutionary impulses, built a civilization that largely mitigated this burden of violence, many women still yearn for violent men.


The average woman, of course, does not want to date a violent psychopath, at least not one of the status of a serial killer like Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez. But she longs for some of that caveman violence to emerge through the civilized exteriors of the men she is occasionally attracted to. In essence, women seek to ensure their security and provision in society through a kind of standardized double assault.

Simply extracting male provision via taxpayer subsidy is not enough.

The obsession with protection and provision that we see for women is expressed on a macro scale, through the occasional application of laws involving violence against women, such as “Rape Shield Laws” and “primary aggressor laws”, etc.

Spoiler: What is a Rape Shield Law?
Spoiler: What are Primary Aggressor Laws?

These laws often do not fully consider concepts of equality, such as due process and the luxury of a legal system that presumes innocence before guilt has already been established (this made me remember of this thread of mine where I talked about how your friends would probably leave you be eaten by wolves if someone came accusing you of rape, even though there isn't any proof).

To the collective unconscious, the hive mentality that drives the female masses, due process is irrelevant, they are voting with their hindbrain and therefore vote to ensure that their most primal needs and desires are met and satiated.

The problem is that women can never be satisfied; they point out and demand more security and more provisions… always.

In this way, while female involvement leverages the electoral process in her favor, and after the legal system implements as much gynocentrism as it can handle without collapsing, the individual woman also simultaneously cultivates her particular instinct for her own protection and provision.

In the form of what we call: “Alpha Brute”.
3. THE ALPHA BRUTE - Low Inhib and Dark Triad? Yes, but also a tool for the feminine

An individual prone to violence and physically imposing enough to do a lot of harm with hostility, who is also usually not intelligent enough to understand that he is in a servile position to the woman he is involved with, existing as a hired criminal who gets paid with sexual access.

It's like a pincer attack, designed to maximize benefits for the female collective, and frankly, men's lives, health, or rights have never influenced this process in any meaningful way.
This is just gynocentrism at its maximum power.

Take the following video as an example, preceded by a quick synopsis.

> The woman enters a cafeteria and skips the line.

> The man responds to whoever was on the phone that a woman jumped the queue.

> The woman hears and immediately intimidates him by staring at him, in a very rude, incisive and, finally, violent way.

> By chance, the boyfriend, a 150 kg ex-convict, enters the conversation, and at that moment there is a brief confrontation between the man and the boyfriend.-Out of nowhere, the boyfriend [ex-convict] punches the man, beating him violently.

See for yourself.

So... what do we witness here other than a vicious attack? Well, let's start from the woman's perspective.

Let's assume, hypothetically, that this woman could have started this confrontation without her boyfriend to protect her and that the man who attacked her in self-defense after she initiated the violence.
This woman would probably have no problem trusting the front line of gynocentric protection at her disposal, that being the macro-scale protection of a police force or a white knight who jumps to her defense without even questioning who initiated the violence.

This is why women advocate for first-offender laws, as blame almost universally falls on the man in domestic violence disputes, despite evidence to the contrary, if any. Once again, women want it that way, they are not concerned with due process and equal rights for men, they are concerned with leveraging the State and strengthening their fundamental reproductive habits.

However, in this case, it was her boyfriend who was nearby, who was, for all intents and purposes, the alpha brute we've described. He is prone to violence, physically imposing, and almost seems to take pleasure in subjecting another man to the brutality he can unleash in his master's name. This is an extreme example of what all women want to some degree, community protections from non-violent men in the form of a legal system, and individual protections from violent men in the form of these thugs who are more than willing to disregard those legal protections.

This is what drives the female tendency toward hybristophilia, which appears to only be pathological in the most extreme examples, but which actually lies on a continuum.

This is a spectrum of hybristophilia that ranges from the woman who prefers a beating from her man behind closed doors, to the “serial killer fanatics” who gained notoriety for fainting with excitement in the presence of hyper-violent serial killers, such as Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez, during the fanfare of his trials.

Every woman who asks you to choke her, spank her, spank her ass, or spit on her in a safe, controlled environment during consensual sex is acting on this misunderstood desire.

She is asking you to release your inner caveman, she is asking you to become a violent weapon that she can use for her protection, and in doing so, she receives vast sexual stimulation.

I don't hate women for that, much less do I expect them to change. I believe this is an innate quality of female sexual attraction. Nor do I absolve them if they act on these impulses in some way in real causes of violence, rather than simulated, against other human beings like the woman described above.

Women who are so dependent on their primitive impulses to the point of directing one of these brutes to harm others through violence should be locked up and kept away from civilized people. But in terms of desire, of female attraction to violent men, I suspect there's very little we can do to combat that.
Spoiler: Is there a solution maybe?

We will have to understand women's tendency to select violent men and we have to manage and discourage it as best we can. And so I begin my efforts here with a simple material.

5. EXAMPLES - Abandon all hope, ye who enter here

First, we start with , the “cultural Marxism” conspiracy theorist who killed 77 souls, most of whom were young teenagers. An article titled Norway’s mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik gets hundreds of love letters a year states the following:

STOCKHOLM (AFP) — She calls him by his first name, sends him letters every week and promises to wait for him.

It could be any love story, but Victoria's heart belongs to a mass murderer: Anders Behring Breivik. Responsible for Norway's worst peacetime murder since World War II, Breivik, like many other famous killers, has his share of admirers, a phenomenon that can be accompanied by sexual attraction and, in this case, there is even a term: hybristophilia.

“I really wouldn’t want to live a life without him,” says “Victoria,” who doesn’t want her real name published. A young Swedish woman in her 20s appears distant and impassive, ignoring her fresh cup of coffee in the lobby of a Stockholm hotel. But her voice breaks when she talks about her “dear Anders”.

From a small town in Sweden, she is doing everything she can to get Breivik's prison conditions eased: he has spent the last four years isolated in a high-security penitentiary. He is currently serving a 21-year sentence, which can be extended if he is still considered a danger to society.

Breivik killed 77 people on July 22, 2011, when he detonated a bomb near government offices in Oslo and opened fire at a summer camp for young workers on the island of Utoya. For Victoria, Breivik's isolation amounts to “torture”.

“I worry about him even more now that he's in such a vulnerable situation,” she says.

Unemployed due to health problems, she writes to him to encourage him—far more than the 150 letters ever written—or sends him small gifts, including a dark blue tie that he occasionally wore during his trial. In return, she received two letters from him — which she showed to AFP — the others were blocked by prison officers tasked with censoring his correspondence.

Marriage proposals:

It is not easy to define her relationship with Breivik, a man she has never met, since all her requests to visit him were denied.
She describes him as her “old friend” and as a kind of “brotherly figure” and protector, but admits that she finds him attractive and “there were romantic interests, at first, at least on my part.”
:lul:


She says that their first contact dates back to 2007, when they met through an online game. He cut ties with her two years later, presumably to focus on planning her attacks. But in early 2012, Victoria reconnected with the man who had by then become the most hated person in Norway. And she is not alone.

The Weekly Morgenbladet (A Norwegian weekly, intellectual newspaper, covering politics, culture and science.) reported last year that Breivik receives “at least” 800 letters a year, many of them from admiring women.

During the 2012 trial, a 16-year-old girl (a JB ) asked him to marry her.

Hybristophilia is a term used by criminologists — but not scientists — to describe a sexual attraction to violent killers in prison, who often receive racy love letters or sexy underwear from their fans. Also known as “Bonnie and Clyde syndrome,” it exists across time and place, .Josef Fritzl of Austria, who held his daughter captive and repeatedly raped her for 25 years, and American killer Charles Manson also have their own fan clubs.

According to Sheila Isenberg, an American author who interviewed 30 women for her book "Women Who Love Men Who Kill", says that these admirers often have a history of sexual abuse.

“It's a chance for a woman to be in control (the man is behind bars for life and has no control over anything), when previously she was abused by her father (or) by other men,” she explained to AFP.

“Plus, it’s romance with a capital R: exciting, thrilling, a never-ending rollercoaster. Nothing dull or ordinary about these relationships.”

However, there is no scientific evidence to support the widespread belief that these women feel they are on a mission to help the killer get on the right path in life, said Amanda Vicary, assistant professor of psychology at Wesleyan University in the United States.

“Some women tend to be attracted to famous men — it's possible that the reason some women are attracted to men who have done horrible things is not so much what they did, but the fame they received from their actions,” she said.

Victoria, Meanwhile, she says she's not looking for fame. Her involvement with Breivik has already cost her relationship with her sister, who, upon learning of her ties to him, told her: “You are dead to me.” And she distanced herself from her friends. She admits to “more or less sharing” Breivik's Islamophobic ideology, but says she opposes violence.

So how can she love a man who slaughtered dozens of terrified teenagers, some of whom begged him to spare their lives?

“I think I had to separate Anders from the real Breivik. I think of Anders as my old friend and Breivik as the person who did all these things. The years pass and yet she refuses to give up on him. “I miss you more and more every day. I think my feelings got a little stronger.”
Another interesting article I stumbled across will give you some real insight into the nature of this phenomenon, titled Editorial: On Love, Sex and Murderers and it's quite long so I'll only publish the parts I judge relevant:

At the same time, we are both repelled and fascinated by studying sociopaths and their quest for blood — and most of the time, men seek women's blood. The idea of the “good” Dexter-style serial killer is relatively new, but it is a known fact that women flooded Ted Bundy with love letters, a woman married Richard Ramirez while he was in prison, and there are countless other examples. of lesser-known criminals and their fanatics. Montages with Ted Bundy? Why? We wonder why serial killers do what they do all the time - perhaps that's where the fascination begins for people who identify as "hybristophiles."

A few years ago, I met a sixteen-year-old girl (another jb, I'm starting to see a pattern
:feelsthink:
) who identified herself as Ted-Head (a Ted Bundy groupie). It was easy to ignore the romanticization of a man whose horror she had never experienced. Other interests of hers were, like many of mine, dark and subversive. My thought at the time was that one day she would grow up and realize that finding a person interesting is not the same as finding them emotionally or sexually attractive. After all, Bundy used the fact that he was a handsome man to kill women. He's not exactly the kind of guy you'd want to date (you wouldn't want to go on a date with Rodney James Alcala either, but he won The Dating Game).

I wanted to write a little about the Ted Bundy phenomenon and how it continues into a new generation. I started on a site called Bundyphile, hoping to start at the source in my efforts to write about gaining some understanding from the young women who followed Bundy (one Facebook page referred to him as “The Misunderstood Voice of a Generation”) .

The themes presented on these sites were repetitive:

Bundy wasn’t “that bad.”

Bundy was misunderstood.

Yes, what Bundy did was wrong, but you can love and admire him without idolizing his crimes.

Many of the women and girls who are obsessed with Bundy and other serial killers seem to think that they could be the special person who would change or train them, or be “the one” who would be there for them and stop all the bad things that happenned. In one blog entry, a woman calling herself “Lolita” proclaims, in all caps for all to see, “EITHER WAY, IF MY OWN DEATH COULD FILL TED BOUNDY’S HOLLOW SOUL, I [REALLY] WOULD LOVE TO BE HIS LAST VICTIM." (Can you imagine being adored like this?
:feelsgiga:
)

She claimed they were similar, claimed to understand him. He was “different” (
:coffee:
) from other killers (remember, Ted Bundy was probably dead before this woman was born). Within minutes of my research, it became clear that you can't search for Ted-Heads without encountering Dahmer's “fangirls” and the obsession that many Internet fans have with gay male sex (suddenly fujoshi reference?
:dafuckfeels:
). Specifically, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer engaging in gay sex (wtf?
:feelskek:
). It was around this time that my research took a sharp left turn. Up until this point, women had not only seemed emotionally invested, but obsessed. They seemed to believe that a woman's love for them could have saved the violent men they so idolized.

When I reached the Mrs.Dahmer’s Infinityland website, it became clear that there was much more to this phenomenon than the tendency of high school/college girls to fall in love with “misunderstood” and “shady” men. The whole point of it was about sex. OK yes. I think we knew that, but this was deeply dark and disturbing sex, based completely on how violent and terrible these men were. A post on Tumblr says:

- Most girls: you've seen his big body, right?

- Me: You saw his death counter, right?

The page “Mrs. Dahmer” features several photos of Dahmer, most photos typically taken after being arrested or photos of him in prison jumpsuits. The photos have sweet captions, the same way a high school girl would caption a photo of her favorite Disney crush in her diary (
:dafuckfeels:
)

After I discovered the “hybristerotica” tag on Tumblr, things got really dark, and it happened really quickly. A Tumblr dedicated to celebrating hybristophilia drags me to a corner of the internet I never expected to find.

Sex and Crime All The Time features, among other things, photos of famous serial killers with sexually explicit “confessions” emblazoned on them and a serialized erotic story called Stockholm Syndrome, focusing on Richard Ramirez.

I want to take a moment to state here that I understand that rape fantasy is not the same as wanting to be raped and that many women with healthy sex lives are adept at this type of sex — however, I think this fantasy becomes a little different when the fantasies are focused on men known for violently stalking and attacking women.

I also wonder about this fine line, as these women proudly identify themselves as “hybristophiles” and defend the legitimacy of this attraction, although the profile of women who fit the definition is not a list of positive personality traits, and many of them admit this sexual dysfunction outside of situations where they are fantasizing about the killers.

Hardcore hybristophiles don't always bother to claim that the men they obsess over are “misunderstood” or “only half bad.” When an anonymous Tumblr fan asks if Ted Bundy loved his wife and son, the blog owner responds, “I don’t think so.” There seem to be limits, however.

One user says she is “sad” that Eric Harris’ diary featured homophobic sentiments. The blog owner comforts her by assuming that he would have overcome these feelings if he were alive (can't believe this shit). The conversation, however, had nothing to do with the way these men treated women. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, the more violent the fantasy.

It isn't over yet.
For some reason, I find the obsession with men like Bundy and Ramirez less disturbing than the sexual and romantic fantasies associated with more recent killers. There's a good chance that women who idolize Bundy will wear a pendant with his photo on it and look at his photo alive, given that Bundy died in 1989. He could be seen as a “character” like Loki from the Avengers or, yes, even something like Dexter. No one they know has had contact with him, they have not felt the fear and horror he caused personally.

But women fantasizing about Elliot Rodger were definitely alive and well when he opened fire in Santa Barbara in May of this year. Their obsession runs much deeper than their appearance — these women have studied their hate-filled videos and their manifesto. His hatred towards women had no effect on removing these hybristophiles. In fact, it seems to do the opposite, all the women attracted to Rodger have a common desire — to be his first girlfriend. Be the girl who calms your anger. Some fantasize about Rodger with Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris from the Columbine shooting, claiming they could show him how to win women. Hybristerotica presents two pieces of erotic “fan fiction” about Eliot Rodger, one written from his point of view and the other told from a woman's point of view — In Come Over and Fuck Me, she imagines herself as his lifelong friend, without realize his desire for her.

The erotica isn't well written, but that's not the point. It doesn't have to be like this. The very thought of fucking these dangerous men is what captivates the women who participate in the hybristophilia tags on Tumblr. Serial killer and hybristophile fans receive a lot of negative attention from other Tumblr users, particularly those who like true-crime but don't want to be associated with people who fetishize and idolize killers. If you go through any of the popular hybristophilia tags, you will see the defenses of hybristophilia over and over again. They insist that they are not mocking the victims or supporting the crime, they respect the victims — they are just attracted to the killer. The most interesting case is the group of young women obsessed with the high school shooter, TJ Lane.

While his fans insist they respect victims and their families, they also praise him for wearing a 'KILLER' shirt to court and share GIFs of him telling his victims' parents: “The hand that pulled the trigger to kill your children is now gone. Masturbates with the memory of them. Fuck you all,” while shocking everyone.

They call him “sass” and tag photos of him as “The King of Sass/The King of Attitude.” Almost all of TJ Lane's memes, GIFs, and collages involve this quote, either in full or just part of it. They love him, in large part, because he was disrespectful to the families of his victims. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, and the more violent the fantasy.

Some hybristophiles claim they are completely normal, one even cited her therapist in defense of her obsession with TJ Lane. Others assert that it is no different from any other paraphilia (a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depends on fantasy and engagement in atypical and extreme sexual behaviors) and as such should be respected.

It's worth noting that pedophilia is the most common type of paraphilia, and no one is suggesting that everyone supports pedophiles as normal — not even hybristophiliacs who like men who have abused children. The four most common types of paraphilia involve a rejection of consent — pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, and frotteurism — the act of rubbing against non-consenting people. Another fact worth considering in “respecting” as “normal” in hybristophiles is that paraphilia often leads to sexual dysfunction — needing what attracts them for sexual gratification.

If hybristophilia makes women [lovers of serial killers] unable to have a healthy sex life with men who don't want to rape or kill them, I would dare say it's not normal at all. These observations are not intended to judge hybristophilia communities, per se, but being fair to them also means showing the side that does not support their claims to normality.So why do women seek out sociopaths? Why does a killer with multiple victims attract them so much? There were even searches for Timothy McVeigh in the hybristophilia tags — there seems to be no limit. Some are purely sexual, some are borderline romantic, and some are downright disturbing considering the men are at the center of the discussion. Here are some of the tags about Jahar (Dzhokhar) Tsarnaev.

The deeper I dug into the hybristophilia tags and sites, the less sense it seemed to make. Going into this, I admit, I thought I would find some groups of misfits who still admired Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez. Like many, I read the published articles showing that the Tsarnaevs, James Holmes, and Adam Lanza (fucker kills lots of innocent children, females get wet) had attracted a female audience — but most of the content cited seemed to be “Wow, how hot he is,” which may be a real opinion — although Most people have a harder time separating a person's attractiveness from their actions.


The desire, the claims of love, the endless support and hero-worship definitely shook me. When I first glanced at the sexually explicit stories, I felt like I was losing my sanity. My brain really can't understand this, especially in cases like TJ Lane, who is not only someone without a shred of remorse, but also took joy in bragging about his crimes in front of the families of those he killed.

I've always watched things like Halloween, horror movies and books, and had a fascination with the dark and disturbing things, being a healthy reaction to a terrifying world. People study serial killers because we know that even though they behave like monsters, they are human. By learning about them, we gain knowledge and this helps us feel proactive and therefore safer. Because when we enter into horror and the supernatural, it becomes a terror that we can control.

It's like a paper mache skull that you can hold in your hand and know it's not so bad. What's troubling about hybristophiles on the internet, what becomes so disturbing, is knowing that they've crossed that line in some way. They went beyond a desire to understand, beyond a fascination, and into an uncontrolled obsession.

Link to the original text: http://sheddingoftheego.com/2015/08/23/hybristophilia-the-female-attraction-to-violence/

After adapting the text, I need to say this topic is DISGUSTING, but thanks for reading.


Womens wickedness is really subtle. The wicked carnal male nature is more upfront. Its like a beast. Fighting for resources, killing for pride/respect or mates.. and such carnalities. While womens are more subtle. Theirs is hypergamy, delusion, ambivalence.

I think in todays time the average person is more afflicted continuously by toxic women carnal nature than by toxic carnal men behavior. Though, as you rise/to rise in the ranks and popularity, you will be eventually gatekept by extremely toxic men behaviors (gang mentality, cuthroat, fight for resources/mates).

From what i observed they are equally toxic and work as a system. Both human carnal natures are unrighteous. But they are different in nature. But i agree, the intensity of a mans toxicity is way greater than a womans. Though, a womens toxicity is farther reaching, longer lasting, and more infectious, yet lower in potency. I compare it to water torture vs execution. Think today with feminism (90% of women now share some extremely feminist or hypergamous view, as well as a significant portion of men, of at least 50% who also share the same. And then you have women are wonderful effect). I think more women than men are legitimately toxic, but in a very small potency and in a more unidentified/hidden manner, compared to the men or masc beliefs that are so potent there isnt even a need for as much. Her toxicity (like hypergamy or the typical delusional takes and views) often goes unchecked also, and more readily accepted into society which it spreads like wildfire. Whereso a mans toxicity often requires some sort of RL force behind it to go anywhere.


One of many comments extolling the justice of God and calling Job out that his attitude was placing his own 'justice' about God

"If you sin, how does that affect him?
If your sins are many, what does that do to him?
If you are righteous, what do you give to him,
or what does he receive from your hand? Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself, and your righteousness only other people"
(Job 34:6-8)

This is one of Elihu's most important arguments, as it pointed out to Job that the righteousness of man cannot 'buy' God's favor, nor do the sins of man 'harm' God. Rather, God created his perfect law for the benefit of man. Elihu, conversely, promoted the righteousness of God in taking any course of action, regardless of the good or evil of man. He took Job to task for thinking that it was futile to be good then, if the good could face trials as well as the wicked. He pointed out that the Lord will repay men for what they have done (in this life or the next), so it is very profitable to fear the Lord even if one does not see immediate ben trying to explain the nature of God with only the limited information available to human knowledge, chrisolivertimes we are in book of job, story of cian aand abel first book of adam cain eroused by jelousy. jelousy good/bad perspective used to entice cain mimd pattern with xxxten vice city aka gta mind pattern supericial benifactors mind with story of job lesson


"God" mathematically, scientifically, and logically has to be real as long as we have a consciousness and can perceive living in any fashion. Forget how religion explains god, and forget the concept of "god" being exclusively a singular deity. Think of it like this,

Life has a paradox. The paradox of life is that something had to have created something else. Cause and effect. If aliens created humans, then who created aliens? If water and bacteria created flesh, then what created that? If energy created the big bang, what created energy? This question and paradox goes to infinity. The answer to that paradox is an equal infinity based concept. It is "god". All encompassing, or at the very least to our understanding, a thing or concept that is in that realm of infinity (nothing before it etc.). In shorter terms, the proof of gods existence is the answer to the paradox of life.


Women are not creatures of action, they operate best in a weak nature, hence why for example they are more proficient at doing things like organizing protests and social media hashtags. if they had the same mental aspect as males, their toxicity would manifest itself in much more abhorrent events and atrocities. also, the iq bell curve plays a part. almost all women are in the middle lower while men are more distributed along the curve. so more men can be unpredictably violent and impulsive.

Women nature were capable of acting out their desires like men, india, africa, and asia go bye bye. eugenics become officially government enforced policy. but they don't, instead they keep those thoughts secret and virtue signal. and all virtue signaling comes from fear of being discovered. why many male feminists are rapists. they virtue signal to camouflage their true nature and thoughts. and women and them are often the biggest virtue signallers


Its a deep rooted issue. Humanity itself is a sort of war between the animal body and the mind-(which implies higher intelligence). What differentiates us from animals are our minds. Our level of perceptions and mental and ability to manifest these things collectively. This is why i never see animals praying or deviating from the script, as much as humans are able to do.

Strong carnality is in most cases most associated with wickedness to the human level mind. As we are not just beings of the body(animal) intelligence. This is why animalistic natures such as murder are seen as okay and even righteous for a wild animal to do (as it is a being of the animal nature), but not okay for humanity(as we are not just exclusively beings of the body animal nature, and are observable to ourselves to posses a higher mind state than most if not all land animals). The essence of the mind, and the body work together, but are somewhat at conflicting states. Carnality and the ways of the heart are at odds with the higher intelligence that our mind implies. Its hard to explain exactly why, but the best way to see it is the body(the animal) and the mind as sort of separate systems. The case we have in todays time with humans are that most humans are more in agreeance with their animalistic nature, instead of their mind and higher intelligence (why this is the case is a variety of reasons to long to explain in this particular post.). But in essence, the cultivation of one side, usually means the abandonment/impairment or pain of another.

In other words, Most people operate in the carnal human body nature and are most familiar with it. Carnality is strongly attribed to wickedness, and humans are more familiar with carnality(thus wickedness). Wickedness is attractive to the human body as it usually manifest itself as carnality(animal behaviors). This is why wicked people, or popular people in general are known to be carnal. Think resource money hungry cartel boss, killer gangstar, sex fiend women. To become popular in generally usually means some sort of excessive carnal success. etc. To take it up a notch, the diety that represents evil is strongly associated with carnality. Satanists actually practice carnality. Their favorite day is their birthday.

Anyways, carnality includes standard female and male nature. For females, as an animal, carnality is what they are attracted to. Carnal male behaviors. This is why bad boys, mafia men, alpha guys who delve into that polygamous, cutthroat male carnal behavior win and imply to the female a strong sexual desire, than lets say a BETA(who plays into a feminine women nature) and even moreso a person who chooses to focus on a higher intelligence(think messiah figure), that actually is even below beta and alpha (a non participant in the dating pool).
This cycle is also why women always get left after their hypergamy, as the ones they chase are statistically more likely to be carnal, and thus toxic or toxically polygamous due to the preselection of such carnal behaviors. Also why this whole men blaming is seen as a circlejerk due to the predictability and cycle of events that occur. Ofc the war is waged, and the ones that will suffer and get the strays of hate will be the non participants.


This is wrong. Very baised. Men have it far much worst dating. While this one observation may make some sense, you fail to compare the mens side of things against women. If you were to do that, youd notice that men have at least double the amount of issues when it comes to this niche, compared to this one observation you made about women.

And while you may be somewhat right, its important to understand that this is an issue that they create for themselves due to their own hypergamy.

Hypergamy is relative. Put 1000 "gigachads" in a room with 10000 women, and the modern women nature will still find a way to statistically, and exclusively desire only the top 10-15% preselection wise. This is studies and observable in every facet of modern society.
What your explaining is post hypergamous decisions. Of course she will have trouble competing against the same men.

This issue is even more worst because men are statistically rarer than women, yet with all of the social structures that favor matriarchy and female natures, women just have an advantage socially and socioeconomically. Nor are as libido magnetized as a man. Theres no reason any men should be having trouble dating, yet here we are.

It is dishonestly wrong to claim:
" IN TERMS OF DATING. a guy has to be 1 tall, good lucking and thats it,"
No idea where you got this idea from. You must have never heard about preselection or women are wonderful effect. Anyways, men are known to have an extremely different level of qualifications to be acceptable in dating, one that literally is dynamic and ever changing relatively to all of the other men due to hypergamy. This is why old age men did not let the female nature take over societal wise and kept power(and thus their wives). If you think tall and goodlooking makes you passable then you have no idea about society and are looking through the lense of female influence. Aesthetics matter more to you, but not as much to her.


Women are very impressionable socially and are similar to children mentally. They learn and operate a different way than biological men. More proficient or prone to being; Subservient(which is why they excell in rule-following forms of academia), socially interested, impressionable and subject to subjective emotional bias. Anyways, i find it interesting why we can see in society, women or homosexual(or low T/intersex) men who are often in gatekeeping positions of power ,fame, money, and caste. Theres a reason for this. Women are generally are more influenced socially then biological men, better at following and creating a social acceptance to rule. Less divergent in thought. The male mind is more proficient or prone to being sidedly; independent(energetic to strive for freedom), deviant etc. Its been like this for a long time. Even old kings were known to have eunuchs around them instead of men in the courts due to the nature of men.

So its not just white or black. All women will naturally be programmable to propaganda, and especially social effects. Modern societys culture is their safe haven. So if the media and such tools that determine society's culture, exclusively advertise black or white men as sexy, then guess what comes next. Just look at the covid vaccine fiasco. Additionally, a women's main attraction comes from preselection. Things that imply attraction such as caste, status, wealth, money, looks. Does not have to exclusively be logically beneficial or objectively attractive traits. This is also a key to how to truly be attractive to women(also why babyalien can pull more women than 99% of people on this forum). To top it off, humanity is strongly attracted to unrighteousness, as carnality and the ways of the flesh are strongly associated with wickedness, thus wickedness more familiar and impressionable to the person than other moral levels.

Combine this with media that loves to garnish minorities who display deviantly exciting forms of poverty influenced behaviors, and you have a really interesting situation.
The most popular forms of media is hip hop and pop. Hip hop is majorly black . This sort of lights the impressionable brain that black people (as the amalgamation of western melanated people, regardless of actual ethnicity or facial looks), share the same SMV caste wise to the medias representation, especially if the person prolificates/displays the same archetypes that are socially known to be popular. This is why people say that if your not thugmaxxed as a black guy then your basically incel tier.

Think of all the old age beauty standards that we in todays time see as shit. Also think of all the supermodel faces you and people here call stacy yet i think are actually very masculine and intersex. Attraction is truly subjective, but its mainly influenced socially. Im not saying black people are ugly, but if you look at the fact that less than 50 years ago black people were considered monkeys and ugly to women, its very very very easy to see what caused the change. Media.


I think the vast majority of incels are high disgust standard-cels with more feminised sexuality than most men. We already know women are mostly Chad or HTN+ only, but that’s reasonable because they have the desirability to be so.

A lot of men get fuck all from women they are actually attracted to but the masculine imperative is to fuck by any means necessary. High disgust high inhib incels however, have adopted the female sexuality without the desirability to back it up.
Ironically this is the case i observed too.

Thats why a lot of people who are known to be traditionally incel still rave over stacy and becky, or oogle around rating men and women. I noticed them to be just as standardly hypergamous, without the actual masculine nature that equalizes the women aesthetic across board. To me, theres no such thing as a 10/10 or 1/10 women. This lack of fulfillment in the feminine hypergamous nature is what creates that typical feminine pattern i see so often with men who complain about how they cant be chad. Being traditionally masculine while still holding a high disgust leads to another form of reaction that is not "why cant he be me". This is the true level as it curbs the desirability problem through masculine imperatives.

Im conflicted about female desirability. I dont think they should have as much desirability. Its the feminine hypergamous nature within those starved men that help create such a thing. I also think its artificially inflated with social structures that favor the female nature. Truth is, men are biologically rarer than women, even moreso mentally and sex preference wise. So to me, its not reasonable for them to be hypergamous torwards an excusive class of men, considering their perception of exclusivity is relative. It was never reasonable and is always relative, and this is why men should (and have in the past) totally dominate the sexual market, even if it was by force. Like disregarding a childs cries when you take him out of the candy store. Its for their own good.


The concept of a common adversary as a unifying force in society is a notion that has been observed throughout history. The idea is that by having an external "enemy," whether it be a person, a group, or an ideology, the internal members of a community can strengthen their bonds with each other, focusing on this shared opposition rather than their internal differences. This external threat becomes a rallying point, a reason for solidarity, reducing the likelihood of conflicts within the group. My theory is that similarly, in building long-lasting relationships between individuals, a shared adversary or challenge can create a strong bond. Partners may find common ground and mutual understanding when faced with an outside force that tests their unity, encouraging cooperation and deeper connection.


W have a chameleon nature where they will learn and know the bad parts about their nature yet keep it "hidden" (conflict of interest). Part of the reason the exposed pilled information was led by mens revelations. Its like how you have a girl in a guys friend group who acts like the bros just to go around and tell her female friend group about men behaviors and such. The latter rarely happens. Its probably a nature within them built to ensure protection. On the bad side, they also have a tendency to not know shit about what they are saying and move their bais based on emotional reaction. Id say this is more biological and an estrogenic (female hormone) effect. Add that emotional bias and female nature, to the conflict of interest, to thirsty men, to harsh truths, to matriarchally dominated social structures, and you'd see this forum gone within a few months. Hence why women on this forum will eventually turn this into a shitshow. Hence why its easy to see who is male or female sometimes even based on the quality and types of post. At best this will overnight turn into a club. Also they are groups of intersex or gay/feminist women who actively sub out these types of mens communities. For whatever reason (sometimes due to cause-effect of hypergamous nature), (or even because of the significant pool of intersex men mascaraing as the rare biological men) they show a strong dislike towards men. Going as far to push the categorization of pilled truth subjects socially, under derogative labels. Just like how they labeled redpill/blackpill content "incel". Or how people who predict the goverments or wistleblow are considered socially, conspiracy theorists. Socially, they work to sort of disrupt and disturb mens spaces of this nature. Most people have no clue on what a real masculine nature is and will just label anything of this nature mysogonist or "hateful", despite the facts and statistics. Wheather its emotional bias, conflict of interest or whatever, theres a lot of reasons why this happens. Some of it is automatically encoded in their nature and DNA. It can also be a combination of all these factors. For example, subservience and this worlds natural Ai which ensures humanities progression, is observed to cull men and use women/matriarchy as a way to gatekeep excessive diversion/the (naturally proficient) male nature of mental and moral precision. This is just an example. More factors could be at play. Also, like i said before, women have a conflict of interest when it comes to subjects such as bad male nature (beta) bad female nature (feministic) and other such subjects, as they quite literally enjoy the wine of their fruit in todays time. Speaking up and encouraging mental and morally precise karmatic consequences when it comes to beta pedestaling, is for a lot of women past initial halo, seen as spiteful. Despite the behavior in itself being extremely toxic for humanity, for the male, and for society in general. They are similar cases where we can observe where we see this same conflict of interest.


Always has been like this. Love does not source itself within animals. The animal body is a automatous being. Although natural and not something like a iron artificial robot, explaining love as the ways of the body (male or female) is like observing a packaging machine to have the capability of love. Everything the carnal man and women think is love is usually sensuality or influenced by it. Giving, kissing, cuddling, sex. Its all sensuality. Its for the body. Just like how sensuality is a derivative of love, but love itself is not limited to sensuality. The capabilities of love in the human body is vastly limited and will ultimately revolve around neediness, as the human body is in a perpetual state of need, suffering, motion, decay etc. So we can only truly imply love. Some are better than others when it comes to love. Sometimes, the less sensual the derivative of love you display, the greater the essence of "love". This is why one of the greatest forms of love are known to come in a way where the reciprocate party may dislike or not agree emotionally or physically, with your action or behavior (like telling harsh truths, or mentally having the best interest for a kid).
Love is something far more complex, and in a way, love is already at full capacity as love can be described in essence, as intent. Life itself is love, and things like hate, sensuality, are also synonymous or derivatives of love.
This modern day level of love of money and resources is a real animalistic and carnal form of love. Its needy, just like the body. Its not respectable to me for a human being with a functioning consciousness to act like this. But regardless, Im no animal abuser so im not that proactive of harm, or eradication. Its just that people with these level of consciousness should not represent or be put in the position to influence others to share the same view (reason why i dislike carnality, because it proves to be the most influential behaviors). Even so, this behavior is as a animal, and people ultimately prove how they should be treated based on their level of consciousness and mental and moral precision. But to determine that, it depends. For SOME women though, paypig behavior is a common theme. Its despicable, and in most cases a telling sign of their level of consciousness as their QOL and nature relative to the male species more easily reveals their own actions and behaviors that led to this form of love to show fruit (same reason causes of such behaviors and views are so commonly predicted by many people in pilled communities).


Intersex conditions have their brain wired both sides.

That transgender statement of configuration has some truth into it, but its lacking important information. They underestimate the system we call the body. Science does also. The body is extremely complex and almost falls under the quote "physicist Emerson Pugh famously said, “If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

Think of all the electrons, atomic systems that work together, and the almost impossibly large amount of micro and macro chemicals that react with each other to create a functioning system. Testosterone and estrogen are simply the macros. Those chemicals are not even close to the only ones that actually make a man or a women, musicalized or fem. Things like DHT, Control Hormones, and other varying androgens and the varying ratios between male and female are not mentioned but are very important. This is why you cant turn a man into a women, or a women to a man via hormones or by cutting of your dick etc. If anything, the only chance you have at actually sharing both traits is intersex, and that runs though biology and genetics itself. This process is secretly referred to as "in utero"

The key is intersex. This is a personal observation, but i can see clearly that society is increasingly intersex. They are a lot of variables that would come to play. There is Evidence that shows how endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment can cause reproductive variation through dysregulation of normal reproductive tissue differentiation, growth, and maturation if the fetus is exposed to EDCs during critical developmental times in utero. But common sense, nature, humanities history, GMOs, will show you how quality of the seed will always change and vary (usually for the worst unless intently preserved, which does not happen in a society that loves the opposite of mental and moral precision). Same applies to the human body.

Anyways, even people with intersex conditions are not completely 50/50 male/female, though they are some that get close. And, if my suspicion is right, i think that the majority of human males do have intersex conditions, Maybe not entirely physical and sometimes mentally, (though, you can still observe the excessive curves in most males vs a authentic transgender, or lack of jaw in males but prevalent jaws in women models as as well as transgenders)),,,as the male biology has always since the start been rarer to produce and procure. And they are no mistakes in nature. No feature that does not have meaning behind it. Anyways, so i think the case is likely a significant amount of actual intersex women mascaraing as men, as well as the pool of regular women, intersex women, and then intersex men. The order of prevalent percentage in that order also, making authentic biologicals males (physically and mentally), very rare or last on the list. You can easily prove this by comparing and mixing traits of pre estrogen transgenders to your average men and women. You will very quickly observe prevalent traits in T men, that are not as common with your average men, and some traits of T men, which are common with average women. Reverse this process and you can reverse mix traits and eventually have a pool of different traits of males and female. Do the data right, and they will be certain types of men (physically) that you seriously do not see often. Its like how NFTs have different rarity percentages. And this isn't even classifying mental effects (since sex hormones effect the shape of your body and features), which would make the pool even more significant. So unlike what the transgender in your post said, the configurations don't stop at male/female. This is the simple delusional way of looking at it. And perhaps it should not even start with those 2 categories either.

This means a significant pool of men who are more prone to turning the other way or being attracted to the womenly way of thinking and fem nature, and also things like intersex women who associate themselves to the masculine way of thinking and such. This is clearly observed today. They are also varying studies and terms that describe this attachment of behavior like women are wonderful effect, and other observations. Then on top of that, you have the "be yourself" propaganda media which deliberately lures men to become more feminine, plus the other factors such as the significantly dominating matriarchal systems placed in modern society, which make it extremely hard to live as a male and associate yourself to the masculine mental and moral precision way of thinking. This is why i think they are a significant boost of transgenders and DL gay people.


The books of people who tried to find god should have never been introduced to normies. Its not something your average person can comprehend lest it turns into some low IQ fem/carnal slave following shit where the actual content is tossed to the side and instead is replaced with "religion" aka a social group and order that social vamps join to play around and pass time.

The books of people who tried to find god is not something your average person can comprehend lest it turns into some low IQ fem/carnal slave following shit where the actual content is tossed to the side and instead is replaced with "religion" aka a social group and order that social vamps join to play around and pass time. It has derivatives of truth but it isnt the meat of the content. Sadly though, these derivatives become more of a popular take than the meat, which influences others to share the same rock IQ takes.

Thats why you have so many people who say jesus this and jesus that as a person, not even knowing "jesus" was best used as a figurative of. Because obviously the name jesus was probably not the same name that was first introduced in the writing. Its the same with all the other religious books. If you pay attention, the redundancy becomes obvious. Good content and information turns into carnal worship and shit when these types of people blindly interpret it. "Grass is green because of chlorophyll" turns into, "grass is green because god loves you" Both could be correct, but ultimately it depends on how deep your knowledge about the situation is. And the way information works, it can get infinitely deep. The only problem in todays time ab religious thinking, is that theres no accurate foundation nor accurate progression to the knowledge of the situation. So you have people saying grass is green because chrorophyll and then you have people saying grass is green because god loves you, and none of them recons the level of understanding in both (how both of them can be true, but one more practical and considered a progression of intelligence in todays time).

You learn not to touch fire when you are a kid because your mom warns you about it. Then you learn again that you shouldnt touch it because fire is hot. Then as you get older, you learn again the science of why fire is hot, and as you get even older, you learn the science of what happens when you touch it etc. This happens repeatedly. But the issue with the books of religion is tricky, as many dont learn past the elementary infant stage, and the whole matter just becomes low IQ and non practical. So we have wars and shit, (according to the book) end time prophecies and whatnot going on, yet theres no coherence or understanding between it all with these people as they are either missing prerequisites, or further understanding.


This. By default, there will always be a massive power imbalance in a relationship that favors the woman. She can leave the relationship at any point and immediately have hundreds of other men being willing to be in a relationship with her, whereas 95% of men will never have this kind of opportunity. It creates an emotional dependence from the man on the women and compels him to be desperately submissive to her and make concessions to keep her around.

Women have no objection to taking advantage of these power imbalances when it favors themselves though. It's only a problem when men do it. Feminism in a nutshell.

That whole sub should be deleted from reddit. Its a mockery to people who actually have legitimate issues with dating and such. Most of it is relative entitlement. People who are eating grass fed ribeye complaining about never having wagyu.

Just scroll down. Many posts are about them not having "as much" attention as what pretty girls have had. I see claims with these same women claiming they get male gaze, and that they are trying to remove themselves from it. They consider it toxic. This is equivalent to a man complaining on a forum that women actually talk to them or even consider then irl. It makes no sense and ive noticed these types of women spaces are made from spite. Like purplepill debate, pinkpill, women going their own way. Its always a reaction or derivative from authentic male movements. Theres a reason why these pilled movements orgin primarily by men. Its because statistically and logically, men actually do have issues with these things.

The main problems is what women(and most people) think love is. Love as a human, is sensuality. To the human body, sensuality is love.
Men who want to have sex with you is fulfilling the requirements of sensuality they so so desire. This is why men say these women dont want to be loved, they want to be worshiped. Because actual "love" is something that everyone has without exception, and does not require sensuality and shit like constant stimulus. Love(or even derivatives of love such as hate) is akin to the act of consciousness and life itself. Proof of intent.
But human(body) love is sensuality, and this is something all of these women get to significant degrees, yet they are unable to recognize it. Instead they call it toxic. So its not like they dont have love, its that they are tired of this certain form of it. And lets not even go into how man and women work differently biologically, and how libido works. The whole concept of "he only wants me for my body, actually makes no sense at all". As people who say this fail to recognize that they are in the body.

What they desire so much is moreso of a different type of sensuality, a worship. hence why i compare their experiences of human love akin to a spoiled child. If your desired sexually by men, regardless of how toxic you think it is, regardless of how much you hate those groups or types of men, its not a problem with you not being desired, its something other than that. Its preference of the type of "love" your getting. The issue is that they dont admit this and try to act as if incels or men spaces of the same subject are on the same level.

And to top it off, they are relationship focused. Inceldom is more about relationships, its about socioeconomic status and shit too. Like how your biological composition affects what jobs you get, what your expected to do in life, friends and family and other life/death situations. Factually, 80% of men are in general, at a worst place in todays society compared to every single women. There's even syndromes and studied terms that probes this (like women are wonderful effect)

Real incel categories are things like not being sexually attractive statistically to the opposite gender. No sex, nobody wanting to have sex. Also things even branching out past just sexual attraction. Everyone has these issues, but the real issue is that a extremely significant more amount of males that have it than women, and that the discussion of the causes behind them are always blotted.
This is why i can sympathize with the male inceldom as it makes more sense, its not someone eating steak dinner and complaining about apple pie, its not someone eating shitty McDonald meals and not having steakhouse. Its someone not even having leftovers and crumbs to eat at all. Its a total non negotiable lack of life quality, no options. Though, i do believe women inceldoom could exist, i think if we remove a lot of those psudo classifications with ideas that people have not understood like "men only want to have sex with me, not "love" me""... or emotional triggers, it would be significantly less women who actually fit the bill of being incel. Id think this group would be primarily transgender's, people with mental personal conflicts, people who are widely deformed, or extremely obese to the point of high risk. Not people who have preferences.


We live in a very gynocentric society that is sexist against men. To give a few examples, men get longer prison sentences, are convicted at higher rates for the same crimes, and receive longer sentences for killing women than for killing men. (i.e. men are disposable)

We always assume men to be the aggressor in any encounter. Women actually commit more domestic violence than men, yet we always assume it's the man who is abusive. Another example, "My husband tells me what I should wear" Sounds bad right? How about "My wife tells me what I should wear." The first sounds worse because we assume that a man with some power in the relationship will abuse his power, but we don't assume the same for women.

Men have to be extraordinarily careful not to sound like they are blaming women whenever they vent any sort of frustration or emotion. For instance, "Why do women like that asshole and not me?" is something that you might find mocked in r/niceguys or r/justneckbeardthings. Yet if a woman says something like "Why does that guy like the hot girl but not me?" she would be most likely receive sympathy. Men have to be super careful in choosing their words, which is ironic because we encourage men to express their emotions more. Yet when they do, we shame them for it.

Male sexuality is considered shameful. Men are considered creepy if they have a blow up doll, for an example. Yet it's perfectly normal for a woman to have a collection of dildos. Men are shamed if they date much younger women, even if she is a consenting adult.

Perhaps this isn't too controversial, but women are attracted to status, masculinity, power, and good looks. They are more attracted to a man if other women want him. They are no less superficial in their sexual preferences than men. Weakness is unattractive to women. Being an emotional, sensitive man is a death sentence in the dating world.

RPillers have a right to be angry and upset because men are almost always blamed for everything. They are assumed to be the bad guy. TRP is the one place that they can get relief from this and where women can be the bad guy for once. I also feel like all women are partially responsible for their state. We should have been the ones to stand up and defend men. Men have a hard time standing up for themselves without being perceived as weak or misogynist.

The more power the man has in the relationship, the longer the relationship lasts and the more power the woman has, the unhappier the relationship.


@ProklysmosThe "never change" thing is pretty strange to me. There have been numerous times in my life where I've had people call me out for expressing opinions or behaving in a way that contradicts things I said or did when I was much younger. It felt like they were basically pulling a "gotcha" or attacking me for changing over time. Some people actually do stop becoming more mature or mentally developing at a younger age than other people. Those are the kind of people who have "immature" thoughts, temperament, and interests long into their adult lives. One example I'm thinking of is when I recently told my 30 year old sister that paying $400 to get her hair dyed seemed excessive to me, she brought up how when I was a teenager I would pay to get haircuts at a relatively expensive barber shop. I responded by saying something like, "yeah, but I was immature and materialistic back then" and she got offended. This same sister still listens to the same pop music she listened to back then 15+ years ago. She bought tickets to a Taylor Swift concert in 2020, but the tour got cancelled due to Covid. This year she got free tickets for the redo tour, but the resale price of the average ticket was ultra-inflated because people had been waiting for 3 years. I asked my sister how much the tickets were going for online, but she wouldn't tell me. I asked, "what, $1000?" she laughed and said no. 1500? She laughed again. 2000? She shook her head and made it obvious she didn't want me to keep asking. They were tickets for good seats in a Los Angeles tour date, so they were definitely somewhere between like $2500 and $5000 a piece. And she had two tickets for herself and her fiance. So they passed up on a free $5000 at minimum because she was very attached to a pop culture fantasy experience she's been living since the 00's. She and her fiance have been engaged for several years now, postponing the wedding for financial reasons, and they have put off having children because they don't think they've got enough money for that either. Sorry, wall of text for illustration purposes, basically I agree with a lot of what you're describing here. Our mother is extremely narcissistic and I worry that my two sisters acquired a lot of her traits, though they aren't nearly as toxic.


People who always complain about not being loved despite going through so many relationships. You see this commonly with narcy women and carnal men. Loved??? No they want to be worshipped they want to cause stress while you shoulder it, want to hold you to traditional gender roles while seeking liberation from the traditional balance to those roles, thjen claim you’re not a real if you question the hypocrisy do you not hear the attitude


A surprisingly interesting subject. For my entire life I had accepted the conventional wisdom that men and women had the same IQs on average, but that men had a greater variance, thus there were 3x as many men that scored as Genius on IQ tests (and presumably 3x as many men that scored as idiots, but that part was never clearly elucidated). But there is a huge problem with the data set, it is based almost exclusively on 18-22 year olds, and just presumes that IQ is fixed throughout life for each sex. And it appears the tests were manipulated to exclude questions that men scored considerably better on than women.


shapeshift nature of women into anything they want, this is why people dont see the truth about female nature correctly especially the nature the word speaks of.

The nature of women and male nature is automatic. the reason i feel some way about fem or male content that reveals truth about feminism or whatever is because my association to this animal. After the spiritual disassociation it becomes like looking at how animals in the field work, like learning about horses and whatnot. My anger or emotion is moreso about my situation of animalistic domination.
you think anyone's reading this
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: murdah, Shkreliii, mich and 2 others
bro too long, post the long stuff on your research paper and just summarize here with link
 
  • +1
Reactions: humanoidsub7, murdah, Shkreliii and 3 others
you think anyone's reading this
Nope. It being upfront serves multiple purposes. Thats the point. But its still here for the few that may. Also this data is meant to be archived or stored. I highlight this clearly at the beginning of the post.

Some groups of people dont like wasting time. Internet is fun, but its also at the end of the day just data transfer. These posts serve as a one stop. No links or referrals that deter.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: mogstars, Shkreliii, FutureSlayer and 2 others
People who always complain about not being loved despite going through so many relationships. You see this commonly with narcy women and carnal men. Loved??? No they want to be worshipped they want to cause stress while you shoulder it, want to hold you to traditional gender roles while seeking liberation from the traditional balance to those roles, thjen claim you’re not a real if you question the hypocrisy do you not hear the attitude
Skimmed and saw this. Interesting theory.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii and dreamcake1mo
Not a single word
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Shkreliii, vector and lilith
Skimmed and saw this. Interesting theory.
Forgot who wrote that, it was either from youtube or from here.

I should have polished it as its hard to read. I put the best writes at the top.

But i agree. It reminds me of how people who have been in the most relationships, are ironically worst at keeping relationships than someone who has been in less. “Practice makes perfect” refers to memory. bad habits can be formed and “practiced” which also mean being adept at failure. (Common example is the short attention span, dnr mentality)

For this you need a breakthrough. But unfortunately, that is where many people get ignorant and slanderous to the catalyst of change.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii and Aladin
Not a infinitesimally small point
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii and dreamcake1mo
Gandnrd
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Shrekguy3838, Niksy, SwissArms and 3 others
Hey.
Here's a compilation of truth/conspiracy/female nature/blackpill etc/ posts submitted and typed by various ORG users across this and other platforms.

Lately, i have noticed there has been reports of this forum to bad actors, as well as observable server downtime. For this reason, i think it may be beneficial to amalgamate high effort discussions and posts, so that if one day this forum goes bye bye, it could still be possible to reintroduce these posts and topics to the next boat. Feel free to copypaste/archive these texts or add to the collection. Also, i apologize if i fail to source you or the original author in some texts. A lot of sourcing information is lost in translation.

WARNING. LONG TEXT POSTS.















I'm not missing that fact, its just that emotions don't mean anything, everyone has them and they don't really have any importance except to that individual. Except the real world is unforgiving no matter who you are which is why we have to judge things objectively and not through each persons individual lense. If you want to treat women as children that get stressed out and struggle with minor things then they should also have all rights and responsibilities stripped down to a child like level. You cant give women all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men while simultaneously claiming that they need to be constantly forgiven and made special care for because they're actually incapable of handling all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men.

Capable people and incapable people should be treated accordingly and the instant you start straying from this, it can only result in incapable people being thrust into positions that they should never have been in and cant handle. Unconditionally forgiving women's flaws for no other reason than "its their nature" is as ridiculous as saying men should be allowed to rape and murder at will because its "in their nature" and we should just be understanding of that. The purpose of civilization is to overcome nature which is why we place rules and expectations on peoples behavior instead of just allowing them to act however they want at any given moment

But there's literally no need to understand the emotional perspective of an individual since it doesn't matter. How is any one individuals emotions relevant to anything that actually takes place in the real world? Understanding women is very easy and every culture in human history came to the same conclusions: if women, or anyone for that matter, are not capable of getting over themselves and thinking/behaving rationally instead of being slaves to their emotions then what they think or say doesn't matter. Not everyone's perspective is important, especially people who can only see things from the lens of their own emotions and ego instead of just seeing things the way they are

A good example of this is your own response. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it or not, civilization is the opposite of a natural state and cannot exist without controlling peoples nature and their base instinctual urges which is why every civilization in human history has had strict laws and rules on what people are allowed to do and not to do. You don't have to like it and it also doesn't matter whether you do but the more civilization advances, the further and further we are removed from our natural state. It is unhealthy to go too far over the edge but its still happening anyway and will continue to happen. This is achievable, every first world country on the planet currently operates like this and areas of the world that did not set increasingly strict control on human behaviors never developed past the third world because everyone constantly engaged in their most primitive urges with no sense of order which makes it impossible to advance

If rape and murder were not a part of human nature then why do they exist so commonly through human history and why has every properly established culture have laws against them? An example of what's not a part of human nature is grazing in a field or swimming up stream to birth a bunch of eggs. It doesn't matter how you feel about rape or violence, they are a part of human nature and that's why we create laws to control and prevent it. Entirely hypocritical to say that civilization is not about conquering nature and then say that rape and murder is "beastly" when in our most primitive and pre-civilisation eras, these things were extremely common. Go to any third world country on the world where there is a breakdown of infrastructure making it difficult to control the worst of human behavior and you'll see just how common it all is


evil can sometimes be described as militant ignorance. the original concept of sin is a process that leads us to miss the mark and fall short of perfection. While most people are conscious of this, at some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness check. Those that are evil attempt to escape and hide from their own conscience (though means like self deception and such etc.). Now thing of the evil of see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil archetypes. The unwilling to listen to clear truth and such. Ignorant mindsets in todays time where people actively and popularly disregard and have a sort of "happiness to disregard" things of good consciousness.

Antichrist was never referred to be a person, but instead a spirit. They are many people with the antichrist spirit.

Donald Trump just posted this image on his Instagram page. Many will say this picture represents Jesus being by his side through persecution. That is not what this photo represents. This is Trump’s persecution being likened to Jesus’s persecution, as has been done many times before by many including his son, Donald Trump Jr as I’ve pointed out before. Make no mistake, Trump in his heart believes he is a Christ-like, messiah figure that will save the world so he can take credit for it. Trump sees the praise and adoration Jesus receives and wants that for himself. His entire life philosophy has always been about being number 1. This is exactly why the religious zionists in his corner are and will continue to push for him to fulfill these messianic prophecies of protecting Israel and bringing peace to all nations. So that he can claim to be the messiah. Lucifer fell because of pride. And so too will the Antichrist be led into perdition. Because he magnifies himself in his heart. That’s what the biblical Antichrist is, a man with the prideful characteristics of Lucifer who tries to be Jesus. This is exactly the strong delusion talked about in 2 Thessalonians 2:11. Keep your eyes and heart on Jesus Christ alone, and look not to earthly princes to save you.


@justlolatthisworld7917 "Einstein" means "a rock" in German. "Einstein" was literally "as dumb as a rock". Open mocking in plain sight. I thought of this yesterday and it made me think of you anon, since I've heard you rightfully mention how Einstein was a literal moron.


Honestly its a lot of complication in the bible. Many things are not to be taken literal, or to be taken BOTH literal AND nonliteral. And i dont think this is because the bible was made to be inherently complicated, but even moreso the fact that language translations lose meanings overtimes. This is the reason strongs concordance exists.

We have to remember were reading the book in english. Theres so many double meanings in the English language, and words that categorize new meanings outside of the predecessor synonyms ETC.

For example, the beasts referenced in the bible. Clearly that is not literal but moreso referencing a country/system (technology hub in todays time) sort of thing. Christ was also implied to be the living law. Its even hard right now to explain in words.

But the point im trying to make is, i think the whole categorization of "demon", to a singular independent being, is kind of shallow thinking. The word demon is limited to what we learn about it. For many, this means some singular metaphysical deity. But lets look at it from a physical perspective. There has to be a system to everything. Thats the physical world we live in. Anything that materializes or influences behavior in such a manner has to sort of have some sort of physical(or metaphysical) process to incept or influence. Especially a demon, which has questionable authority over life. For example, the body in itself i guess could be a called a demon, or a host of wickedness, and that being dedicated to fulfilling the bodys desires leaves you "possessesed" into the bodies lusts. Hence why demons and body sickness are strongly correlated. Technically all of the prerequisite boxes would check off. Meaning the fruit of the "demons" which is posession (leaving you to do its own will, weather the lust is the satification for abusing, or all the other carnalities that people grow to adapt and be proficient in).

Not saying this is exactly how things work, but just to give a perspective. I feel like your question in itself is too narrow and it reminds me that sometimes the confusion is not in truth, but perspective of whats actually going on.


You lot of you would be better off learning how to be more cunning in society as that's how most social normies operate.
Also realising how they are taken by appearances. Not just appearance of your look but appearance of your general demeanour, as they use this to both gage how good life is going for you and whether you are a social success.
Learning that beauty standards are higher in major cities like London, LA, Miami, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Toronto, Sydney etc. No shit. It's a city. The rate race is stronger.
Most normies are not that talented at much. They just conform with mannerisms, slang, mainstream ideological narratives, shit they wear and what they believe in. They are followers and very agreeable until they see you being disagreeable to popular culture. They aren't that insightful, interesting or humorous.
Even guys with their own minds and that are not followers learn this. Unless you are making a deeper connection with a person, all that matters is how you appear on the surface. And if they are a matrix plugged in normie you should not even be making a deeper connection. They should be your associate to connections.
Realise everything is about immediate identifiable perception with normies. While you might be more open minded before sussing what somebody is all about, they ain't the same way lol. They are so plugged in that they run on autopilot and everyone needs to be in a box that they can understand otherwise something is off and fishy about them. So identify yourself before they identify you and treat you the way they think you are. This is very subtle.
And yes if you are someone bordering on chadlite you will be even more under this scrutiny, because the last thing a normie wants to see is a guy that looks stand out good and is not plugged into normie wavelength of communication


This is because the concept of being a "loser" was created to shame men by other men. Men created the concept of being a "loser". Now, since women hold so much power in society and the dating market the idea of being a loser has shifted toward a more superficial end. Where you were judged in the past by other men, now you are judged mostly by women who aren't rational and will judge you off how you look rather then what you do. Men in power are meritocratic, whereas women in power are emotionally unstable eugenicists. Whats worse is there is now no checks and balances to control these power that women hold. Affirming these ridiculous, and useless standards for an actual flourishing society.


About trying to settle the deal about inceldoom to official channels. They have there own skin in the game to keep this ideology from spreading. Skimming the paper, It doesn't seem to really consider WHY this ideology is becoming popular, just how to stop if from doing so. Now, it is written in a journal of criminology so I can see the reasoning, but why is it even in a journal like that in the first place? You would think a sociological or cultural journal would be better. They only wish to understand the blackpill because it's becoming a threat to the social order, and to women. I would be more sympathetic to these authors (both of whom are women, which could lead to some subconcious bias) if they would try to consider the plight of these men that fall into this ideology, but all it appears to be is more damage control from a system that is inherently against men's interests and intends on fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.
This.


when it comes to animals (carnal humans), a human (in this case a "spiritual" focused person) needs to cage them up or structure them somehow less they themselves get killed or affected by animalistic behavior. Why do you think religion is always what follows after truth seeker movements, after the few individuals that actually gave a crap about truth. Thats why i call it a derivative. Pest control. Carnality is the way of the animal. Religion is the ordinance of the animal nature. Islam, christianity, whatever. Its the same thing. And they are all flawed. The frustration behind the argument for your religion is misdirected and carnal imo.


Cancer growth and metastasis in a fueled by the immune system being in a hyper allergen state (TH2).
Fasting greatly reduces allergic reactions to food, promoting a TH1 mediated immune response which is required for cancer cell clearance.
Excess histamine = Excess cortisol = Estrogen dominance = TH2 mediated immune response.
Liver and gallbladder function play a crucial role in these issues.
The problem is, when the allergen sensitivities stop, and TH1 mediated immune response turns back, the immune system will start going after any latent infections you were harboring.
This is known in holistic health circles as a “healing crisis”.


I don't wanna bring a son who will suffer in a matriarchal society or a daughter who would turn to OF hoe while i can't do nothing, we need to keep old school ideologies, it's even helps against hypergamy
Your better of creating or starting your own movement. Islam is already toast. Its doing what its always done. But for the animal, a country sized fence is almost as if it were no fence at all. Its going to have to be a new religion or derivative. Ultimately to get the attention of the carnal nature your going to have to use different tactics. Marketing, deception, favoritism etc. Look at how "hebrew isrealites" secluded the bible and used the race bait as a pull.


Areas with high population density (many people in an area) and high interaction (something as simple as seeing someone, even online or on a newspaper counts as an interaction, independent of if they know them or not) creates inequality. The more dense and the more interactions, the worse the inequality.
This is because, if there's a group of 5 people, things are more equal in every domain compared to if there were 500, or 5 million or 5 billion. The more people, the more outliers there are. These outliers create inequality (economic, dating, etc.)
The population density allows people to see the gap of their situation to their outliers. This outlier affects the normie.
High population creates outliers.
High population density allows people to be aware of the outliers.
These environments created what John B. Calhoun called "behavioral sinks". Basically, a behavioral sink is a collapse in productive social behavior, where increased negative emotions, disrupted social structures, and abnormal behaviors prevail.
The rats formed social and dating hierarchies, Chads got the women and the non-Chads usually either...
  • Developed non-straight sexualities
  • Became timid, weak, apathetic, withdrawn asexual hikikomoris/neets (adolescents and young adults who become recluses in their parents' homes, isolated from society)
  • Or desperate, erratic and unsuccessful (pickup autists and redpill roaches)
Chads became aggressive, and since the non-Chads were all withdrawn from society and responsibility, the women had to fend for themselves and protect Chad's children (with humans, it's either the cucked normie's child or she's childless, since Chad doesn't want to reproduce with her, only sex). The female rats became aggressive, neglectful of their children, and non-motherly.
Infant mortality rose due to neglect, male and female rats gave up on dating due to discontent and negative emotions, birth rates dropped, and the new and smaller children grew up to be asexual since they never really learned sexual behaviors due to their parents giving up on mating. The rat society aged to death due to population collapse and low birth rates.
Of course, this isn't perfectly applicable to humans, remember that. For humans, economic, and other kinds of inequalities also play a major role in behavioral sinks, but if if the trajectory of society keeps going where it's going, we could very well get a comparable result as human beings to what the rats got. Birth rates are plummeting and our societies are mentally ill, just like the rats.

Anyways, Why am I showing you all of this?

Because dating environments differ in blackpill severities. Due to population density and population count.
There could be "tiers" to the blackpill.
Basically, in some dating environments, you'll need to literally be perfect, in other environments, you have to be HTN at least.
Also, consider that the fact that dating environments men and women have been in the past also can influence their mating decisions.


Anti oxidants can actually be pro oxidants if you have mitochondrial membrane complex issues or NAD metabolic problems / imbalance with age.
How do free radicals get quenched and removed from the body? The body cleaves electrons off of the substance, reducing its reactivity, making it less dangerous and easier to incorporate or dispose of.
But what happens if large amounts of anti oxidants rapidly quench and reduce free radicals and pollutants in the body, releasing massive amounts of electrons?
Normally, those electrons would be shuttled into the electron transport chain and used to make ATP. But, as you get older, or if you have mitochondrial membrane complex 1 to 4 issues, your body is less able to handle a flood of electrons.
This can lead to metabolic bottle necks or even overflows.
What does this mean? Those electrons can lead to a flood of hydrogen peroxide in the body. If the H2O2 levels overwhelm the ability of Catalase to quench it all down to water; If it builds up: greying hair, stem cell issues, mtdna number decreases and telemorase issues, leading to lowered maximum replicative lifespan of stem cells and mitochondria.
Rapidly increased aging.
Vitamin E, a powerful anti oxidant, can significantly lower lifespan. The studies can never accurately tell you why. I can. It's the overwhelming flood of electrons into the ECC.
Resolving electron transport chain issues is important for healthy aging.
As for NAD+ and Nadh. NADh is an electron donor. If you have too high NADh, it shows metabolic disorder. Shows you have electron transport chain issues.
If you don't resolve them, it's possible supplementing NAD will just rapidly convert to NADh, adding fuel to metabolic fire.
The fix for that, in leiu of fixing the electron transport chain, is combining all anti oxidants with electron acceptors or getting more in the diet.
They can mop them up, order them properly, recycle them for use, or help dispose of them.
We need more electron acceptors and less electron donors in our diets. Especially when combined with NAD or anti oxidants.


I dislike most quotes and similar forms of socially popular truth "memes" shared online.
Theres no influence of truthful behavior (teaching people their own faults and to not do the same) without proactive and introspectively constructive honesty. Without this constructive honesty, there becomes a influx of people who highlight other people who know the truth, but are not even honest enough to recognize their own behavior and warn against that instead, as that would require actually knowing (being proactive and introspectively constructive), and not just speculative or socially influenced to think or perceive. When women or men repost or rethink about common troupes against each other, they don't really have any intellectual depth, but is sort of low effort, simple minded bait content used to alleviate common (sometimes unaware, or misguilded) frustrations. The reason i dislike this, is because its not coming from a place where the individual (viewer or even reposter) is actually self reflective on their own behavior that may have enabled such frustrations to occur, thus usually no intellectual response from the poster thus, usually no intellectual discussion or gain to the viewer. Think of the common trope that; “men are not shit”. Or even low iq incel bait posts like “women are this” etc, where the lack of intellectual discussion (in depth questions such as why, how, what, etc) do not occur on an individual level due to the format of the post not engaging the viewer to do such. I highlighted proactive honesty because only when a person is able to be proactively honest and introspective about these questions, and are honest about their behavior that may or may not enable such things, real discussion and data analysis can occur, Instead of just reposting. Think of how airplane investigations work. Constructive analysis where there is no side taken, where the women or man admit (be honest) of their behavior and the data is unbiasedly discussed and analyzed for accuracy and future correction. But of course this does not happen with these posts, nor does the UX structure (or even sentencing format the OP would use to create simple posts) allow introspective discussion or constructive analysis to happen. People see it, agree with it, and move on. Holding tight the building frustration until eventually the simple frustration becomes a trigger of hatred, regardless of if that person is actually enabling their own frustrations or not (which may often be the case). For this reason i strongly recommend and prefer data rich communication, no matter how "long", "aspie, autistic, or socially weird it may seem. Ultimately when working with data, its best to receive the best quality.


The following text was taken from the website “Shedding of the Ego” by Mr. K and reviewed by Savage, it's been adapted by John Cracovizk (literally me) for an easier (and less MGTOW) read to my LooksMax.org fellas. The link to the original text is available in the end of the thread, good read!

1. INTRODUCTION - What is Hybristofilia? The Joker and Quinn example

"Ok, gentlemen, today we are going to discuss hybristophilia, a term that seems to me to best summarize the female penchant for the “Bad Boy”.

First, the definition of the term according to an online medical dictionary:

Hybristophilia - Paraphilia in which a person is sexually attracted to someone who has committed a bombing or horrific crime.

It may be best to start with some examples found in pop culture and work our way up to real-world examples.

Many consider the dynamic duo of the DC comics universe, the Joker and his equally psychopathic companion, Harley Quinn, to be a clear example of the “Florence Nightingale effect” (In reference to the dedication of Florence Nightingale, who many consider to be the founder of modern nursing, demonstrated in her patients).
The Florence Nightingale effect is a situation in which a caregiver develops romantic and/or sexual feelings for their patient, even though there is very little communication or contact outside of basic care. The feelings may disappear when the patient no longer needs care, whether through recovery or death.

I believe this is a misdiagnosis of Quinn, or at least only a partial diagnosis.

If you're well-versed in the origins of Joker's bitch, you'll know that Quinn started out as an asylum psychiatrist in Arkham and her name was Dr. Harleen Frances Quinzel, M.D, who was tasked during her internship with the psychoanalysis of some of the worst and greatest psychopaths and criminals of Gotham, one of which was the Joker himself. During the interview process with the Joker, Quinn was mesmerized by his Charisma (personality pilled once again
:soy:
), a trait psychopaths often cultivate to hide their true nature.

Swayed by the strength of the Joker's personality and charm, Quinn fell deeply in love with him, culminating in helping him escape, unleashing one of the most dangerous psychopaths in the DC comics universe back onto the streets (women), until she finally gave up her comfortable life as a psychiatrist and joined him on his crime spree, taking on the persona of Harley Quinn, as we know her today.

Harley Quinn suffered not only from this “Florence Nightingale effect”, but from an advanced case of hybristophilia.

Furthermore, we speculate here that hybristophilia is a condition that is still poorly understood, which appears to be categorized into a very simplistic classification of women who are hybrostophilic and women who are not hybrostophilic, without there being a middle ground between the two.
2. EVOLVING DESIRES - The Complex Relationship Between Violence and Attraction
Now, think back to our remote existence, when human beings led prehistoric, short and often violent lives.

The comforts of our modern, technologically advanced civilization simply did not exist.

The caveman, who sought to have reproductive access to the female sex, had to offer something in return.
  • He needed to assure the females he wanted to mate with that he would provide them with resources, shelter, and sustenance on a regular basis.
  • He had to be violent enough to kill enough animals to feed himself, his women, and the children he would have with them.
  • He also had to have an innate ability to kill other men who wished to move into the resource-rich land that he controlled or that was controlled by the women he had sexual access to.
To put it bluntly, violent men have been selected by women for reproduction since time immemorial, and despite the fact that we have, through a manipulation of evolutionary impulses, built a civilization that largely mitigated this burden of violence, many women still yearn for violent men.


The average woman, of course, does not want to date a violent psychopath, at least not one of the status of a serial killer like Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez. But she longs for some of that caveman violence to emerge through the civilized exteriors of the men she is occasionally attracted to. In essence, women seek to ensure their security and provision in society through a kind of standardized double assault.

Simply extracting male provision via taxpayer subsidy is not enough.

The obsession with protection and provision that we see for women is expressed on a macro scale, through the occasional application of laws involving violence against women, such as “Rape Shield Laws” and “primary aggressor laws”, etc.

Spoiler: What is a Rape Shield Law?
Spoiler: What are Primary Aggressor Laws?

These laws often do not fully consider concepts of equality, such as due process and the luxury of a legal system that presumes innocence before guilt has already been established (this made me remember of this thread of mine where I talked about how your friends would probably leave you be eaten by wolves if someone came accusing you of rape, even though there isn't any proof).

To the collective unconscious, the hive mentality that drives the female masses, due process is irrelevant, they are voting with their hindbrain and therefore vote to ensure that their most primal needs and desires are met and satiated.

The problem is that women can never be satisfied; they point out and demand more security and more provisions… always.

In this way, while female involvement leverages the electoral process in her favor, and after the legal system implements as much gynocentrism as it can handle without collapsing, the individual woman also simultaneously cultivates her particular instinct for her own protection and provision.

In the form of what we call: “Alpha Brute”.
3. THE ALPHA BRUTE - Low Inhib and Dark Triad? Yes, but also a tool for the feminine

An individual prone to violence and physically imposing enough to do a lot of harm with hostility, who is also usually not intelligent enough to understand that he is in a servile position to the woman he is involved with, existing as a hired criminal who gets paid with sexual access.

It's like a pincer attack, designed to maximize benefits for the female collective, and frankly, men's lives, health, or rights have never influenced this process in any meaningful way.
This is just gynocentrism at its maximum power.

Take the following video as an example, preceded by a quick synopsis.

> The woman enters a cafeteria and skips the line.

> The man responds to whoever was on the phone that a woman jumped the queue.

> The woman hears and immediately intimidates him by staring at him, in a very rude, incisive and, finally, violent way.

> By chance, the boyfriend, a 150 kg ex-convict, enters the conversation, and at that moment there is a brief confrontation between the man and the boyfriend.-Out of nowhere, the boyfriend [ex-convict] punches the man, beating him violently.

See for yourself.

So... what do we witness here other than a vicious attack? Well, let's start from the woman's perspective.

Let's assume, hypothetically, that this woman could have started this confrontation without her boyfriend to protect her and that the man who attacked her in self-defense after she initiated the violence.
This woman would probably have no problem trusting the front line of gynocentric protection at her disposal, that being the macro-scale protection of a police force or a white knight who jumps to her defense without even questioning who initiated the violence.

This is why women advocate for first-offender laws, as blame almost universally falls on the man in domestic violence disputes, despite evidence to the contrary, if any. Once again, women want it that way, they are not concerned with due process and equal rights for men, they are concerned with leveraging the State and strengthening their fundamental reproductive habits.

However, in this case, it was her boyfriend who was nearby, who was, for all intents and purposes, the alpha brute we've described. He is prone to violence, physically imposing, and almost seems to take pleasure in subjecting another man to the brutality he can unleash in his master's name. This is an extreme example of what all women want to some degree, community protections from non-violent men in the form of a legal system, and individual protections from violent men in the form of these thugs who are more than willing to disregard those legal protections.

This is what drives the female tendency toward hybristophilia, which appears to only be pathological in the most extreme examples, but which actually lies on a continuum.

This is a spectrum of hybristophilia that ranges from the woman who prefers a beating from her man behind closed doors, to the “serial killer fanatics” who gained notoriety for fainting with excitement in the presence of hyper-violent serial killers, such as Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez, during the fanfare of his trials.

Every woman who asks you to choke her, spank her, spank her ass, or spit on her in a safe, controlled environment during consensual sex is acting on this misunderstood desire.

She is asking you to release your inner caveman, she is asking you to become a violent weapon that she can use for her protection, and in doing so, she receives vast sexual stimulation.

I don't hate women for that, much less do I expect them to change. I believe this is an innate quality of female sexual attraction. Nor do I absolve them if they act on these impulses in some way in real causes of violence, rather than simulated, against other human beings like the woman described above.

Women who are so dependent on their primitive impulses to the point of directing one of these brutes to harm others through violence should be locked up and kept away from civilized people. But in terms of desire, of female attraction to violent men, I suspect there's very little we can do to combat that.
Spoiler: Is there a solution maybe?

We will have to understand women's tendency to select violent men and we have to manage and discourage it as best we can. And so I begin my efforts here with a simple material.

5. EXAMPLES - Abandon all hope, ye who enter here

First, we start with , the “cultural Marxism” conspiracy theorist who killed 77 souls, most of whom were young teenagers. An article titled Norway’s mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik gets hundreds of love letters a year states the following:

STOCKHOLM (AFP) — She calls him by his first name, sends him letters every week and promises to wait for him.

It could be any love story, but Victoria's heart belongs to a mass murderer: Anders Behring Breivik. Responsible for Norway's worst peacetime murder since World War II, Breivik, like many other famous killers, has his share of admirers, a phenomenon that can be accompanied by sexual attraction and, in this case, there is even a term: hybristophilia.

“I really wouldn’t want to live a life without him,” says “Victoria,” who doesn’t want her real name published. A young Swedish woman in her 20s appears distant and impassive, ignoring her fresh cup of coffee in the lobby of a Stockholm hotel. But her voice breaks when she talks about her “dear Anders”.

From a small town in Sweden, she is doing everything she can to get Breivik's prison conditions eased: he has spent the last four years isolated in a high-security penitentiary. He is currently serving a 21-year sentence, which can be extended if he is still considered a danger to society.

Breivik killed 77 people on July 22, 2011, when he detonated a bomb near government offices in Oslo and opened fire at a summer camp for young workers on the island of Utoya. For Victoria, Breivik's isolation amounts to “torture”.

“I worry about him even more now that he's in such a vulnerable situation,” she says.

Unemployed due to health problems, she writes to him to encourage him—far more than the 150 letters ever written—or sends him small gifts, including a dark blue tie that he occasionally wore during his trial. In return, she received two letters from him — which she showed to AFP — the others were blocked by prison officers tasked with censoring his correspondence.

Marriage proposals:

It is not easy to define her relationship with Breivik, a man she has never met, since all her requests to visit him were denied.
She describes him as her “old friend” and as a kind of “brotherly figure” and protector, but admits that she finds him attractive and “there were romantic interests, at first, at least on my part.”
:lul:


She says that their first contact dates back to 2007, when they met through an online game. He cut ties with her two years later, presumably to focus on planning her attacks. But in early 2012, Victoria reconnected with the man who had by then become the most hated person in Norway. And she is not alone.

The Weekly Morgenbladet (A Norwegian weekly, intellectual newspaper, covering politics, culture and science.) reported last year that Breivik receives “at least” 800 letters a year, many of them from admiring women.

During the 2012 trial, a 16-year-old girl (a JB ) asked him to marry her.

Hybristophilia is a term used by criminologists — but not scientists — to describe a sexual attraction to violent killers in prison, who often receive racy love letters or sexy underwear from their fans. Also known as “Bonnie and Clyde syndrome,” it exists across time and place, .Josef Fritzl of Austria, who held his daughter captive and repeatedly raped her for 25 years, and American killer Charles Manson also have their own fan clubs.

According to Sheila Isenberg, an American author who interviewed 30 women for her book "Women Who Love Men Who Kill", says that these admirers often have a history of sexual abuse.

“It's a chance for a woman to be in control (the man is behind bars for life and has no control over anything), when previously she was abused by her father (or) by other men,” she explained to AFP.

“Plus, it’s romance with a capital R: exciting, thrilling, a never-ending rollercoaster. Nothing dull or ordinary about these relationships.”

However, there is no scientific evidence to support the widespread belief that these women feel they are on a mission to help the killer get on the right path in life, said Amanda Vicary, assistant professor of psychology at Wesleyan University in the United States.

“Some women tend to be attracted to famous men — it's possible that the reason some women are attracted to men who have done horrible things is not so much what they did, but the fame they received from their actions,” she said.

Victoria, Meanwhile, she says she's not looking for fame. Her involvement with Breivik has already cost her relationship with her sister, who, upon learning of her ties to him, told her: “You are dead to me.” And she distanced herself from her friends. She admits to “more or less sharing” Breivik's Islamophobic ideology, but says she opposes violence.

So how can she love a man who slaughtered dozens of terrified teenagers, some of whom begged him to spare their lives?

“I think I had to separate Anders from the real Breivik. I think of Anders as my old friend and Breivik as the person who did all these things. The years pass and yet she refuses to give up on him. “I miss you more and more every day. I think my feelings got a little stronger.”
Another interesting article I stumbled across will give you some real insight into the nature of this phenomenon, titled Editorial: On Love, Sex and Murderers and it's quite long so I'll only publish the parts I judge relevant:

At the same time, we are both repelled and fascinated by studying sociopaths and their quest for blood — and most of the time, men seek women's blood. The idea of the “good” Dexter-style serial killer is relatively new, but it is a known fact that women flooded Ted Bundy with love letters, a woman married Richard Ramirez while he was in prison, and there are countless other examples. of lesser-known criminals and their fanatics. Montages with Ted Bundy? Why? We wonder why serial killers do what they do all the time - perhaps that's where the fascination begins for people who identify as "hybristophiles."

A few years ago, I met a sixteen-year-old girl (another jb, I'm starting to see a pattern
:feelsthink:
) who identified herself as Ted-Head (a Ted Bundy groupie). It was easy to ignore the romanticization of a man whose horror she had never experienced. Other interests of hers were, like many of mine, dark and subversive. My thought at the time was that one day she would grow up and realize that finding a person interesting is not the same as finding them emotionally or sexually attractive. After all, Bundy used the fact that he was a handsome man to kill women. He's not exactly the kind of guy you'd want to date (you wouldn't want to go on a date with Rodney James Alcala either, but he won The Dating Game).

I wanted to write a little about the Ted Bundy phenomenon and how it continues into a new generation. I started on a site called Bundyphile, hoping to start at the source in my efforts to write about gaining some understanding from the young women who followed Bundy (one Facebook page referred to him as “The Misunderstood Voice of a Generation”) .

The themes presented on these sites were repetitive:

Bundy wasn’t “that bad.”

Bundy was misunderstood.

Yes, what Bundy did was wrong, but you can love and admire him without idolizing his crimes.

Many of the women and girls who are obsessed with Bundy and other serial killers seem to think that they could be the special person who would change or train them, or be “the one” who would be there for them and stop all the bad things that happenned. In one blog entry, a woman calling herself “Lolita” proclaims, in all caps for all to see, “EITHER WAY, IF MY OWN DEATH COULD FILL TED BOUNDY’S HOLLOW SOUL, I [REALLY] WOULD LOVE TO BE HIS LAST VICTIM." (Can you imagine being adored like this?
:feelsgiga:
)

She claimed they were similar, claimed to understand him. He was “different” (
:coffee:
) from other killers (remember, Ted Bundy was probably dead before this woman was born). Within minutes of my research, it became clear that you can't search for Ted-Heads without encountering Dahmer's “fangirls” and the obsession that many Internet fans have with gay male sex (suddenly fujoshi reference?
:dafuckfeels:
). Specifically, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer engaging in gay sex (wtf?
:feelskek:
). It was around this time that my research took a sharp left turn. Up until this point, women had not only seemed emotionally invested, but obsessed. They seemed to believe that a woman's love for them could have saved the violent men they so idolized.

When I reached the Mrs.Dahmer’s Infinityland website, it became clear that there was much more to this phenomenon than the tendency of high school/college girls to fall in love with “misunderstood” and “shady” men. The whole point of it was about sex. OK yes. I think we knew that, but this was deeply dark and disturbing sex, based completely on how violent and terrible these men were. A post on Tumblr says:

- Most girls: you've seen his big body, right?

- Me: You saw his death counter, right?

The page “Mrs. Dahmer” features several photos of Dahmer, most photos typically taken after being arrested or photos of him in prison jumpsuits. The photos have sweet captions, the same way a high school girl would caption a photo of her favorite Disney crush in her diary (
:dafuckfeels:
)

After I discovered the “hybristerotica” tag on Tumblr, things got really dark, and it happened really quickly. A Tumblr dedicated to celebrating hybristophilia drags me to a corner of the internet I never expected to find.

Sex and Crime All The Time features, among other things, photos of famous serial killers with sexually explicit “confessions” emblazoned on them and a serialized erotic story called Stockholm Syndrome, focusing on Richard Ramirez.

I want to take a moment to state here that I understand that rape fantasy is not the same as wanting to be raped and that many women with healthy sex lives are adept at this type of sex — however, I think this fantasy becomes a little different when the fantasies are focused on men known for violently stalking and attacking women.

I also wonder about this fine line, as these women proudly identify themselves as “hybristophiles” and defend the legitimacy of this attraction, although the profile of women who fit the definition is not a list of positive personality traits, and many of them admit this sexual dysfunction outside of situations where they are fantasizing about the killers.

Hardcore hybristophiles don't always bother to claim that the men they obsess over are “misunderstood” or “only half bad.” When an anonymous Tumblr fan asks if Ted Bundy loved his wife and son, the blog owner responds, “I don’t think so.” There seem to be limits, however.

One user says she is “sad” that Eric Harris’ diary featured homophobic sentiments. The blog owner comforts her by assuming that he would have overcome these feelings if he were alive (can't believe this shit). The conversation, however, had nothing to do with the way these men treated women. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, the more violent the fantasy.

It isn't over yet.
For some reason, I find the obsession with men like Bundy and Ramirez less disturbing than the sexual and romantic fantasies associated with more recent killers. There's a good chance that women who idolize Bundy will wear a pendant with his photo on it and look at his photo alive, given that Bundy died in 1989. He could be seen as a “character” like Loki from the Avengers or, yes, even something like Dexter. No one they know has had contact with him, they have not felt the fear and horror he caused personally.

But women fantasizing about Elliot Rodger were definitely alive and well when he opened fire in Santa Barbara in May of this year. Their obsession runs much deeper than their appearance — these women have studied their hate-filled videos and their manifesto. His hatred towards women had no effect on removing these hybristophiles. In fact, it seems to do the opposite, all the women attracted to Rodger have a common desire — to be his first girlfriend. Be the girl who calms your anger. Some fantasize about Rodger with Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris from the Columbine shooting, claiming they could show him how to win women. Hybristerotica presents two pieces of erotic “fan fiction” about Eliot Rodger, one written from his point of view and the other told from a woman's point of view — In Come Over and Fuck Me, she imagines herself as his lifelong friend, without realize his desire for her.

The erotica isn't well written, but that's not the point. It doesn't have to be like this. The very thought of fucking these dangerous men is what captivates the women who participate in the hybristophilia tags on Tumblr. Serial killer and hybristophile fans receive a lot of negative attention from other Tumblr users, particularly those who like true-crime but don't want to be associated with people who fetishize and idolize killers. If you go through any of the popular hybristophilia tags, you will see the defenses of hybristophilia over and over again. They insist that they are not mocking the victims or supporting the crime, they respect the victims — they are just attracted to the killer. The most interesting case is the group of young women obsessed with the high school shooter, TJ Lane.

While his fans insist they respect victims and their families, they also praise him for wearing a 'KILLER' shirt to court and share GIFs of him telling his victims' parents: “The hand that pulled the trigger to kill your children is now gone. Masturbates with the memory of them. Fuck you all,” while shocking everyone.

They call him “sass” and tag photos of him as “The King of Sass/The King of Attitude.” Almost all of TJ Lane's memes, GIFs, and collages involve this quote, either in full or just part of it. They love him, in large part, because he was disrespectful to the families of his victims. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, and the more violent the fantasy.

Some hybristophiles claim they are completely normal, one even cited her therapist in defense of her obsession with TJ Lane. Others assert that it is no different from any other paraphilia (a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depends on fantasy and engagement in atypical and extreme sexual behaviors) and as such should be respected.

It's worth noting that pedophilia is the most common type of paraphilia, and no one is suggesting that everyone supports pedophiles as normal — not even hybristophiliacs who like men who have abused children. The four most common types of paraphilia involve a rejection of consent — pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, and frotteurism — the act of rubbing against non-consenting people. Another fact worth considering in “respecting” as “normal” in hybristophiles is that paraphilia often leads to sexual dysfunction — needing what attracts them for sexual gratification.

If hybristophilia makes women [lovers of serial killers] unable to have a healthy sex life with men who don't want to rape or kill them, I would dare say it's not normal at all. These observations are not intended to judge hybristophilia communities, per se, but being fair to them also means showing the side that does not support their claims to normality.So why do women seek out sociopaths? Why does a killer with multiple victims attract them so much? There were even searches for Timothy McVeigh in the hybristophilia tags — there seems to be no limit. Some are purely sexual, some are borderline romantic, and some are downright disturbing considering the men are at the center of the discussion. Here are some of the tags about Jahar (Dzhokhar) Tsarnaev.

The deeper I dug into the hybristophilia tags and sites, the less sense it seemed to make. Going into this, I admit, I thought I would find some groups of misfits who still admired Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez. Like many, I read the published articles showing that the Tsarnaevs, James Holmes, and Adam Lanza (fucker kills lots of innocent children, females get wet) had attracted a female audience — but most of the content cited seemed to be “Wow, how hot he is,” which may be a real opinion — although Most people have a harder time separating a person's attractiveness from their actions.


The desire, the claims of love, the endless support and hero-worship definitely shook me. When I first glanced at the sexually explicit stories, I felt like I was losing my sanity. My brain really can't understand this, especially in cases like TJ Lane, who is not only someone without a shred of remorse, but also took joy in bragging about his crimes in front of the families of those he killed.

I've always watched things like Halloween, horror movies and books, and had a fascination with the dark and disturbing things, being a healthy reaction to a terrifying world. People study serial killers because we know that even though they behave like monsters, they are human. By learning about them, we gain knowledge and this helps us feel proactive and therefore safer. Because when we enter into horror and the supernatural, it becomes a terror that we can control.

It's like a paper mache skull that you can hold in your hand and know it's not so bad. What's troubling about hybristophiles on the internet, what becomes so disturbing, is knowing that they've crossed that line in some way. They went beyond a desire to understand, beyond a fascination, and into an uncontrolled obsession.

Link to the original text: http://sheddingoftheego.com/2015/08/23/hybristophilia-the-female-attraction-to-violence/

After adapting the text, I need to say this topic is DISGUSTING, but thanks for reading.


Womens wickedness is really subtle. The wicked carnal male nature is more upfront. Its like a beast. Fighting for resources, killing for pride/respect or mates.. and such carnalities. While womens are more subtle. Theirs is hypergamy, delusion, ambivalence.

I think in todays time the average person is more afflicted continuously by toxic women carnal nature than by toxic carnal men behavior. Though, as you rise/to rise in the ranks and popularity, you will be eventually gatekept by extremely toxic men behaviors (gang mentality, cuthroat, fight for resources/mates).

From what i observed they are equally toxic and work as a system. Both human carnal natures are unrighteous. But they are different in nature. But i agree, the intensity of a mans toxicity is way greater than a womans. Though, a womens toxicity is farther reaching, longer lasting, and more infectious, yet lower in potency. I compare it to water torture vs execution. Think today with feminism (90% of women now share some extremely feminist or hypergamous view, as well as a significant portion of men, of at least 50% who also share the same. And then you have women are wonderful effect). I think more women than men are legitimately toxic, but in a very small potency and in a more unidentified/hidden manner, compared to the men or masc beliefs that are so potent there isnt even a need for as much. Her toxicity (like hypergamy or the typical delusional takes and views) often goes unchecked also, and more readily accepted into society which it spreads like wildfire. Whereso a mans toxicity often requires some sort of RL force behind it to go anywhere.


One of many comments extolling the justice of God and calling Job out that his attitude was placing his own 'justice' about God

"If you sin, how does that affect him?
If your sins are many, what does that do to him?
If you are righteous, what do you give to him,
or what does he receive from your hand? Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself, and your righteousness only other people"
(Job 34:6-8)

This is one of Elihu's most important arguments, as it pointed out to Job that the righteousness of man cannot 'buy' God's favor, nor do the sins of man 'harm' God. Rather, God created his perfect law for the benefit of man. Elihu, conversely, promoted the righteousness of God in taking any course of action, regardless of the good or evil of man. He took Job to task for thinking that it was futile to be good then, if the good could face trials as well as the wicked. He pointed out that the Lord will repay men for what they have done (in this life or the next), so it is very profitable to fear the Lord even if one does not see immediate ben trying to explain the nature of God with only the limited information available to human knowledge, chrisolivertimes we are in book of job, story of cian aand abel first book of adam cain eroused by jelousy. jelousy good/bad perspective used to entice cain mimd pattern with xxxten vice city aka gta mind pattern supericial benifactors mind with story of job lesson


"God" mathematically, scientifically, and logically has to be real as long as we have a consciousness and can perceive living in any fashion. Forget how religion explains god, and forget the concept of "god" being exclusively a singular deity. Think of it like this,

Life has a paradox. The paradox of life is that something had to have created something else. Cause and effect. If aliens created humans, then who created aliens? If water and bacteria created flesh, then what created that? If energy created the big bang, what created energy? This question and paradox goes to infinity. The answer to that paradox is an equal infinity based concept. It is "god". All encompassing, or at the very least to our understanding, a thing or concept that is in that realm of infinity (nothing before it etc.). In shorter terms, the proof of gods existence is the answer to the paradox of life.


Women are not creatures of action, they operate best in a weak nature, hence why for example they are more proficient at doing things like organizing protests and social media hashtags. if they had the same mental aspect as males, their toxicity would manifest itself in much more abhorrent events and atrocities. also, the iq bell curve plays a part. almost all women are in the middle lower while men are more distributed along the curve. so more men can be unpredictably violent and impulsive.

Women nature were capable of acting out their desires like men, india, africa, and asia go bye bye. eugenics become officially government enforced policy. but they don't, instead they keep those thoughts secret and virtue signal. and all virtue signaling comes from fear of being discovered. why many male feminists are rapists. they virtue signal to camouflage their true nature and thoughts. and women and them are often the biggest virtue signallers


Its a deep rooted issue. Humanity itself is a sort of war between the animal body and the mind-(which implies higher intelligence). What differentiates us from animals are our minds. Our level of perceptions and mental and ability to manifest these things collectively. This is why i never see animals praying or deviating from the script, as much as humans are able to do.

Strong carnality is in most cases most associated with wickedness to the human level mind. As we are not just beings of the body(animal) intelligence. This is why animalistic natures such as murder are seen as okay and even righteous for a wild animal to do (as it is a being of the animal nature), but not okay for humanity(as we are not just exclusively beings of the body animal nature, and are observable to ourselves to posses a higher mind state than most if not all land animals). The essence of the mind, and the body work together, but are somewhat at conflicting states. Carnality and the ways of the heart are at odds with the higher intelligence that our mind implies. Its hard to explain exactly why, but the best way to see it is the body(the animal) and the mind as sort of separate systems. The case we have in todays time with humans are that most humans are more in agreeance with their animalistic nature, instead of their mind and higher intelligence (why this is the case is a variety of reasons to long to explain in this particular post.). But in essence, the cultivation of one side, usually means the abandonment/impairment or pain of another.

In other words, Most people operate in the carnal human body nature and are most familiar with it. Carnality is strongly attribed to wickedness, and humans are more familiar with carnality(thus wickedness). Wickedness is attractive to the human body as it usually manifest itself as carnality(animal behaviors). This is why wicked people, or popular people in general are known to be carnal. Think resource money hungry cartel boss, killer gangstar, sex fiend women. To become popular in generally usually means some sort of excessive carnal success. etc. To take it up a notch, the diety that represents evil is strongly associated with carnality. Satanists actually practice carnality. Their favorite day is their birthday.

Anyways, carnality includes standard female and male nature. For females, as an animal, carnality is what they are attracted to. Carnal male behaviors. This is why bad boys, mafia men, alpha guys who delve into that polygamous, cutthroat male carnal behavior win and imply to the female a strong sexual desire, than lets say a BETA(who plays into a feminine women nature) and even moreso a person who chooses to focus on a higher intelligence(think messiah figure), that actually is even below beta and alpha (a non participant in the dating pool).
This cycle is also why women always get left after their hypergamy, as the ones they chase are statistically more likely to be carnal, and thus toxic or toxically polygamous due to the preselection of such carnal behaviors. Also why this whole men blaming is seen as a circlejerk due to the predictability and cycle of events that occur. Ofc the war is waged, and the ones that will suffer and get the strays of hate will be the non participants.


This is wrong. Very baised. Men have it far much worst dating. While this one observation may make some sense, you fail to compare the mens side of things against women. If you were to do that, youd notice that men have at least double the amount of issues when it comes to this niche, compared to this one observation you made about women.

And while you may be somewhat right, its important to understand that this is an issue that they create for themselves due to their own hypergamy.

Hypergamy is relative. Put 1000 "gigachads" in a room with 10000 women, and the modern women nature will still find a way to statistically, and exclusively desire only the top 10-15% preselection wise. This is studies and observable in every facet of modern society.
What your explaining is post hypergamous decisions. Of course she will have trouble competing against the same men.

This issue is even more worst because men are statistically rarer than women, yet with all of the social structures that favor matriarchy and female natures, women just have an advantage socially and socioeconomically. Nor are as libido magnetized as a man. Theres no reason any men should be having trouble dating, yet here we are.

It is dishonestly wrong to claim:
" IN TERMS OF DATING. a guy has to be 1 tall, good lucking and thats it,"
No idea where you got this idea from. You must have never heard about preselection or women are wonderful effect. Anyways, men are known to have an extremely different level of qualifications to be acceptable in dating, one that literally is dynamic and ever changing relatively to all of the other men due to hypergamy. This is why old age men did not let the female nature take over societal wise and kept power(and thus their wives). If you think tall and goodlooking makes you passable then you have no idea about society and are looking through the lense of female influence. Aesthetics matter more to you, but not as much to her.


Women are very impressionable socially and are similar to children mentally. They learn and operate a different way than biological men. More proficient or prone to being; Subservient(which is why they excell in rule-following forms of academia), socially interested, impressionable and subject to subjective emotional bias. Anyways, i find it interesting why we can see in society, women or homosexual(or low T/intersex) men who are often in gatekeeping positions of power ,fame, money, and caste. Theres a reason for this. Women are generally are more influenced socially then biological men, better at following and creating a social acceptance to rule. Less divergent in thought. The male mind is more proficient or prone to being sidedly; independent(energetic to strive for freedom), deviant etc. Its been like this for a long time. Even old kings were known to have eunuchs around them instead of men in the courts due to the nature of men.

So its not just white or black. All women will naturally be programmable to propaganda, and especially social effects. Modern societys culture is their safe haven. So if the media and such tools that determine society's culture, exclusively advertise black or white men as sexy, then guess what comes next. Just look at the covid vaccine fiasco. Additionally, a women's main attraction comes from preselection. Things that imply attraction such as caste, status, wealth, money, looks. Does not have to exclusively be logically beneficial or objectively attractive traits. This is also a key to how to truly be attractive to women(also why babyalien can pull more women than 99% of people on this forum). To top it off, humanity is strongly attracted to unrighteousness, as carnality and the ways of the flesh are strongly associated with wickedness, thus wickedness more familiar and impressionable to the person than other moral levels.

Combine this with media that loves to garnish minorities who display deviantly exciting forms of poverty influenced behaviors, and you have a really interesting situation.
The most popular forms of media is hip hop and pop. Hip hop is majorly black . This sort of lights the impressionable brain that black people (as the amalgamation of western melanated people, regardless of actual ethnicity or facial looks), share the same SMV caste wise to the medias representation, especially if the person prolificates/displays the same archetypes that are socially known to be popular. This is why people say that if your not thugmaxxed as a black guy then your basically incel tier.

Think of all the old age beauty standards that we in todays time see as shit. Also think of all the supermodel faces you and people here call stacy yet i think are actually very masculine and intersex. Attraction is truly subjective, but its mainly influenced socially. Im not saying black people are ugly, but if you look at the fact that less than 50 years ago black people were considered monkeys and ugly to women, its very very very easy to see what caused the change. Media.


I think the vast majority of incels are high disgust standard-cels with more feminised sexuality than most men. We already know women are mostly Chad or HTN+ only, but that’s reasonable because they have the desirability to be so.

A lot of men get fuck all from women they are actually attracted to but the masculine imperative is to fuck by any means necessary. High disgust high inhib incels however, have adopted the female sexuality without the desirability to back it up.
Ironically this is the case i observed too.

Thats why a lot of people who are known to be traditionally incel still rave over stacy and becky, or oogle around rating men and women. I noticed them to be just as standardly hypergamous, without the actual masculine nature that equalizes the women aesthetic across board. To me, theres no such thing as a 10/10 or 1/10 women. This lack of fulfillment in the feminine hypergamous nature is what creates that typical feminine pattern i see so often with men who complain about how they cant be chad. Being traditionally masculine while still holding a high disgust leads to another form of reaction that is not "why cant he be me". This is the true level as it curbs the desirability problem through masculine imperatives.

Im conflicted about female desirability. I dont think they should have as much desirability. Its the feminine hypergamous nature within those starved men that help create such a thing. I also think its artificially inflated with social structures that favor the female nature. Truth is, men are biologically rarer than women, even moreso mentally and sex preference wise. So to me, its not reasonable for them to be hypergamous torwards an excusive class of men, considering their perception of exclusivity is relative. It was never reasonable and is always relative, and this is why men should (and have in the past) totally dominate the sexual market, even if it was by force. Like disregarding a childs cries when you take him out of the candy store. Its for their own good.


The concept of a common adversary as a unifying force in society is a notion that has been observed throughout history. The idea is that by having an external "enemy," whether it be a person, a group, or an ideology, the internal members of a community can strengthen their bonds with each other, focusing on this shared opposition rather than their internal differences. This external threat becomes a rallying point, a reason for solidarity, reducing the likelihood of conflicts within the group. My theory is that similarly, in building long-lasting relationships between individuals, a shared adversary or challenge can create a strong bond. Partners may find common ground and mutual understanding when faced with an outside force that tests their unity, encouraging cooperation and deeper connection.


W have a chameleon nature where they will learn and know the bad parts about their nature yet keep it "hidden" (conflict of interest). Part of the reason the exposed pilled information was led by mens revelations. Its like how you have a girl in a guys friend group who acts like the bros just to go around and tell her female friend group about men behaviors and such. The latter rarely happens. Its probably a nature within them built to ensure protection. On the bad side, they also have a tendency to not know shit about what they are saying and move their bais based on emotional reaction. Id say this is more biological and an estrogenic (female hormone) effect. Add that emotional bias and female nature, to the conflict of interest, to thirsty men, to harsh truths, to matriarchally dominated social structures, and you'd see this forum gone within a few months. Hence why women on this forum will eventually turn this into a shitshow. Hence why its easy to see who is male or female sometimes even based on the quality and types of post. At best this will overnight turn into a club. Also they are groups of intersex or gay/feminist women who actively sub out these types of mens communities. For whatever reason (sometimes due to cause-effect of hypergamous nature), (or even because of the significant pool of intersex men mascaraing as the rare biological men) they show a strong dislike towards men. Going as far to push the categorization of pilled truth subjects socially, under derogative labels. Just like how they labeled redpill/blackpill content "incel". Or how people who predict the goverments or wistleblow are considered socially, conspiracy theorists. Socially, they work to sort of disrupt and disturb mens spaces of this nature. Most people have no clue on what a real masculine nature is and will just label anything of this nature mysogonist or "hateful", despite the facts and statistics. Wheather its emotional bias, conflict of interest or whatever, theres a lot of reasons why this happens. Some of it is automatically encoded in their nature and DNA. It can also be a combination of all these factors. For example, subservience and this worlds natural Ai which ensures humanities progression, is observed to cull men and use women/matriarchy as a way to gatekeep excessive diversion/the (naturally proficient) male nature of mental and moral precision. This is just an example. More factors could be at play. Also, like i said before, women have a conflict of interest when it comes to subjects such as bad male nature (beta) bad female nature (feministic) and other such subjects, as they quite literally enjoy the wine of their fruit in todays time. Speaking up and encouraging mental and morally precise karmatic consequences when it comes to beta pedestaling, is for a lot of women past initial halo, seen as spiteful. Despite the behavior in itself being extremely toxic for humanity, for the male, and for society in general. They are similar cases where we can observe where we see this same conflict of interest.


Always has been like this. Love does not source itself within animals. The animal body is a automatous being. Although natural and not something like a iron artificial robot, explaining love as the ways of the body (male or female) is like observing a packaging machine to have the capability of love. Everything the carnal man and women think is love is usually sensuality or influenced by it. Giving, kissing, cuddling, sex. Its all sensuality. Its for the body. Just like how sensuality is a derivative of love, but love itself is not limited to sensuality. The capabilities of love in the human body is vastly limited and will ultimately revolve around neediness, as the human body is in a perpetual state of need, suffering, motion, decay etc. So we can only truly imply love. Some are better than others when it comes to love. Sometimes, the less sensual the derivative of love you display, the greater the essence of "love". This is why one of the greatest forms of love are known to come in a way where the reciprocate party may dislike or not agree emotionally or physically, with your action or behavior (like telling harsh truths, or mentally having the best interest for a kid).
Love is something far more complex, and in a way, love is already at full capacity as love can be described in essence, as intent. Life itself is love, and things like hate, sensuality, are also synonymous or derivatives of love.
This modern day level of love of money and resources is a real animalistic and carnal form of love. Its needy, just like the body. Its not respectable to me for a human being with a functioning consciousness to act like this. But regardless, Im no animal abuser so im not that proactive of harm, or eradication. Its just that people with these level of consciousness should not represent or be put in the position to influence others to share the same view (reason why i dislike carnality, because it proves to be the most influential behaviors). Even so, this behavior is as a animal, and people ultimately prove how they should be treated based on their level of consciousness and mental and moral precision. But to determine that, it depends. For SOME women though, paypig behavior is a common theme. Its despicable, and in most cases a telling sign of their level of consciousness as their QOL and nature relative to the male species more easily reveals their own actions and behaviors that led to this form of love to show fruit (same reason causes of such behaviors and views are so commonly predicted by many people in pilled communities).


Intersex conditions have their brain wired both sides.

That transgender statement of configuration has some truth into it, but its lacking important information. They underestimate the system we call the body. Science does also. The body is extremely complex and almost falls under the quote "physicist Emerson Pugh famously said, “If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

Think of all the electrons, atomic systems that work together, and the almost impossibly large amount of micro and macro chemicals that react with each other to create a functioning system. Testosterone and estrogen are simply the macros. Those chemicals are not even close to the only ones that actually make a man or a women, musicalized or fem. Things like DHT, Control Hormones, and other varying androgens and the varying ratios between male and female are not mentioned but are very important. This is why you cant turn a man into a women, or a women to a man via hormones or by cutting of your dick etc. If anything, the only chance you have at actually sharing both traits is intersex, and that runs though biology and genetics itself. This process is secretly referred to as "in utero"

The key is intersex. This is a personal observation, but i can see clearly that society is increasingly intersex. They are a lot of variables that would come to play. There is Evidence that shows how endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment can cause reproductive variation through dysregulation of normal reproductive tissue differentiation, growth, and maturation if the fetus is exposed to EDCs during critical developmental times in utero. But common sense, nature, humanities history, GMOs, will show you how quality of the seed will always change and vary (usually for the worst unless intently preserved, which does not happen in a society that loves the opposite of mental and moral precision). Same applies to the human body.

Anyways, even people with intersex conditions are not completely 50/50 male/female, though they are some that get close. And, if my suspicion is right, i think that the majority of human males do have intersex conditions, Maybe not entirely physical and sometimes mentally, (though, you can still observe the excessive curves in most males vs a authentic transgender, or lack of jaw in males but prevalent jaws in women models as as well as transgenders)),,,as the male biology has always since the start been rarer to produce and procure. And they are no mistakes in nature. No feature that does not have meaning behind it. Anyways, so i think the case is likely a significant amount of actual intersex women mascaraing as men, as well as the pool of regular women, intersex women, and then intersex men. The order of prevalent percentage in that order also, making authentic biologicals males (physically and mentally), very rare or last on the list. You can easily prove this by comparing and mixing traits of pre estrogen transgenders to your average men and women. You will very quickly observe prevalent traits in T men, that are not as common with your average men, and some traits of T men, which are common with average women. Reverse this process and you can reverse mix traits and eventually have a pool of different traits of males and female. Do the data right, and they will be certain types of men (physically) that you seriously do not see often. Its like how NFTs have different rarity percentages. And this isn't even classifying mental effects (since sex hormones effect the shape of your body and features), which would make the pool even more significant. So unlike what the transgender in your post said, the configurations don't stop at male/female. This is the simple delusional way of looking at it. And perhaps it should not even start with those 2 categories either.

This means a significant pool of men who are more prone to turning the other way or being attracted to the womenly way of thinking and fem nature, and also things like intersex women who associate themselves to the masculine way of thinking and such. This is clearly observed today. They are also varying studies and terms that describe this attachment of behavior like women are wonderful effect, and other observations. Then on top of that, you have the "be yourself" propaganda media which deliberately lures men to become more feminine, plus the other factors such as the significantly dominating matriarchal systems placed in modern society, which make it extremely hard to live as a male and associate yourself to the masculine mental and moral precision way of thinking. This is why i think they are a significant boost of transgenders and DL gay people.


The books of people who tried to find god should have never been introduced to normies. Its not something your average person can comprehend lest it turns into some low IQ fem/carnal slave following shit where the actual content is tossed to the side and instead is replaced with "religion" aka a social group and order that social vamps join to play around and pass time.

The books of people who tried to find god is not something your average person can comprehend lest it turns into some low IQ fem/carnal slave following shit where the actual content is tossed to the side and instead is replaced with "religion" aka a social group and order that social vamps join to play around and pass time. It has derivatives of truth but it isnt the meat of the content. Sadly though, these derivatives become more of a popular take than the meat, which influences others to share the same rock IQ takes.

Thats why you have so many people who say jesus this and jesus that as a person, not even knowing "jesus" was best used as a figurative of. Because obviously the name jesus was probably not the same name that was first introduced in the writing. Its the same with all the other religious books. If you pay attention, the redundancy becomes obvious. Good content and information turns into carnal worship and shit when these types of people blindly interpret it. "Grass is green because of chlorophyll" turns into, "grass is green because god loves you" Both could be correct, but ultimately it depends on how deep your knowledge about the situation is. And the way information works, it can get infinitely deep. The only problem in todays time ab religious thinking, is that theres no accurate foundation nor accurate progression to the knowledge of the situation. So you have people saying grass is green because chrorophyll and then you have people saying grass is green because god loves you, and none of them recons the level of understanding in both (how both of them can be true, but one more practical and considered a progression of intelligence in todays time).

You learn not to touch fire when you are a kid because your mom warns you about it. Then you learn again that you shouldnt touch it because fire is hot. Then as you get older, you learn again the science of why fire is hot, and as you get even older, you learn the science of what happens when you touch it etc. This happens repeatedly. But the issue with the books of religion is tricky, as many dont learn past the elementary infant stage, and the whole matter just becomes low IQ and non practical. So we have wars and shit, (according to the book) end time prophecies and whatnot going on, yet theres no coherence or understanding between it all with these people as they are either missing prerequisites, or further understanding.


This. By default, there will always be a massive power imbalance in a relationship that favors the woman. She can leave the relationship at any point and immediately have hundreds of other men being willing to be in a relationship with her, whereas 95% of men will never have this kind of opportunity. It creates an emotional dependence from the man on the women and compels him to be desperately submissive to her and make concessions to keep her around.

Women have no objection to taking advantage of these power imbalances when it favors themselves though. It's only a problem when men do it. Feminism in a nutshell.

That whole sub should be deleted from reddit. Its a mockery to people who actually have legitimate issues with dating and such. Most of it is relative entitlement. People who are eating grass fed ribeye complaining about never having wagyu.

Just scroll down. Many posts are about them not having "as much" attention as what pretty girls have had. I see claims with these same women claiming they get male gaze, and that they are trying to remove themselves from it. They consider it toxic. This is equivalent to a man complaining on a forum that women actually talk to them or even consider then irl. It makes no sense and ive noticed these types of women spaces are made from spite. Like purplepill debate, pinkpill, women going their own way. Its always a reaction or derivative from authentic male movements. Theres a reason why these pilled movements orgin primarily by men. Its because statistically and logically, men actually do have issues with these things.

The main problems is what women(and most people) think love is. Love as a human, is sensuality. To the human body, sensuality is love.
Men who want to have sex with you is fulfilling the requirements of sensuality they so so desire. This is why men say these women dont want to be loved, they want to be worshiped. Because actual "love" is something that everyone has without exception, and does not require sensuality and shit like constant stimulus. Love(or even derivatives of love such as hate) is akin to the act of consciousness and life itself. Proof of intent.
But human(body) love is sensuality, and this is something all of these women get to significant degrees, yet they are unable to recognize it. Instead they call it toxic. So its not like they dont have love, its that they are tired of this certain form of it. And lets not even go into how man and women work differently biologically, and how libido works. The whole concept of "he only wants me for my body, actually makes no sense at all". As people who say this fail to recognize that they are in the body.

What they desire so much is moreso of a different type of sensuality, a worship. hence why i compare their experiences of human love akin to a spoiled child. If your desired sexually by men, regardless of how toxic you think it is, regardless of how much you hate those groups or types of men, its not a problem with you not being desired, its something other than that. Its preference of the type of "love" your getting. The issue is that they dont admit this and try to act as if incels or men spaces of the same subject are on the same level.

And to top it off, they are relationship focused. Inceldom is more about relationships, its about socioeconomic status and shit too. Like how your biological composition affects what jobs you get, what your expected to do in life, friends and family and other life/death situations. Factually, 80% of men are in general, at a worst place in todays society compared to every single women. There's even syndromes and studied terms that probes this (like women are wonderful effect)

Real incel categories are things like not being sexually attractive statistically to the opposite gender. No sex, nobody wanting to have sex. Also things even branching out past just sexual attraction. Everyone has these issues, but the real issue is that a extremely significant more amount of males that have it than women, and that the discussion of the causes behind them are always blotted.
This is why i can sympathize with the male inceldom as it makes more sense, its not someone eating steak dinner and complaining about apple pie, its not someone eating shitty McDonald meals and not having steakhouse. Its someone not even having leftovers and crumbs to eat at all. Its a total non negotiable lack of life quality, no options. Though, i do believe women inceldoom could exist, i think if we remove a lot of those psudo classifications with ideas that people have not understood like "men only want to have sex with me, not "love" me""... or emotional triggers, it would be significantly less women who actually fit the bill of being incel. Id think this group would be primarily transgender's, people with mental personal conflicts, people who are widely deformed, or extremely obese to the point of high risk. Not people who have preferences.


We live in a very gynocentric society that is sexist against men. To give a few examples, men get longer prison sentences, are convicted at higher rates for the same crimes, and receive longer sentences for killing women than for killing men. (i.e. men are disposable)

We always assume men to be the aggressor in any encounter. Women actually commit more domestic violence than men, yet we always assume it's the man who is abusive. Another example, "My husband tells me what I should wear" Sounds bad right? How about "My wife tells me what I should wear." The first sounds worse because we assume that a man with some power in the relationship will abuse his power, but we don't assume the same for women.

Men have to be extraordinarily careful not to sound like they are blaming women whenever they vent any sort of frustration or emotion. For instance, "Why do women like that asshole and not me?" is something that you might find mocked in r/niceguys or r/justneckbeardthings. Yet if a woman says something like "Why does that guy like the hot girl but not me?" she would be most likely receive sympathy. Men have to be super careful in choosing their words, which is ironic because we encourage men to express their emotions more. Yet when they do, we shame them for it.

Male sexuality is considered shameful. Men are considered creepy if they have a blow up doll, for an example. Yet it's perfectly normal for a woman to have a collection of dildos. Men are shamed if they date much younger women, even if she is a consenting adult.

Perhaps this isn't too controversial, but women are attracted to status, masculinity, power, and good looks. They are more attracted to a man if other women want him. They are no less superficial in their sexual preferences than men. Weakness is unattractive to women. Being an emotional, sensitive man is a death sentence in the dating world.

RPillers have a right to be angry and upset because men are almost always blamed for everything. They are assumed to be the bad guy. TRP is the one place that they can get relief from this and where women can be the bad guy for once. I also feel like all women are partially responsible for their state. We should have been the ones to stand up and defend men. Men have a hard time standing up for themselves without being perceived as weak or misogynist.

The more power the man has in the relationship, the longer the relationship lasts and the more power the woman has, the unhappier the relationship.


@ProklysmosThe "never change" thing is pretty strange to me. There have been numerous times in my life where I've had people call me out for expressing opinions or behaving in a way that contradicts things I said or did when I was much younger. It felt like they were basically pulling a "gotcha" or attacking me for changing over time. Some people actually do stop becoming more mature or mentally developing at a younger age than other people. Those are the kind of people who have "immature" thoughts, temperament, and interests long into their adult lives. One example I'm thinking of is when I recently told my 30 year old sister that paying $400 to get her hair dyed seemed excessive to me, she brought up how when I was a teenager I would pay to get haircuts at a relatively expensive barber shop. I responded by saying something like, "yeah, but I was immature and materialistic back then" and she got offended. This same sister still listens to the same pop music she listened to back then 15+ years ago. She bought tickets to a Taylor Swift concert in 2020, but the tour got cancelled due to Covid. This year she got free tickets for the redo tour, but the resale price of the average ticket was ultra-inflated because people had been waiting for 3 years. I asked my sister how much the tickets were going for online, but she wouldn't tell me. I asked, "what, $1000?" she laughed and said no. 1500? She laughed again. 2000? She shook her head and made it obvious she didn't want me to keep asking. They were tickets for good seats in a Los Angeles tour date, so they were definitely somewhere between like $2500 and $5000 a piece. And she had two tickets for herself and her fiance. So they passed up on a free $5000 at minimum because she was very attached to a pop culture fantasy experience she's been living since the 00's. She and her fiance have been engaged for several years now, postponing the wedding for financial reasons, and they have put off having children because they don't think they've got enough money for that either. Sorry, wall of text for illustration purposes, basically I agree with a lot of what you're describing here. Our mother is extremely narcissistic and I worry that my two sisters acquired a lot of her traits, though they aren't nearly as toxic.


People who always complain about not being loved despite going through so many relationships. You see this commonly with narcy women and carnal men. Loved??? No they want to be worshipped they want to cause stress while you shoulder it, want to hold you to traditional gender roles while seeking liberation from the traditional balance to those roles, thjen claim you’re not a real if you question the hypocrisy do you not hear the attitude


A surprisingly interesting subject. For my entire life I had accepted the conventional wisdom that men and women had the same IQs on average, but that men had a greater variance, thus there were 3x as many men that scored as Genius on IQ tests (and presumably 3x as many men that scored as idiots, but that part was never clearly elucidated). But there is a huge problem with the data set, it is based almost exclusively on 18-22 year olds, and just presumes that IQ is fixed throughout life for each sex. And it appears the tests were manipulated to exclude questions that men scored considerably better on than women.


shapeshift nature of women into anything they want, this is why people dont see the truth about female nature correctly especially the nature the word speaks of.

The nature of women and male nature is automatic. the reason i feel some way about fem or male content that reveals truth about feminism or whatever is because my association to this animal. After the spiritual disassociation it becomes like looking at how animals in the field work, like learning about horses and whatnot. My anger or emotion is moreso about my situation of animalistic domination.
Read everysingle word nice
 
  • +1
Reactions: humanoidsub7, Shkreliii and dreamcake1mo
should be in BOTB
 
  • +1
Reactions: humanoidsub7, nigkook, Shkreliii and 1 other person
short text
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii and dreamcake1mo
But i agree. It reminds me of how people who have been in the most relationships, are ironically worst at keeping relationships than someone who has been in less
Because most men don’t necessarily know what they supposed to do or have the genectics to be able to keep a relationship lol. They’ll say “muh experience” but then be emotionally attached which ultimately ruins everything lol.
 
  • +1
Reactions: humanoidsub7, Shkreliii, h7seyn and 1 other person
Dn read

No mention of BBCpill
 
  • +1
Reactions: humanoidsub7, Shkreliii, Sub0 and 2 others
Dn read

No mention of BBCpill
You can search up my username with the keyword "preselection" and you'd find a lot of writes about this. It might be unnecessary though as a lot more people have talked about media "halo", which is essentially the same concept.

I might make a proper thread about it one day .

Media influences preselection strongly through personalities, popular archetypes, and such. And preselection significantly determines if a person is attractive or not. Up until id say 2000s, the situation was quite opposite with Europeans. Whats happening now really does justice to expose the influence of media and the vanity of most human behavioral patterns. What black people or melanated people of color noticed back then, europeans or people of fair skin notice now.

Sometimes i wonder if this is some sort of natural intelligence purposely making such things obvious to people- according to what level of attention they are on and able to decipher. Or is it specifically/intently done by specific groups of people (global leaders) to cause race wars, or like the first point, helping to assist the revelation of these certain aspects to those qualified?
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii and h7seyn
You can search up my username with the keyword "preselection" and you'd find a lot of writes about this. It might be unnecessary though as a lot more people have talked about media "halo", which is essentially the same concept.

I might make a proper thread about it one day .

Media influences preselection strongly through personalities, popular archetypes, and such. And preselection significantly determines if a person is attractive or not. Up until id say 2000s, the situation was quite opposite with Europeans. Whats happening now really does justice to expose the influence of media and the vanity of most human behavioral patterns. What black people or melanated people of color noticed back then, europeans or people of fair skin notice now.

Sometimes i wonder if this is some sort of natural intelligence purposely making such things obvious to people- according to what level of attention they are on and able to decipher. Or is it specifically/intently done by specific groups of people (global leaders) to cause race wars, or like the first point, helping to assist the revelation of these certain aspects to those qualified?
It’s the Jews in a blood partnership with satan

It’s not complicated.

Also women are emotional children.

You type so much bloat it’s retarded.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii, h7seyn and dreamcake1mo
jesus christ is it that hard to put it into chatgpt and tell it to summarize
 
  • +1
Reactions: darktriadmogger123, Shkreliii and dreamcake1mo
Nigga i am not reading allat so KYS
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Shkreliii, acv700, ongifm and 2 others
It’s the Jews in a blood partnership with satan

It’s not complicated.

Also women are emotional children.

You type so much bloat it’s retarded.
Yes i agree.

I type bloat on purpose. I also consider that most people here do have some sort of broad understanding of such topics. So my content also serves as a "refresher". A way to reintroduce the same important topics and potentially introduce more complicated subjects if one were to ask more specific questions.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii and Patient A
Hey.
Here's a compilation of truth/conspiracy/female nature/blackpill etc/ posts submitted and typed by various ORG users across this and other platforms.

Lately, i have noticed there has been reports of this forum to bad actors, as well as observable server downtime. For this reason, i think it may be beneficial to amalgamate high effort discussions and posts, so that if one day this forum goes bye bye, it could still be possible to reintroduce these posts and topics to the next boat. Feel free to copypaste/archive these texts or add to the collection. Also, i apologize if i fail to source you or the original author in some texts. A lot of sourcing information is lost in translation.

WARNING. LONG TEXT POSTS.















I'm not missing that fact, its just that emotions don't mean anything, everyone has them and they don't really have any importance except to that individual. Except the real world is unforgiving no matter who you are which is why we have to judge things objectively and not through each persons individual lense. If you want to treat women as children that get stressed out and struggle with minor things then they should also have all rights and responsibilities stripped down to a child like level. You cant give women all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men while simultaneously claiming that they need to be constantly forgiven and made special care for because they're actually incapable of handling all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men.

Capable people and incapable people should be treated accordingly and the instant you start straying from this, it can only result in incapable people being thrust into positions that they should never have been in and cant handle. Unconditionally forgiving women's flaws for no other reason than "its their nature" is as ridiculous as saying men should be allowed to rape and murder at will because its "in their nature" and we should just be understanding of that. The purpose of civilization is to overcome nature which is why we place rules and expectations on peoples behavior instead of just allowing them to act however they want at any given moment

But there's literally no need to understand the emotional perspective of an individual since it doesn't matter. How is any one individuals emotions relevant to anything that actually takes place in the real world? Understanding women is very easy and every culture in human history came to the same conclusions: if women, or anyone for that matter, are not capable of getting over themselves and thinking/behaving rationally instead of being slaves to their emotions then what they think or say doesn't matter. Not everyone's perspective is important, especially people who can only see things from the lens of their own emotions and ego instead of just seeing things the way they are

A good example of this is your own response. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it or not, civilization is the opposite of a natural state and cannot exist without controlling peoples nature and their base instinctual urges which is why every civilization in human history has had strict laws and rules on what people are allowed to do and not to do. You don't have to like it and it also doesn't matter whether you do but the more civilization advances, the further and further we are removed from our natural state. It is unhealthy to go too far over the edge but its still happening anyway and will continue to happen. This is achievable, every first world country on the planet currently operates like this and areas of the world that did not set increasingly strict control on human behaviors never developed past the third world because everyone constantly engaged in their most primitive urges with no sense of order which makes it impossible to advance

If rape and murder were not a part of human nature then why do they exist so commonly through human history and why has every properly established culture have laws against them? An example of what's not a part of human nature is grazing in a field or swimming up stream to birth a bunch of eggs. It doesn't matter how you feel about rape or violence, they are a part of human nature and that's why we create laws to control and prevent it. Entirely hypocritical to say that civilization is not about conquering nature and then say that rape and murder is "beastly" when in our most primitive and pre-civilisation eras, these things were extremely common. Go to any third world country on the world where there is a breakdown of infrastructure making it difficult to control the worst of human behavior and you'll see just how common it all is


evil can sometimes be described as militant ignorance. the original concept of sin is a process that leads us to miss the mark and fall short of perfection. While most people are conscious of this, at some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness check. Those that are evil attempt to escape and hide from their own conscience (though means like self deception and such etc.). Now thing of the evil of see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil archetypes. The unwilling to listen to clear truth and such. Ignorant mindsets in todays time where people actively and popularly disregard and have a sort of "happiness to disregard" things of good consciousness.

Antichrist was never referred to be a person, but instead a spirit. They are many people with the antichrist spirit.

Donald Trump just posted this image on his Instagram page. Many will say this picture represents Jesus being by his side through persecution. That is not what this photo represents. This is Trump’s persecution being likened to Jesus’s persecution, as has been done many times before by many including his son, Donald Trump Jr as I’ve pointed out before. Make no mistake, Trump in his heart believes he is a Christ-like, messiah figure that will save the world so he can take credit for it. Trump sees the praise and adoration Jesus receives and wants that for himself. His entire life philosophy has always been about being number 1. This is exactly why the religious zionists in his corner are and will continue to push for him to fulfill these messianic prophecies of protecting Israel and bringing peace to all nations. So that he can claim to be the messiah. Lucifer fell because of pride. And so too will the Antichrist be led into perdition. Because he magnifies himself in his heart. That’s what the biblical Antichrist is, a man with the prideful characteristics of Lucifer who tries to be Jesus. This is exactly the strong delusion talked about in 2 Thessalonians 2:11. Keep your eyes and heart on Jesus Christ alone, and look not to earthly princes to save you.


@justlolatthisworld7917 "Einstein" means "a rock" in German. "Einstein" was literally "as dumb as a rock". Open mocking in plain sight. I thought of this yesterday and it made me think of you anon, since I've heard you rightfully mention how Einstein was a literal moron.


Honestly its a lot of complication in the bible. Many things are not to be taken literal, or to be taken BOTH literal AND nonliteral. And i dont think this is because the bible was made to be inherently complicated, but even moreso the fact that language translations lose meanings overtimes. This is the reason strongs concordance exists.

We have to remember were reading the book in english. Theres so many double meanings in the English language, and words that categorize new meanings outside of the predecessor synonyms ETC.

For example, the beasts referenced in the bible. Clearly that is not literal but moreso referencing a country/system (technology hub in todays time) sort of thing. Christ was also implied to be the living law. Its even hard right now to explain in words.

But the point im trying to make is, i think the whole categorization of "demon", to a singular independent being, is kind of shallow thinking. The word demon is limited to what we learn about it. For many, this means some singular metaphysical deity. But lets look at it from a physical perspective. There has to be a system to everything. Thats the physical world we live in. Anything that materializes or influences behavior in such a manner has to sort of have some sort of physical(or metaphysical) process to incept or influence. Especially a demon, which has questionable authority over life. For example, the body in itself i guess could be a called a demon, or a host of wickedness, and that being dedicated to fulfilling the bodys desires leaves you "possessesed" into the bodies lusts. Hence why demons and body sickness are strongly correlated. Technically all of the prerequisite boxes would check off. Meaning the fruit of the "demons" which is posession (leaving you to do its own will, weather the lust is the satification for abusing, or all the other carnalities that people grow to adapt and be proficient in).

Not saying this is exactly how things work, but just to give a perspective. I feel like your question in itself is too narrow and it reminds me that sometimes the confusion is not in truth, but perspective of whats actually going on.


You lot of you would be better off learning how to be more cunning in society as that's how most social normies operate.
Also realising how they are taken by appearances. Not just appearance of your look but appearance of your general demeanour, as they use this to both gage how good life is going for you and whether you are a social success.
Learning that beauty standards are higher in major cities like London, LA, Miami, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Toronto, Sydney etc. No shit. It's a city. The rate race is stronger.
Most normies are not that talented at much. They just conform with mannerisms, slang, mainstream ideological narratives, shit they wear and what they believe in. They are followers and very agreeable until they see you being disagreeable to popular culture. They aren't that insightful, interesting or humorous.
Even guys with their own minds and that are not followers learn this. Unless you are making a deeper connection with a person, all that matters is how you appear on the surface. And if they are a matrix plugged in normie you should not even be making a deeper connection. They should be your associate to connections.
Realise everything is about immediate identifiable perception with normies. While you might be more open minded before sussing what somebody is all about, they ain't the same way lol. They are so plugged in that they run on autopilot and everyone needs to be in a box that they can understand otherwise something is off and fishy about them. So identify yourself before they identify you and treat you the way they think you are. This is very subtle.
And yes if you are someone bordering on chadlite you will be even more under this scrutiny, because the last thing a normie wants to see is a guy that looks stand out good and is not plugged into normie wavelength of communication


This is because the concept of being a "loser" was created to shame men by other men. Men created the concept of being a "loser". Now, since women hold so much power in society and the dating market the idea of being a loser has shifted toward a more superficial end. Where you were judged in the past by other men, now you are judged mostly by women who aren't rational and will judge you off how you look rather then what you do. Men in power are meritocratic, whereas women in power are emotionally unstable eugenicists. Whats worse is there is now no checks and balances to control these power that women hold. Affirming these ridiculous, and useless standards for an actual flourishing society.


About trying to settle the deal about inceldoom to official channels. They have there own skin in the game to keep this ideology from spreading. Skimming the paper, It doesn't seem to really consider WHY this ideology is becoming popular, just how to stop if from doing so. Now, it is written in a journal of criminology so I can see the reasoning, but why is it even in a journal like that in the first place? You would think a sociological or cultural journal would be better. They only wish to understand the blackpill because it's becoming a threat to the social order, and to women. I would be more sympathetic to these authors (both of whom are women, which could lead to some subconcious bias) if they would try to consider the plight of these men that fall into this ideology, but all it appears to be is more damage control from a system that is inherently against men's interests and intends on fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.
This.


when it comes to animals (carnal humans), a human (in this case a "spiritual" focused person) needs to cage them up or structure them somehow less they themselves get killed or affected by animalistic behavior. Why do you think religion is always what follows after truth seeker movements, after the few individuals that actually gave a crap about truth. Thats why i call it a derivative. Pest control. Carnality is the way of the animal. Religion is the ordinance of the animal nature. Islam, christianity, whatever. Its the same thing. And they are all flawed. The frustration behind the argument for your religion is misdirected and carnal imo.


Cancer growth and metastasis in a fueled by the immune system being in a hyper allergen state (TH2).
Fasting greatly reduces allergic reactions to food, promoting a TH1 mediated immune response which is required for cancer cell clearance.
Excess histamine = Excess cortisol = Estrogen dominance = TH2 mediated immune response.
Liver and gallbladder function play a crucial role in these issues.
The problem is, when the allergen sensitivities stop, and TH1 mediated immune response turns back, the immune system will start going after any latent infections you were harboring.
This is known in holistic health circles as a “healing crisis”.


I don't wanna bring a son who will suffer in a matriarchal society or a daughter who would turn to OF hoe while i can't do nothing, we need to keep old school ideologies, it's even helps against hypergamy
Your better of creating or starting your own movement. Islam is already toast. Its doing what its always done. But for the animal, a country sized fence is almost as if it were no fence at all. Its going to have to be a new religion or derivative. Ultimately to get the attention of the carnal nature your going to have to use different tactics. Marketing, deception, favoritism etc. Look at how "hebrew isrealites" secluded the bible and used the race bait as a pull.


Areas with high population density (many people in an area) and high interaction (something as simple as seeing someone, even online or on a newspaper counts as an interaction, independent of if they know them or not) creates inequality. The more dense and the more interactions, the worse the inequality.
This is because, if there's a group of 5 people, things are more equal in every domain compared to if there were 500, or 5 million or 5 billion. The more people, the more outliers there are. These outliers create inequality (economic, dating, etc.)
The population density allows people to see the gap of their situation to their outliers. This outlier affects the normie.
High population creates outliers.
High population density allows people to be aware of the outliers.
These environments created what John B. Calhoun called "behavioral sinks". Basically, a behavioral sink is a collapse in productive social behavior, where increased negative emotions, disrupted social structures, and abnormal behaviors prevail.
The rats formed social and dating hierarchies, Chads got the women and the non-Chads usually either...
  • Developed non-straight sexualities
  • Became timid, weak, apathetic, withdrawn asexual hikikomoris/neets (adolescents and young adults who become recluses in their parents' homes, isolated from society)
  • Or desperate, erratic and unsuccessful (pickup autists and redpill roaches)
Chads became aggressive, and since the non-Chads were all withdrawn from society and responsibility, the women had to fend for themselves and protect Chad's children (with humans, it's either the cucked normie's child or she's childless, since Chad doesn't want to reproduce with her, only sex). The female rats became aggressive, neglectful of their children, and non-motherly.
Infant mortality rose due to neglect, male and female rats gave up on dating due to discontent and negative emotions, birth rates dropped, and the new and smaller children grew up to be asexual since they never really learned sexual behaviors due to their parents giving up on mating. The rat society aged to death due to population collapse and low birth rates.
Of course, this isn't perfectly applicable to humans, remember that. For humans, economic, and other kinds of inequalities also play a major role in behavioral sinks, but if if the trajectory of society keeps going where it's going, we could very well get a comparable result as human beings to what the rats got. Birth rates are plummeting and our societies are mentally ill, just like the rats.

Anyways, Why am I showing you all of this?

Because dating environments differ in blackpill severities. Due to population density and population count.
There could be "tiers" to the blackpill.
Basically, in some dating environments, you'll need to literally be perfect, in other environments, you have to be HTN at least.
Also, consider that the fact that dating environments men and women have been in the past also can influence their mating decisions.


Anti oxidants can actually be pro oxidants if you have mitochondrial membrane complex issues or NAD metabolic problems / imbalance with age.
How do free radicals get quenched and removed from the body? The body cleaves electrons off of the substance, reducing its reactivity, making it less dangerous and easier to incorporate or dispose of.
But what happens if large amounts of anti oxidants rapidly quench and reduce free radicals and pollutants in the body, releasing massive amounts of electrons?
Normally, those electrons would be shuttled into the electron transport chain and used to make ATP. But, as you get older, or if you have mitochondrial membrane complex 1 to 4 issues, your body is less able to handle a flood of electrons.
This can lead to metabolic bottle necks or even overflows.
What does this mean? Those electrons can lead to a flood of hydrogen peroxide in the body. If the H2O2 levels overwhelm the ability of Catalase to quench it all down to water; If it builds up: greying hair, stem cell issues, mtdna number decreases and telemorase issues, leading to lowered maximum replicative lifespan of stem cells and mitochondria.
Rapidly increased aging.
Vitamin E, a powerful anti oxidant, can significantly lower lifespan. The studies can never accurately tell you why. I can. It's the overwhelming flood of electrons into the ECC.
Resolving electron transport chain issues is important for healthy aging.
As for NAD+ and Nadh. NADh is an electron donor. If you have too high NADh, it shows metabolic disorder. Shows you have electron transport chain issues.
If you don't resolve them, it's possible supplementing NAD will just rapidly convert to NADh, adding fuel to metabolic fire.
The fix for that, in leiu of fixing the electron transport chain, is combining all anti oxidants with electron acceptors or getting more in the diet.
They can mop them up, order them properly, recycle them for use, or help dispose of them.
We need more electron acceptors and less electron donors in our diets. Especially when combined with NAD or anti oxidants.


I dislike most quotes and similar forms of socially popular truth "memes" shared online.
Theres no influence of truthful behavior (teaching people their own faults and to not do the same) without proactive and introspectively constructive honesty. Without this constructive honesty, there becomes a influx of people who highlight other people who know the truth, but are not even honest enough to recognize their own behavior and warn against that instead, as that would require actually knowing (being proactive and introspectively constructive), and not just speculative or socially influenced to think or perceive. When women or men repost or rethink about common troupes against each other, they don't really have any intellectual depth, but is sort of low effort, simple minded bait content used to alleviate common (sometimes unaware, or misguilded) frustrations. The reason i dislike this, is because its not coming from a place where the individual (viewer or even reposter) is actually self reflective on their own behavior that may have enabled such frustrations to occur, thus usually no intellectual response from the poster thus, usually no intellectual discussion or gain to the viewer. Think of the common trope that; “men are not shit”. Or even low iq incel bait posts like “women are this” etc, where the lack of intellectual discussion (in depth questions such as why, how, what, etc) do not occur on an individual level due to the format of the post not engaging the viewer to do such. I highlighted proactive honesty because only when a person is able to be proactively honest and introspective about these questions, and are honest about their behavior that may or may not enable such things, real discussion and data analysis can occur, Instead of just reposting. Think of how airplane investigations work. Constructive analysis where there is no side taken, where the women or man admit (be honest) of their behavior and the data is unbiasedly discussed and analyzed for accuracy and future correction. But of course this does not happen with these posts, nor does the UX structure (or even sentencing format the OP would use to create simple posts) allow introspective discussion or constructive analysis to happen. People see it, agree with it, and move on. Holding tight the building frustration until eventually the simple frustration becomes a trigger of hatred, regardless of if that person is actually enabling their own frustrations or not (which may often be the case). For this reason i strongly recommend and prefer data rich communication, no matter how "long", "aspie, autistic, or socially weird it may seem. Ultimately when working with data, its best to receive the best quality.


The following text was taken from the website “Shedding of the Ego” by Mr. K and reviewed by Savage, it's been adapted by John Cracovizk (literally me) for an easier (and less MGTOW) read to my LooksMax.org fellas. The link to the original text is available in the end of the thread, good read!

1. INTRODUCTION - What is Hybristofilia? The Joker and Quinn example

"Ok, gentlemen, today we are going to discuss hybristophilia, a term that seems to me to best summarize the female penchant for the “Bad Boy”.

First, the definition of the term according to an online medical dictionary:

Hybristophilia - Paraphilia in which a person is sexually attracted to someone who has committed a bombing or horrific crime.

It may be best to start with some examples found in pop culture and work our way up to real-world examples.

Many consider the dynamic duo of the DC comics universe, the Joker and his equally psychopathic companion, Harley Quinn, to be a clear example of the “Florence Nightingale effect” (In reference to the dedication of Florence Nightingale, who many consider to be the founder of modern nursing, demonstrated in her patients).
The Florence Nightingale effect is a situation in which a caregiver develops romantic and/or sexual feelings for their patient, even though there is very little communication or contact outside of basic care. The feelings may disappear when the patient no longer needs care, whether through recovery or death.

I believe this is a misdiagnosis of Quinn, or at least only a partial diagnosis.

If you're well-versed in the origins of Joker's bitch, you'll know that Quinn started out as an asylum psychiatrist in Arkham and her name was Dr. Harleen Frances Quinzel, M.D, who was tasked during her internship with the psychoanalysis of some of the worst and greatest psychopaths and criminals of Gotham, one of which was the Joker himself. During the interview process with the Joker, Quinn was mesmerized by his Charisma (personality pilled once again
:soy:
), a trait psychopaths often cultivate to hide their true nature.

Swayed by the strength of the Joker's personality and charm, Quinn fell deeply in love with him, culminating in helping him escape, unleashing one of the most dangerous psychopaths in the DC comics universe back onto the streets (women), until she finally gave up her comfortable life as a psychiatrist and joined him on his crime spree, taking on the persona of Harley Quinn, as we know her today.

Harley Quinn suffered not only from this “Florence Nightingale effect”, but from an advanced case of hybristophilia.

Furthermore, we speculate here that hybristophilia is a condition that is still poorly understood, which appears to be categorized into a very simplistic classification of women who are hybrostophilic and women who are not hybrostophilic, without there being a middle ground between the two.
2. EVOLVING DESIRES - The Complex Relationship Between Violence and Attraction
Now, think back to our remote existence, when human beings led prehistoric, short and often violent lives.

The comforts of our modern, technologically advanced civilization simply did not exist.

The caveman, who sought to have reproductive access to the female sex, had to offer something in return.
  • He needed to assure the females he wanted to mate with that he would provide them with resources, shelter, and sustenance on a regular basis.
  • He had to be violent enough to kill enough animals to feed himself, his women, and the children he would have with them.
  • He also had to have an innate ability to kill other men who wished to move into the resource-rich land that he controlled or that was controlled by the women he had sexual access to.
To put it bluntly, violent men have been selected by women for reproduction since time immemorial, and despite the fact that we have, through a manipulation of evolutionary impulses, built a civilization that largely mitigated this burden of violence, many women still yearn for violent men.


The average woman, of course, does not want to date a violent psychopath, at least not one of the status of a serial killer like Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez. But she longs for some of that caveman violence to emerge through the civilized exteriors of the men she is occasionally attracted to. In essence, women seek to ensure their security and provision in society through a kind of standardized double assault.

Simply extracting male provision via taxpayer subsidy is not enough.

The obsession with protection and provision that we see for women is expressed on a macro scale, through the occasional application of laws involving violence against women, such as “Rape Shield Laws” and “primary aggressor laws”, etc.

Spoiler: What is a Rape Shield Law?
Spoiler: What are Primary Aggressor Laws?

These laws often do not fully consider concepts of equality, such as due process and the luxury of a legal system that presumes innocence before guilt has already been established (this made me remember of this thread of mine where I talked about how your friends would probably leave you be eaten by wolves if someone came accusing you of rape, even though there isn't any proof).

To the collective unconscious, the hive mentality that drives the female masses, due process is irrelevant, they are voting with their hindbrain and therefore vote to ensure that their most primal needs and desires are met and satiated.

The problem is that women can never be satisfied; they point out and demand more security and more provisions… always.

In this way, while female involvement leverages the electoral process in her favor, and after the legal system implements as much gynocentrism as it can handle without collapsing, the individual woman also simultaneously cultivates her particular instinct for her own protection and provision.

In the form of what we call: “Alpha Brute”.
3. THE ALPHA BRUTE - Low Inhib and Dark Triad? Yes, but also a tool for the feminine

An individual prone to violence and physically imposing enough to do a lot of harm with hostility, who is also usually not intelligent enough to understand that he is in a servile position to the woman he is involved with, existing as a hired criminal who gets paid with sexual access.

It's like a pincer attack, designed to maximize benefits for the female collective, and frankly, men's lives, health, or rights have never influenced this process in any meaningful way.
This is just gynocentrism at its maximum power.

Take the following video as an example, preceded by a quick synopsis.

> The woman enters a cafeteria and skips the line.

> The man responds to whoever was on the phone that a woman jumped the queue.

> The woman hears and immediately intimidates him by staring at him, in a very rude, incisive and, finally, violent way.

> By chance, the boyfriend, a 150 kg ex-convict, enters the conversation, and at that moment there is a brief confrontation between the man and the boyfriend.-Out of nowhere, the boyfriend [ex-convict] punches the man, beating him violently.

See for yourself.

So... what do we witness here other than a vicious attack? Well, let's start from the woman's perspective.

Let's assume, hypothetically, that this woman could have started this confrontation without her boyfriend to protect her and that the man who attacked her in self-defense after she initiated the violence.
This woman would probably have no problem trusting the front line of gynocentric protection at her disposal, that being the macro-scale protection of a police force or a white knight who jumps to her defense without even questioning who initiated the violence.

This is why women advocate for first-offender laws, as blame almost universally falls on the man in domestic violence disputes, despite evidence to the contrary, if any. Once again, women want it that way, they are not concerned with due process and equal rights for men, they are concerned with leveraging the State and strengthening their fundamental reproductive habits.

However, in this case, it was her boyfriend who was nearby, who was, for all intents and purposes, the alpha brute we've described. He is prone to violence, physically imposing, and almost seems to take pleasure in subjecting another man to the brutality he can unleash in his master's name. This is an extreme example of what all women want to some degree, community protections from non-violent men in the form of a legal system, and individual protections from violent men in the form of these thugs who are more than willing to disregard those legal protections.

This is what drives the female tendency toward hybristophilia, which appears to only be pathological in the most extreme examples, but which actually lies on a continuum.

This is a spectrum of hybristophilia that ranges from the woman who prefers a beating from her man behind closed doors, to the “serial killer fanatics” who gained notoriety for fainting with excitement in the presence of hyper-violent serial killers, such as Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez, during the fanfare of his trials.

Every woman who asks you to choke her, spank her, spank her ass, or spit on her in a safe, controlled environment during consensual sex is acting on this misunderstood desire.

She is asking you to release your inner caveman, she is asking you to become a violent weapon that she can use for her protection, and in doing so, she receives vast sexual stimulation.

I don't hate women for that, much less do I expect them to change. I believe this is an innate quality of female sexual attraction. Nor do I absolve them if they act on these impulses in some way in real causes of violence, rather than simulated, against other human beings like the woman described above.

Women who are so dependent on their primitive impulses to the point of directing one of these brutes to harm others through violence should be locked up and kept away from civilized people. But in terms of desire, of female attraction to violent men, I suspect there's very little we can do to combat that.
Spoiler: Is there a solution maybe?

We will have to understand women's tendency to select violent men and we have to manage and discourage it as best we can. And so I begin my efforts here with a simple material.

5. EXAMPLES - Abandon all hope, ye who enter here

First, we start with , the “cultural Marxism” conspiracy theorist who killed 77 souls, most of whom were young teenagers. An article titled Norway’s mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik gets hundreds of love letters a year states the following:

STOCKHOLM (AFP) — She calls him by his first name, sends him letters every week and promises to wait for him.

It could be any love story, but Victoria's heart belongs to a mass murderer: Anders Behring Breivik. Responsible for Norway's worst peacetime murder since World War II, Breivik, like many other famous killers, has his share of admirers, a phenomenon that can be accompanied by sexual attraction and, in this case, there is even a term: hybristophilia.

“I really wouldn’t want to live a life without him,” says “Victoria,” who doesn’t want her real name published. A young Swedish woman in her 20s appears distant and impassive, ignoring her fresh cup of coffee in the lobby of a Stockholm hotel. But her voice breaks when she talks about her “dear Anders”.

From a small town in Sweden, she is doing everything she can to get Breivik's prison conditions eased: he has spent the last four years isolated in a high-security penitentiary. He is currently serving a 21-year sentence, which can be extended if he is still considered a danger to society.

Breivik killed 77 people on July 22, 2011, when he detonated a bomb near government offices in Oslo and opened fire at a summer camp for young workers on the island of Utoya. For Victoria, Breivik's isolation amounts to “torture”.

“I worry about him even more now that he's in such a vulnerable situation,” she says.

Unemployed due to health problems, she writes to him to encourage him—far more than the 150 letters ever written—or sends him small gifts, including a dark blue tie that he occasionally wore during his trial. In return, she received two letters from him — which she showed to AFP — the others were blocked by prison officers tasked with censoring his correspondence.

Marriage proposals:

It is not easy to define her relationship with Breivik, a man she has never met, since all her requests to visit him were denied.
She describes him as her “old friend” and as a kind of “brotherly figure” and protector, but admits that she finds him attractive and “there were romantic interests, at first, at least on my part.”
:lul:


She says that their first contact dates back to 2007, when they met through an online game. He cut ties with her two years later, presumably to focus on planning her attacks. But in early 2012, Victoria reconnected with the man who had by then become the most hated person in Norway. And she is not alone.

The Weekly Morgenbladet (A Norwegian weekly, intellectual newspaper, covering politics, culture and science.) reported last year that Breivik receives “at least” 800 letters a year, many of them from admiring women.

During the 2012 trial, a 16-year-old girl (a JB ) asked him to marry her.

Hybristophilia is a term used by criminologists — but not scientists — to describe a sexual attraction to violent killers in prison, who often receive racy love letters or sexy underwear from their fans. Also known as “Bonnie and Clyde syndrome,” it exists across time and place, .Josef Fritzl of Austria, who held his daughter captive and repeatedly raped her for 25 years, and American killer Charles Manson also have their own fan clubs.

According to Sheila Isenberg, an American author who interviewed 30 women for her book "Women Who Love Men Who Kill", says that these admirers often have a history of sexual abuse.

“It's a chance for a woman to be in control (the man is behind bars for life and has no control over anything), when previously she was abused by her father (or) by other men,” she explained to AFP.

“Plus, it’s romance with a capital R: exciting, thrilling, a never-ending rollercoaster. Nothing dull or ordinary about these relationships.”

However, there is no scientific evidence to support the widespread belief that these women feel they are on a mission to help the killer get on the right path in life, said Amanda Vicary, assistant professor of psychology at Wesleyan University in the United States.

“Some women tend to be attracted to famous men — it's possible that the reason some women are attracted to men who have done horrible things is not so much what they did, but the fame they received from their actions,” she said.

Victoria, Meanwhile, she says she's not looking for fame. Her involvement with Breivik has already cost her relationship with her sister, who, upon learning of her ties to him, told her: “You are dead to me.” And she distanced herself from her friends. She admits to “more or less sharing” Breivik's Islamophobic ideology, but says she opposes violence.

So how can she love a man who slaughtered dozens of terrified teenagers, some of whom begged him to spare their lives?

“I think I had to separate Anders from the real Breivik. I think of Anders as my old friend and Breivik as the person who did all these things. The years pass and yet she refuses to give up on him. “I miss you more and more every day. I think my feelings got a little stronger.”
Another interesting article I stumbled across will give you some real insight into the nature of this phenomenon, titled Editorial: On Love, Sex and Murderers and it's quite long so I'll only publish the parts I judge relevant:

At the same time, we are both repelled and fascinated by studying sociopaths and their quest for blood — and most of the time, men seek women's blood. The idea of the “good” Dexter-style serial killer is relatively new, but it is a known fact that women flooded Ted Bundy with love letters, a woman married Richard Ramirez while he was in prison, and there are countless other examples. of lesser-known criminals and their fanatics. Montages with Ted Bundy? Why? We wonder why serial killers do what they do all the time - perhaps that's where the fascination begins for people who identify as "hybristophiles."

A few years ago, I met a sixteen-year-old girl (another jb, I'm starting to see a pattern
:feelsthink:
) who identified herself as Ted-Head (a Ted Bundy groupie). It was easy to ignore the romanticization of a man whose horror she had never experienced. Other interests of hers were, like many of mine, dark and subversive. My thought at the time was that one day she would grow up and realize that finding a person interesting is not the same as finding them emotionally or sexually attractive. After all, Bundy used the fact that he was a handsome man to kill women. He's not exactly the kind of guy you'd want to date (you wouldn't want to go on a date with Rodney James Alcala either, but he won The Dating Game).

I wanted to write a little about the Ted Bundy phenomenon and how it continues into a new generation. I started on a site called Bundyphile, hoping to start at the source in my efforts to write about gaining some understanding from the young women who followed Bundy (one Facebook page referred to him as “The Misunderstood Voice of a Generation”) .

The themes presented on these sites were repetitive:

Bundy wasn’t “that bad.”

Bundy was misunderstood.

Yes, what Bundy did was wrong, but you can love and admire him without idolizing his crimes.

Many of the women and girls who are obsessed with Bundy and other serial killers seem to think that they could be the special person who would change or train them, or be “the one” who would be there for them and stop all the bad things that happenned. In one blog entry, a woman calling herself “Lolita” proclaims, in all caps for all to see, “EITHER WAY, IF MY OWN DEATH COULD FILL TED BOUNDY’S HOLLOW SOUL, I [REALLY] WOULD LOVE TO BE HIS LAST VICTIM." (Can you imagine being adored like this?
:feelsgiga:
)

She claimed they were similar, claimed to understand him. He was “different” (
:coffee:
) from other killers (remember, Ted Bundy was probably dead before this woman was born). Within minutes of my research, it became clear that you can't search for Ted-Heads without encountering Dahmer's “fangirls” and the obsession that many Internet fans have with gay male sex (suddenly fujoshi reference?
:dafuckfeels:
). Specifically, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer engaging in gay sex (wtf?
:feelskek:
). It was around this time that my research took a sharp left turn. Up until this point, women had not only seemed emotionally invested, but obsessed. They seemed to believe that a woman's love for them could have saved the violent men they so idolized.

When I reached the Mrs.Dahmer’s Infinityland website, it became clear that there was much more to this phenomenon than the tendency of high school/college girls to fall in love with “misunderstood” and “shady” men. The whole point of it was about sex. OK yes. I think we knew that, but this was deeply dark and disturbing sex, based completely on how violent and terrible these men were. A post on Tumblr says:

- Most girls: you've seen his big body, right?

- Me: You saw his death counter, right?

The page “Mrs. Dahmer” features several photos of Dahmer, most photos typically taken after being arrested or photos of him in prison jumpsuits. The photos have sweet captions, the same way a high school girl would caption a photo of her favorite Disney crush in her diary (
:dafuckfeels:
)

After I discovered the “hybristerotica” tag on Tumblr, things got really dark, and it happened really quickly. A Tumblr dedicated to celebrating hybristophilia drags me to a corner of the internet I never expected to find.

Sex and Crime All The Time features, among other things, photos of famous serial killers with sexually explicit “confessions” emblazoned on them and a serialized erotic story called Stockholm Syndrome, focusing on Richard Ramirez.

I want to take a moment to state here that I understand that rape fantasy is not the same as wanting to be raped and that many women with healthy sex lives are adept at this type of sex — however, I think this fantasy becomes a little different when the fantasies are focused on men known for violently stalking and attacking women.

I also wonder about this fine line, as these women proudly identify themselves as “hybristophiles” and defend the legitimacy of this attraction, although the profile of women who fit the definition is not a list of positive personality traits, and many of them admit this sexual dysfunction outside of situations where they are fantasizing about the killers.

Hardcore hybristophiles don't always bother to claim that the men they obsess over are “misunderstood” or “only half bad.” When an anonymous Tumblr fan asks if Ted Bundy loved his wife and son, the blog owner responds, “I don’t think so.” There seem to be limits, however.

One user says she is “sad” that Eric Harris’ diary featured homophobic sentiments. The blog owner comforts her by assuming that he would have overcome these feelings if he were alive (can't believe this shit). The conversation, however, had nothing to do with the way these men treated women. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, the more violent the fantasy.

It isn't over yet.
For some reason, I find the obsession with men like Bundy and Ramirez less disturbing than the sexual and romantic fantasies associated with more recent killers. There's a good chance that women who idolize Bundy will wear a pendant with his photo on it and look at his photo alive, given that Bundy died in 1989. He could be seen as a “character” like Loki from the Avengers or, yes, even something like Dexter. No one they know has had contact with him, they have not felt the fear and horror he caused personally.

But women fantasizing about Elliot Rodger were definitely alive and well when he opened fire in Santa Barbara in May of this year. Their obsession runs much deeper than their appearance — these women have studied their hate-filled videos and their manifesto. His hatred towards women had no effect on removing these hybristophiles. In fact, it seems to do the opposite, all the women attracted to Rodger have a common desire — to be his first girlfriend. Be the girl who calms your anger. Some fantasize about Rodger with Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris from the Columbine shooting, claiming they could show him how to win women. Hybristerotica presents two pieces of erotic “fan fiction” about Eliot Rodger, one written from his point of view and the other told from a woman's point of view — In Come Over and Fuck Me, she imagines herself as his lifelong friend, without realize his desire for her.

The erotica isn't well written, but that's not the point. It doesn't have to be like this. The very thought of fucking these dangerous men is what captivates the women who participate in the hybristophilia tags on Tumblr. Serial killer and hybristophile fans receive a lot of negative attention from other Tumblr users, particularly those who like true-crime but don't want to be associated with people who fetishize and idolize killers. If you go through any of the popular hybristophilia tags, you will see the defenses of hybristophilia over and over again. They insist that they are not mocking the victims or supporting the crime, they respect the victims — they are just attracted to the killer. The most interesting case is the group of young women obsessed with the high school shooter, TJ Lane.

While his fans insist they respect victims and their families, they also praise him for wearing a 'KILLER' shirt to court and share GIFs of him telling his victims' parents: “The hand that pulled the trigger to kill your children is now gone. Masturbates with the memory of them. Fuck you all,” while shocking everyone.

They call him “sass” and tag photos of him as “The King of Sass/The King of Attitude.” Almost all of TJ Lane's memes, GIFs, and collages involve this quote, either in full or just part of it. They love him, in large part, because he was disrespectful to the families of his victims. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, and the more violent the fantasy.

Some hybristophiles claim they are completely normal, one even cited her therapist in defense of her obsession with TJ Lane. Others assert that it is no different from any other paraphilia (a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depends on fantasy and engagement in atypical and extreme sexual behaviors) and as such should be respected.

It's worth noting that pedophilia is the most common type of paraphilia, and no one is suggesting that everyone supports pedophiles as normal — not even hybristophiliacs who like men who have abused children. The four most common types of paraphilia involve a rejection of consent — pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, and frotteurism — the act of rubbing against non-consenting people. Another fact worth considering in “respecting” as “normal” in hybristophiles is that paraphilia often leads to sexual dysfunction — needing what attracts them for sexual gratification.

If hybristophilia makes women [lovers of serial killers] unable to have a healthy sex life with men who don't want to rape or kill them, I would dare say it's not normal at all. These observations are not intended to judge hybristophilia communities, per se, but being fair to them also means showing the side that does not support their claims to normality.So why do women seek out sociopaths? Why does a killer with multiple victims attract them so much? There were even searches for Timothy McVeigh in the hybristophilia tags — there seems to be no limit. Some are purely sexual, some are borderline romantic, and some are downright disturbing considering the men are at the center of the discussion. Here are some of the tags about Jahar (Dzhokhar) Tsarnaev.

The deeper I dug into the hybristophilia tags and sites, the less sense it seemed to make. Going into this, I admit, I thought I would find some groups of misfits who still admired Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez. Like many, I read the published articles showing that the Tsarnaevs, James Holmes, and Adam Lanza (fucker kills lots of innocent children, females get wet) had attracted a female audience — but most of the content cited seemed to be “Wow, how hot he is,” which may be a real opinion — although Most people have a harder time separating a person's attractiveness from their actions.


The desire, the claims of love, the endless support and hero-worship definitely shook me. When I first glanced at the sexually explicit stories, I felt like I was losing my sanity. My brain really can't understand this, especially in cases like TJ Lane, who is not only someone without a shred of remorse, but also took joy in bragging about his crimes in front of the families of those he killed.

I've always watched things like Halloween, horror movies and books, and had a fascination with the dark and disturbing things, being a healthy reaction to a terrifying world. People study serial killers because we know that even though they behave like monsters, they are human. By learning about them, we gain knowledge and this helps us feel proactive and therefore safer. Because when we enter into horror and the supernatural, it becomes a terror that we can control.

It's like a paper mache skull that you can hold in your hand and know it's not so bad. What's troubling about hybristophiles on the internet, what becomes so disturbing, is knowing that they've crossed that line in some way. They went beyond a desire to understand, beyond a fascination, and into an uncontrolled obsession.

Link to the original text: http://sheddingoftheego.com/2015/08/23/hybristophilia-the-female-attraction-to-violence/

After adapting the text, I need to say this topic is DISGUSTING, but thanks for reading.


Womens wickedness is really subtle. The wicked carnal male nature is more upfront. Its like a beast. Fighting for resources, killing for pride/respect or mates.. and such carnalities. While womens are more subtle. Theirs is hypergamy, delusion, ambivalence.

I think in todays time the average person is more afflicted continuously by toxic women carnal nature than by toxic carnal men behavior. Though, as you rise/to rise in the ranks and popularity, you will be eventually gatekept by extremely toxic men behaviors (gang mentality, cuthroat, fight for resources/mates).

From what i observed they are equally toxic and work as a system. Both human carnal natures are unrighteous. But they are different in nature. But i agree, the intensity of a mans toxicity is way greater than a womans. Though, a womens toxicity is farther reaching, longer lasting, and more infectious, yet lower in potency. I compare it to water torture vs execution. Think today with feminism (90% of women now share some extremely feminist or hypergamous view, as well as a significant portion of men, of at least 50% who also share the same. And then you have women are wonderful effect). I think more women than men are legitimately toxic, but in a very small potency and in a more unidentified/hidden manner, compared to the men or masc beliefs that are so potent there isnt even a need for as much. Her toxicity (like hypergamy or the typical delusional takes and views) often goes unchecked also, and more readily accepted into society which it spreads like wildfire. Whereso a mans toxicity often requires some sort of RL force behind it to go anywhere.


One of many comments extolling the justice of God and calling Job out that his attitude was placing his own 'justice' about God

"If you sin, how does that affect him?
If your sins are many, what does that do to him?
If you are righteous, what do you give to him,
or what does he receive from your hand? Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself, and your righteousness only other people"
(Job 34:6-8)

This is one of Elihu's most important arguments, as it pointed out to Job that the righteousness of man cannot 'buy' God's favor, nor do the sins of man 'harm' God. Rather, God created his perfect law for the benefit of man. Elihu, conversely, promoted the righteousness of God in taking any course of action, regardless of the good or evil of man. He took Job to task for thinking that it was futile to be good then, if the good could face trials as well as the wicked. He pointed out that the Lord will repay men for what they have done (in this life or the next), so it is very profitable to fear the Lord even if one does not see immediate ben trying to explain the nature of God with only the limited information available to human knowledge, chrisolivertimes we are in book of job, story of cian aand abel first book of adam cain eroused by jelousy. jelousy good/bad perspective used to entice cain mimd pattern with xxxten vice city aka gta mind pattern supericial benifactors mind with story of job lesson


"God" mathematically, scientifically, and logically has to be real as long as we have a consciousness and can perceive living in any fashion. Forget how religion explains god, and forget the concept of "god" being exclusively a singular deity. Think of it like this,

Life has a paradox. The paradox of life is that something had to have created something else. Cause and effect. If aliens created humans, then who created aliens? If water and bacteria created flesh, then what created that? If energy created the big bang, what created energy? This question and paradox goes to infinity. The answer to that paradox is an equal infinity based concept. It is "god". All encompassing, or at the very least to our understanding, a thing or concept that is in that realm of infinity (nothing before it etc.). In shorter terms, the proof of gods existence is the answer to the paradox of life.


Women are not creatures of action, they operate best in a weak nature, hence why for example they are more proficient at doing things like organizing protests and social media hashtags. if they had the same mental aspect as males, their toxicity would manifest itself in much more abhorrent events and atrocities. also, the iq bell curve plays a part. almost all women are in the middle lower while men are more distributed along the curve. so more men can be unpredictably violent and impulsive.

Women nature were capable of acting out their desires like men, india, africa, and asia go bye bye. eugenics become officially government enforced policy. but they don't, instead they keep those thoughts secret and virtue signal. and all virtue signaling comes from fear of being discovered. why many male feminists are rapists. they virtue signal to camouflage their true nature and thoughts. and women and them are often the biggest virtue signallers


Its a deep rooted issue. Humanity itself is a sort of war between the animal body and the mind-(which implies higher intelligence). What differentiates us from animals are our minds. Our level of perceptions and mental and ability to manifest these things collectively. This is why i never see animals praying or deviating from the script, as much as humans are able to do.

Strong carnality is in most cases most associated with wickedness to the human level mind. As we are not just beings of the body(animal) intelligence. This is why animalistic natures such as murder are seen as okay and even righteous for a wild animal to do (as it is a being of the animal nature), but not okay for humanity(as we are not just exclusively beings of the body animal nature, and are observable to ourselves to posses a higher mind state than most if not all land animals). The essence of the mind, and the body work together, but are somewhat at conflicting states. Carnality and the ways of the heart are at odds with the higher intelligence that our mind implies. Its hard to explain exactly why, but the best way to see it is the body(the animal) and the mind as sort of separate systems. The case we have in todays time with humans are that most humans are more in agreeance with their animalistic nature, instead of their mind and higher intelligence (why this is the case is a variety of reasons to long to explain in this particular post.). But in essence, the cultivation of one side, usually means the abandonment/impairment or pain of another.

In other words, Most people operate in the carnal human body nature and are most familiar with it. Carnality is strongly attribed to wickedness, and humans are more familiar with carnality(thus wickedness). Wickedness is attractive to the human body as it usually manifest itself as carnality(animal behaviors). This is why wicked people, or popular people in general are known to be carnal. Think resource money hungry cartel boss, killer gangstar, sex fiend women. To become popular in generally usually means some sort of excessive carnal success. etc. To take it up a notch, the diety that represents evil is strongly associated with carnality. Satanists actually practice carnality. Their favorite day is their birthday.

Anyways, carnality includes standard female and male nature. For females, as an animal, carnality is what they are attracted to. Carnal male behaviors. This is why bad boys, mafia men, alpha guys who delve into that polygamous, cutthroat male carnal behavior win and imply to the female a strong sexual desire, than lets say a BETA(who plays into a feminine women nature) and even moreso a person who chooses to focus on a higher intelligence(think messiah figure), that actually is even below beta and alpha (a non participant in the dating pool).
This cycle is also why women always get left after their hypergamy, as the ones they chase are statistically more likely to be carnal, and thus toxic or toxically polygamous due to the preselection of such carnal behaviors. Also why this whole men blaming is seen as a circlejerk due to the predictability and cycle of events that occur. Ofc the war is waged, and the ones that will suffer and get the strays of hate will be the non participants.


This is wrong. Very baised. Men have it far much worst dating. While this one observation may make some sense, you fail to compare the mens side of things against women. If you were to do that, youd notice that men have at least double the amount of issues when it comes to this niche, compared to this one observation you made about women.

And while you may be somewhat right, its important to understand that this is an issue that they create for themselves due to their own hypergamy.

Hypergamy is relative. Put 1000 "gigachads" in a room with 10000 women, and the modern women nature will still find a way to statistically, and exclusively desire only the top 10-15% preselection wise. This is studies and observable in every facet of modern society.
What your explaining is post hypergamous decisions. Of course she will have trouble competing against the same men.

This issue is even more worst because men are statistically rarer than women, yet with all of the social structures that favor matriarchy and female natures, women just have an advantage socially and socioeconomically. Nor are as libido magnetized as a man. Theres no reason any men should be having trouble dating, yet here we are.

It is dishonestly wrong to claim:
" IN TERMS OF DATING. a guy has to be 1 tall, good lucking and thats it,"
No idea where you got this idea from. You must have never heard about preselection or women are wonderful effect. Anyways, men are known to have an extremely different level of qualifications to be acceptable in dating, one that literally is dynamic and ever changing relatively to all of the other men due to hypergamy. This is why old age men did not let the female nature take over societal wise and kept power(and thus their wives). If you think tall and goodlooking makes you passable then you have no idea about society and are looking through the lense of female influence. Aesthetics matter more to you, but not as much to her.


Women are very impressionable socially and are similar to children mentally. They learn and operate a different way than biological men. More proficient or prone to being; Subservient(which is why they excell in rule-following forms of academia), socially interested, impressionable and subject to subjective emotional bias. Anyways, i find it interesting why we can see in society, women or homosexual(or low T/intersex) men who are often in gatekeeping positions of power ,fame, money, and caste. Theres a reason for this. Women are generally are more influenced socially then biological men, better at following and creating a social acceptance to rule. Less divergent in thought. The male mind is more proficient or prone to being sidedly; independent(energetic to strive for freedom), deviant etc. Its been like this for a long time. Even old kings were known to have eunuchs around them instead of men in the courts due to the nature of men.

So its not just white or black. All women will naturally be programmable to propaganda, and especially social effects. Modern societys culture is their safe haven. So if the media and such tools that determine society's culture, exclusively advertise black or white men as sexy, then guess what comes next. Just look at the covid vaccine fiasco. Additionally, a women's main attraction comes from preselection. Things that imply attraction such as caste, status, wealth, money, looks. Does not have to exclusively be logically beneficial or objectively attractive traits. This is also a key to how to truly be attractive to women(also why babyalien can pull more women than 99% of people on this forum). To top it off, humanity is strongly attracted to unrighteousness, as carnality and the ways of the flesh are strongly associated with wickedness, thus wickedness more familiar and impressionable to the person than other moral levels.

Combine this with media that loves to garnish minorities who display deviantly exciting forms of poverty influenced behaviors, and you have a really interesting situation.
The most popular forms of media is hip hop and pop. Hip hop is majorly black . This sort of lights the impressionable brain that black people (as the amalgamation of western melanated people, regardless of actual ethnicity or facial looks), share the same SMV caste wise to the medias representation, especially if the person prolificates/displays the same archetypes that are socially known to be popular. This is why people say that if your not thugmaxxed as a black guy then your basically incel tier.

Think of all the old age beauty standards that we in todays time see as shit. Also think of all the supermodel faces you and people here call stacy yet i think are actually very masculine and intersex. Attraction is truly subjective, but its mainly influenced socially. Im not saying black people are ugly, but if you look at the fact that less than 50 years ago black people were considered monkeys and ugly to women, its very very very easy to see what caused the change. Media.


I think the vast majority of incels are high disgust standard-cels with more feminised sexuality than most men. We already know women are mostly Chad or HTN+ only, but that’s reasonable because they have the desirability to be so.

A lot of men get fuck all from women they are actually attracted to but the masculine imperative is to fuck by any means necessary. High disgust high inhib incels however, have adopted the female sexuality without the desirability to back it up.
Ironically this is the case i observed too.

Thats why a lot of people who are known to be traditionally incel still rave over stacy and becky, or oogle around rating men and women. I noticed them to be just as standardly hypergamous, without the actual masculine nature that equalizes the women aesthetic across board. To me, theres no such thing as a 10/10 or 1/10 women. This lack of fulfillment in the feminine hypergamous nature is what creates that typical feminine pattern i see so often with men who complain about how they cant be chad. Being traditionally masculine while still holding a high disgust leads to another form of reaction that is not "why cant he be me". This is the true level as it curbs the desirability problem through masculine imperatives.

Im conflicted about female desirability. I dont think they should have as much desirability. Its the feminine hypergamous nature within those starved men that help create such a thing. I also think its artificially inflated with social structures that favor the female nature. Truth is, men are biologically rarer than women, even moreso mentally and sex preference wise. So to me, its not reasonable for them to be hypergamous torwards an excusive class of men, considering their perception of exclusivity is relative. It was never reasonable and is always relative, and this is why men should (and have in the past) totally dominate the sexual market, even if it was by force. Like disregarding a childs cries when you take him out of the candy store. Its for their own good.


The concept of a common adversary as a unifying force in society is a notion that has been observed throughout history. The idea is that by having an external "enemy," whether it be a person, a group, or an ideology, the internal members of a community can strengthen their bonds with each other, focusing on this shared opposition rather than their internal differences. This external threat becomes a rallying point, a reason for solidarity, reducing the likelihood of conflicts within the group. My theory is that similarly, in building long-lasting relationships between individuals, a shared adversary or challenge can create a strong bond. Partners may find common ground and mutual understanding when faced with an outside force that tests their unity, encouraging cooperation and deeper connection.


W have a chameleon nature where they will learn and know the bad parts about their nature yet keep it "hidden" (conflict of interest). Part of the reason the exposed pilled information was led by mens revelations. Its like how you have a girl in a guys friend group who acts like the bros just to go around and tell her female friend group about men behaviors and such. The latter rarely happens. Its probably a nature within them built to ensure protection. On the bad side, they also have a tendency to not know shit about what they are saying and move their bais based on emotional reaction. Id say this is more biological and an estrogenic (female hormone) effect. Add that emotional bias and female nature, to the conflict of interest, to thirsty men, to harsh truths, to matriarchally dominated social structures, and you'd see this forum gone within a few months. Hence why women on this forum will eventually turn this into a shitshow. Hence why its easy to see who is male or female sometimes even based on the quality and types of post. At best this will overnight turn into a club. Also they are groups of intersex or gay/feminist women who actively sub out these types of mens communities. For whatever reason (sometimes due to cause-effect of hypergamous nature), (or even because of the significant pool of intersex men mascaraing as the rare biological men) they show a strong dislike towards men. Going as far to push the categorization of pilled truth subjects socially, under derogative labels. Just like how they labeled redpill/blackpill content "incel". Or how people who predict the goverments or wistleblow are considered socially, conspiracy theorists. Socially, they work to sort of disrupt and disturb mens spaces of this nature. Most people have no clue on what a real masculine nature is and will just label anything of this nature mysogonist or "hateful", despite the facts and statistics. Wheather its emotional bias, conflict of interest or whatever, theres a lot of reasons why this happens. Some of it is automatically encoded in their nature and DNA. It can also be a combination of all these factors. For example, subservience and this worlds natural Ai which ensures humanities progression, is observed to cull men and use women/matriarchy as a way to gatekeep excessive diversion/the (naturally proficient) male nature of mental and moral precision. This is just an example. More factors could be at play. Also, like i said before, women have a conflict of interest when it comes to subjects such as bad male nature (beta) bad female nature (feministic) and other such subjects, as they quite literally enjoy the wine of their fruit in todays time. Speaking up and encouraging mental and morally precise karmatic consequences when it comes to beta pedestaling, is for a lot of women past initial halo, seen as spiteful. Despite the behavior in itself being extremely toxic for humanity, for the male, and for society in general. They are similar cases where we can observe where we see this same conflict of interest.


Always has been like this. Love does not source itself within animals. The animal body is a automatous being. Although natural and not something like a iron artificial robot, explaining love as the ways of the body (male or female) is like observing a packaging machine to have the capability of love. Everything the carnal man and women think is love is usually sensuality or influenced by it. Giving, kissing, cuddling, sex. Its all sensuality. Its for the body. Just like how sensuality is a derivative of love, but love itself is not limited to sensuality. The capabilities of love in the human body is vastly limited and will ultimately revolve around neediness, as the human body is in a perpetual state of need, suffering, motion, decay etc. So we can only truly imply love. Some are better than others when it comes to love. Sometimes, the less sensual the derivative of love you display, the greater the essence of "love". This is why one of the greatest forms of love are known to come in a way where the reciprocate party may dislike or not agree emotionally or physically, with your action or behavior (like telling harsh truths, or mentally having the best interest for a kid).
Love is something far more complex, and in a way, love is already at full capacity as love can be described in essence, as intent. Life itself is love, and things like hate, sensuality, are also synonymous or derivatives of love.
This modern day level of love of money and resources is a real animalistic and carnal form of love. Its needy, just like the body. Its not respectable to me for a human being with a functioning consciousness to act like this. But regardless, Im no animal abuser so im not that proactive of harm, or eradication. Its just that people with these level of consciousness should not represent or be put in the position to influence others to share the same view (reason why i dislike carnality, because it proves to be the most influential behaviors). Even so, this behavior is as a animal, and people ultimately prove how they should be treated based on their level of consciousness and mental and moral precision. But to determine that, it depends. For SOME women though, paypig behavior is a common theme. Its despicable, and in most cases a telling sign of their level of consciousness as their QOL and nature relative to the male species more easily reveals their own actions and behaviors that led to this form of love to show fruit (same reason causes of such behaviors and views are so commonly predicted by many people in pilled communities).


Intersex conditions have their brain wired both sides.

That transgender statement of configuration has some truth into it, but its lacking important information. They underestimate the system we call the body. Science does also. The body is extremely complex and almost falls under the quote "physicist Emerson Pugh famously said, “If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

Think of all the electrons, atomic systems that work together, and the almost impossibly large amount of micro and macro chemicals that react with each other to create a functioning system. Testosterone and estrogen are simply the macros. Those chemicals are not even close to the only ones that actually make a man or a women, musicalized or fem. Things like DHT, Control Hormones, and other varying androgens and the varying ratios between male and female are not mentioned but are very important. This is why you cant turn a man into a women, or a women to a man via hormones or by cutting of your dick etc. If anything, the only chance you have at actually sharing both traits is intersex, and that runs though biology and genetics itself. This process is secretly referred to as "in utero"

The key is intersex. This is a personal observation, but i can see clearly that society is increasingly intersex. They are a lot of variables that would come to play. There is Evidence that shows how endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment can cause reproductive variation through dysregulation of normal reproductive tissue differentiation, growth, and maturation if the fetus is exposed to EDCs during critical developmental times in utero. But common sense, nature, humanities history, GMOs, will show you how quality of the seed will always change and vary (usually for the worst unless intently preserved, which does not happen in a society that loves the opposite of mental and moral precision). Same applies to the human body.

Anyways, even people with intersex conditions are not completely 50/50 male/female, though they are some that get close. And, if my suspicion is right, i think that the majority of human males do have intersex conditions, Maybe not entirely physical and sometimes mentally, (though, you can still observe the excessive curves in most males vs a authentic transgender, or lack of jaw in males but prevalent jaws in women models as as well as transgenders)),,,as the male biology has always since the start been rarer to produce and procure. And they are no mistakes in nature. No feature that does not have meaning behind it. Anyways, so i think the case is likely a significant amount of actual intersex women mascaraing as men, as well as the pool of regular women, intersex women, and then intersex men. The order of prevalent percentage in that order also, making authentic biologicals males (physically and mentally), very rare or last on the list. You can easily prove this by comparing and mixing traits of pre estrogen transgenders to your average men and women. You will very quickly observe prevalent traits in T men, that are not as common with your average men, and some traits of T men, which are common with average women. Reverse this process and you can reverse mix traits and eventually have a pool of different traits of males and female. Do the data right, and they will be certain types of men (physically) that you seriously do not see often. Its like how NFTs have different rarity percentages. And this isn't even classifying mental effects (since sex hormones effect the shape of your body and features), which would make the pool even more significant. So unlike what the transgender in your post said, the configurations don't stop at male/female. This is the simple delusional way of looking at it. And perhaps it should not even start with those 2 categories either.

This means a significant pool of men who are more prone to turning the other way or being attracted to the womenly way of thinking and fem nature, and also things like intersex women who associate themselves to the masculine way of thinking and such. This is clearly observed today. They are also varying studies and terms that describe this attachment of behavior like women are wonderful effect, and other observations. Then on top of that, you have the "be yourself" propaganda media which deliberately lures men to become more feminine, plus the other factors such as the significantly dominating matriarchal systems placed in modern society, which make it extremely hard to live as a male and associate yourself to the masculine mental and moral precision way of thinking. This is why i think they are a significant boost of transgenders and DL gay people.


The books of people who tried to find god should have never been introduced to normies. Its not something your average person can comprehend lest it turns into some low IQ fem/carnal slave following shit where the actual content is tossed to the side and instead is replaced with "religion" aka a social group and order that social vamps join to play around and pass time.

The books of people who tried to find god is not something your average person can comprehend lest it turns into some low IQ fem/carnal slave following shit where the actual content is tossed to the side and instead is replaced with "religion" aka a social group and order that social vamps join to play around and pass time. It has derivatives of truth but it isnt the meat of the content. Sadly though, these derivatives become more of a popular take than the meat, which influences others to share the same rock IQ takes.

Thats why you have so many people who say jesus this and jesus that as a person, not even knowing "jesus" was best used as a figurative of. Because obviously the name jesus was probably not the same name that was first introduced in the writing. Its the same with all the other religious books. If you pay attention, the redundancy becomes obvious. Good content and information turns into carnal worship and shit when these types of people blindly interpret it. "Grass is green because of chlorophyll" turns into, "grass is green because god loves you" Both could be correct, but ultimately it depends on how deep your knowledge about the situation is. And the way information works, it can get infinitely deep. The only problem in todays time ab religious thinking, is that theres no accurate foundation nor accurate progression to the knowledge of the situation. So you have people saying grass is green because chrorophyll and then you have people saying grass is green because god loves you, and none of them recons the level of understanding in both (how both of them can be true, but one more practical and considered a progression of intelligence in todays time).

You learn not to touch fire when you are a kid because your mom warns you about it. Then you learn again that you shouldnt touch it because fire is hot. Then as you get older, you learn again the science of why fire is hot, and as you get even older, you learn the science of what happens when you touch it etc. This happens repeatedly. But the issue with the books of religion is tricky, as many dont learn past the elementary infant stage, and the whole matter just becomes low IQ and non practical. So we have wars and shit, (according to the book) end time prophecies and whatnot going on, yet theres no coherence or understanding between it all with these people as they are either missing prerequisites, or further understanding.


This. By default, there will always be a massive power imbalance in a relationship that favors the woman. She can leave the relationship at any point and immediately have hundreds of other men being willing to be in a relationship with her, whereas 95% of men will never have this kind of opportunity. It creates an emotional dependence from the man on the women and compels him to be desperately submissive to her and make concessions to keep her around.

Women have no objection to taking advantage of these power imbalances when it favors themselves though. It's only a problem when men do it. Feminism in a nutshell.

That whole sub should be deleted from reddit. Its a mockery to people who actually have legitimate issues with dating and such. Most of it is relative entitlement. People who are eating grass fed ribeye complaining about never having wagyu.

Just scroll down. Many posts are about them not having "as much" attention as what pretty girls have had. I see claims with these same women claiming they get male gaze, and that they are trying to remove themselves from it. They consider it toxic. This is equivalent to a man complaining on a forum that women actually talk to them or even consider then irl. It makes no sense and ive noticed these types of women spaces are made from spite. Like purplepill debate, pinkpill, women going their own way. Its always a reaction or derivative from authentic male movements. Theres a reason why these pilled movements orgin primarily by men. Its because statistically and logically, men actually do have issues with these things.

The main problems is what women(and most people) think love is. Love as a human, is sensuality. To the human body, sensuality is love.
Men who want to have sex with you is fulfilling the requirements of sensuality they so so desire. This is why men say these women dont want to be loved, they want to be worshiped. Because actual "love" is something that everyone has without exception, and does not require sensuality and shit like constant stimulus. Love(or even derivatives of love such as hate) is akin to the act of consciousness and life itself. Proof of intent.
But human(body) love is sensuality, and this is something all of these women get to significant degrees, yet they are unable to recognize it. Instead they call it toxic. So its not like they dont have love, its that they are tired of this certain form of it. And lets not even go into how man and women work differently biologically, and how libido works. The whole concept of "he only wants me for my body, actually makes no sense at all". As people who say this fail to recognize that they are in the body.

What they desire so much is moreso of a different type of sensuality, a worship. hence why i compare their experiences of human love akin to a spoiled child. If your desired sexually by men, regardless of how toxic you think it is, regardless of how much you hate those groups or types of men, its not a problem with you not being desired, its something other than that. Its preference of the type of "love" your getting. The issue is that they dont admit this and try to act as if incels or men spaces of the same subject are on the same level.

And to top it off, they are relationship focused. Inceldom is more about relationships, its about socioeconomic status and shit too. Like how your biological composition affects what jobs you get, what your expected to do in life, friends and family and other life/death situations. Factually, 80% of men are in general, at a worst place in todays society compared to every single women. There's even syndromes and studied terms that probes this (like women are wonderful effect)

Real incel categories are things like not being sexually attractive statistically to the opposite gender. No sex, nobody wanting to have sex. Also things even branching out past just sexual attraction. Everyone has these issues, but the real issue is that a extremely significant more amount of males that have it than women, and that the discussion of the causes behind them are always blotted.
This is why i can sympathize with the male inceldom as it makes more sense, its not someone eating steak dinner and complaining about apple pie, its not someone eating shitty McDonald meals and not having steakhouse. Its someone not even having leftovers and crumbs to eat at all. Its a total non negotiable lack of life quality, no options. Though, i do believe women inceldoom could exist, i think if we remove a lot of those psudo classifications with ideas that people have not understood like "men only want to have sex with me, not "love" me""... or emotional triggers, it would be significantly less women who actually fit the bill of being incel. Id think this group would be primarily transgender's, people with mental personal conflicts, people who are widely deformed, or extremely obese to the point of high risk. Not people who have preferences.


We live in a very gynocentric society that is sexist against men. To give a few examples, men get longer prison sentences, are convicted at higher rates for the same crimes, and receive longer sentences for killing women than for killing men. (i.e. men are disposable)

We always assume men to be the aggressor in any encounter. Women actually commit more domestic violence than men, yet we always assume it's the man who is abusive. Another example, "My husband tells me what I should wear" Sounds bad right? How about "My wife tells me what I should wear." The first sounds worse because we assume that a man with some power in the relationship will abuse his power, but we don't assume the same for women.

Men have to be extraordinarily careful not to sound like they are blaming women whenever they vent any sort of frustration or emotion. For instance, "Why do women like that asshole and not me?" is something that you might find mocked in r/niceguys or r/justneckbeardthings. Yet if a woman says something like "Why does that guy like the hot girl but not me?" she would be most likely receive sympathy. Men have to be super careful in choosing their words, which is ironic because we encourage men to express their emotions more. Yet when they do, we shame them for it.

Male sexuality is considered shameful. Men are considered creepy if they have a blow up doll, for an example. Yet it's perfectly normal for a woman to have a collection of dildos. Men are shamed if they date much younger women, even if she is a consenting adult.

Perhaps this isn't too controversial, but women are attracted to status, masculinity, power, and good looks. They are more attracted to a man if other women want him. They are no less superficial in their sexual preferences than men. Weakness is unattractive to women. Being an emotional, sensitive man is a death sentence in the dating world.

RPillers have a right to be angry and upset because men are almost always blamed for everything. They are assumed to be the bad guy. TRP is the one place that they can get relief from this and where women can be the bad guy for once. I also feel like all women are partially responsible for their state. We should have been the ones to stand up and defend men. Men have a hard time standing up for themselves without being perceived as weak or misogynist.

The more power the man has in the relationship, the longer the relationship lasts and the more power the woman has, the unhappier the relationship.


@ProklysmosThe "never change" thing is pretty strange to me. There have been numerous times in my life where I've had people call me out for expressing opinions or behaving in a way that contradicts things I said or did when I was much younger. It felt like they were basically pulling a "gotcha" or attacking me for changing over time. Some people actually do stop becoming more mature or mentally developing at a younger age than other people. Those are the kind of people who have "immature" thoughts, temperament, and interests long into their adult lives. One example I'm thinking of is when I recently told my 30 year old sister that paying $400 to get her hair dyed seemed excessive to me, she brought up how when I was a teenager I would pay to get haircuts at a relatively expensive barber shop. I responded by saying something like, "yeah, but I was immature and materialistic back then" and she got offended. This same sister still listens to the same pop music she listened to back then 15+ years ago. She bought tickets to a Taylor Swift concert in 2020, but the tour got cancelled due to Covid. This year she got free tickets for the redo tour, but the resale price of the average ticket was ultra-inflated because people had been waiting for 3 years. I asked my sister how much the tickets were going for online, but she wouldn't tell me. I asked, "what, $1000?" she laughed and said no. 1500? She laughed again. 2000? She shook her head and made it obvious she didn't want me to keep asking. They were tickets for good seats in a Los Angeles tour date, so they were definitely somewhere between like $2500 and $5000 a piece. And she had two tickets for herself and her fiance. So they passed up on a free $5000 at minimum because she was very attached to a pop culture fantasy experience she's been living since the 00's. She and her fiance have been engaged for several years now, postponing the wedding for financial reasons, and they have put off having children because they don't think they've got enough money for that either. Sorry, wall of text for illustration purposes, basically I agree with a lot of what you're describing here. Our mother is extremely narcissistic and I worry that my two sisters acquired a lot of her traits, though they aren't nearly as toxic.


People who always complain about not being loved despite going through so many relationships. You see this commonly with narcy women and carnal men. Loved??? No they want to be worshipped they want to cause stress while you shoulder it, want to hold you to traditional gender roles while seeking liberation from the traditional balance to those roles, thjen claim you’re not a real if you question the hypocrisy do you not hear the attitude


A surprisingly interesting subject. For my entire life I had accepted the conventional wisdom that men and women had the same IQs on average, but that men had a greater variance, thus there were 3x as many men that scored as Genius on IQ tests (and presumably 3x as many men that scored as idiots, but that part was never clearly elucidated). But there is a huge problem with the data set, it is based almost exclusively on 18-22 year olds, and just presumes that IQ is fixed throughout life for each sex. And it appears the tests were manipulated to exclude questions that men scored considerably better on than women.


shapeshift nature of women into anything they want, this is why people dont see the truth about female nature correctly especially the nature the word speaks of.

The nature of women and male nature is automatic. the reason i feel some way about fem or male content that reveals truth about feminism or whatever is because my association to this animal. After the spiritual disassociation it becomes like looking at how animals in the field work, like learning about horses and whatnot. My anger or emotion is moreso about my situation of animalistic domination.
i def read all this
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii, h7seyn and dreamcake1mo
fascinating thread. i would love to invite you to a discord server if you pls.
 
  • +1
Reactions: tombradylover, Shkreliii and dreamcake1mo
Great book buddy
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii
Read sum of it, it's a good representation
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: dreamcake1mo, Shkreliii and LooksThinker
Hey.
Here's a compilation of truth/conspiracy/female nature/blackpill etc/ posts submitted and typed by various ORG users across this and other platforms.

Lately, i have noticed there has been reports of this forum to bad actors, as well as observable server downtime. For this reason, i think it may be beneficial to amalgamate high effort discussions and posts, so that if one day this forum goes bye bye, it could still be possible to reintroduce these posts and topics to the next boat. Feel free to copypaste/archive these texts or add to the collection. Also, i apologize if i fail to source you or the original author in some texts. A lot of sourcing information is lost in translation.

WARNING. LONG TEXT POSTS.















I'm not missing that fact, its just that emotions don't mean anything, everyone has them and they don't really have any importance except to that individual. Except the real world is unforgiving no matter who you are which is why we have to judge things objectively and not through each persons individual lense. If you want to treat women as children that get stressed out and struggle with minor things then they should also have all rights and responsibilities stripped down to a child like level. You cant give women all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men while simultaneously claiming that they need to be constantly forgiven and made special care for because they're actually incapable of handling all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men.

Capable people and incapable people should be treated accordingly and the instant you start straying from this, it can only result in incapable people being thrust into positions that they should never have been in and cant handle. Unconditionally forgiving women's flaws for no other reason than "its their nature" is as ridiculous as saying men should be allowed to rape and murder at will because its "in their nature" and we should just be understanding of that. The purpose of civilization is to overcome nature which is why we place rules and expectations on peoples behavior instead of just allowing them to act however they want at any given moment

But there's literally no need to understand the emotional perspective of an individual since it doesn't matter. How is any one individuals emotions relevant to anything that actually takes place in the real world? Understanding women is very easy and every culture in human history came to the same conclusions: if women, or anyone for that matter, are not capable of getting over themselves and thinking/behaving rationally instead of being slaves to their emotions then what they think or say doesn't matter. Not everyone's perspective is important, especially people who can only see things from the lens of their own emotions and ego instead of just seeing things the way they are

A good example of this is your own response. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it or not, civilization is the opposite of a natural state and cannot exist without controlling peoples nature and their base instinctual urges which is why every civilization in human history has had strict laws and rules on what people are allowed to do and not to do. You don't have to like it and it also doesn't matter whether you do but the more civilization advances, the further and further we are removed from our natural state. It is unhealthy to go too far over the edge but its still happening anyway and will continue to happen. This is achievable, every first world country on the planet currently operates like this and areas of the world that did not set increasingly strict control on human behaviors never developed past the third world because everyone constantly engaged in their most primitive urges with no sense of order which makes it impossible to advance

If rape and murder were not a part of human nature then why do they exist so commonly through human history and why has every properly established culture have laws against them? An example of what's not a part of human nature is grazing in a field or swimming up stream to birth a bunch of eggs. It doesn't matter how you feel about rape or violence, they are a part of human nature and that's why we create laws to control and prevent it. Entirely hypocritical to say that civilization is not about conquering nature and then say that rape and murder is "beastly" when in our most primitive and pre-civilisation eras, these things were extremely common. Go to any third world country on the world where there is a breakdown of infrastructure making it difficult to control the worst of human behavior and you'll see just how common it all is


evil can sometimes be described as militant ignorance. the original concept of sin is a process that leads us to miss the mark and fall short of perfection. While most people are conscious of this, at some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness check. Those that are evil attempt to escape and hide from their own conscience (though means like self deception and such etc.). Now thing of the evil of see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil archetypes. The unwilling to listen to clear truth and such. Ignorant mindsets in todays time where people actively and popularly disregard and have a sort of "happiness to disregard" things of good consciousness.

Antichrist was never referred to be a person, but instead a spirit. They are many people with the antichrist spirit.

Donald Trump just posted this image on his Instagram page. Many will say this picture represents Jesus being by his side through persecution. That is not what this photo represents. This is Trump’s persecution being likened to Jesus’s persecution, as has been done many times before by many including his son, Donald Trump Jr as I’ve pointed out before. Make no mistake, Trump in his heart believes he is a Christ-like, messiah figure that will save the world so he can take credit for it. Trump sees the praise and adoration Jesus receives and wants that for himself. His entire life philosophy has always been about being number 1. This is exactly why the religious zionists in his corner are and will continue to push for him to fulfill these messianic prophecies of protecting Israel and bringing peace to all nations. So that he can claim to be the messiah. Lucifer fell because of pride. And so too will the Antichrist be led into perdition. Because he magnifies himself in his heart. That’s what the biblical Antichrist is, a man with the prideful characteristics of Lucifer who tries to be Jesus. This is exactly the strong delusion talked about in 2 Thessalonians 2:11. Keep your eyes and heart on Jesus Christ alone, and look not to earthly princes to save you.


@justlolatthisworld7917 "Einstein" means "a rock" in German. "Einstein" was literally "as dumb as a rock". Open mocking in plain sight. I thought of this yesterday and it made me think of you anon, since I've heard you rightfully mention how Einstein was a literal moron.


Honestly its a lot of complication in the bible. Many things are not to be taken literal, or to be taken BOTH literal AND nonliteral. And i dont think this is because the bible was made to be inherently complicated, but even moreso the fact that language translations lose meanings overtimes. This is the reason strongs concordance exists.

We have to remember were reading the book in english. Theres so many double meanings in the English language, and words that categorize new meanings outside of the predecessor synonyms ETC.

For example, the beasts referenced in the bible. Clearly that is not literal but moreso referencing a country/system (technology hub in todays time) sort of thing. Christ was also implied to be the living law. Its even hard right now to explain in words.

But the point im trying to make is, i think the whole categorization of "demon", to a singular independent being, is kind of shallow thinking. The word demon is limited to what we learn about it. For many, this means some singular metaphysical deity. But lets look at it from a physical perspective. There has to be a system to everything. Thats the physical world we live in. Anything that materializes or influences behavior in such a manner has to sort of have some sort of physical(or metaphysical) process to incept or influence. Especially a demon, which has questionable authority over life. For example, the body in itself i guess could be a called a demon, or a host of wickedness, and that being dedicated to fulfilling the bodys desires leaves you "possessesed" into the bodies lusts. Hence why demons and body sickness are strongly correlated. Technically all of the prerequisite boxes would check off. Meaning the fruit of the "demons" which is posession (leaving you to do its own will, weather the lust is the satification for abusing, or all the other carnalities that people grow to adapt and be proficient in).

Not saying this is exactly how things work, but just to give a perspective. I feel like your question in itself is too narrow and it reminds me that sometimes the confusion is not in truth, but perspective of whats actually going on.


You lot of you would be better off learning how to be more cunning in society as that's how most social normies operate.
Also realising how they are taken by appearances. Not just appearance of your look but appearance of your general demeanour, as they use this to both gage how good life is going for you and whether you are a social success.
Learning that beauty standards are higher in major cities like London, LA, Miami, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Toronto, Sydney etc. No shit. It's a city. The rate race is stronger.
Most normies are not that talented at much. They just conform with mannerisms, slang, mainstream ideological narratives, shit they wear and what they believe in. They are followers and very agreeable until they see you being disagreeable to popular culture. They aren't that insightful, interesting or humorous.
Even guys with their own minds and that are not followers learn this. Unless you are making a deeper connection with a person, all that matters is how you appear on the surface. And if they are a matrix plugged in normie you should not even be making a deeper connection. They should be your associate to connections.
Realise everything is about immediate identifiable perception with normies. While you might be more open minded before sussing what somebody is all about, they ain't the same way lol. They are so plugged in that they run on autopilot and everyone needs to be in a box that they can understand otherwise something is off and fishy about them. So identify yourself before they identify you and treat you the way they think you are. This is very subtle.
And yes if you are someone bordering on chadlite you will be even more under this scrutiny, because the last thing a normie wants to see is a guy that looks stand out good and is not plugged into normie wavelength of communication


This is because the concept of being a "loser" was created to shame men by other men. Men created the concept of being a "loser". Now, since women hold so much power in society and the dating market the idea of being a loser has shifted toward a more superficial end. Where you were judged in the past by other men, now you are judged mostly by women who aren't rational and will judge you off how you look rather then what you do. Men in power are meritocratic, whereas women in power are emotionally unstable eugenicists. Whats worse is there is now no checks and balances to control these power that women hold. Affirming these ridiculous, and useless standards for an actual flourishing society.


About trying to settle the deal about inceldoom to official channels. They have there own skin in the game to keep this ideology from spreading. Skimming the paper, It doesn't seem to really consider WHY this ideology is becoming popular, just how to stop if from doing so. Now, it is written in a journal of criminology so I can see the reasoning, but why is it even in a journal like that in the first place? You would think a sociological or cultural journal would be better. They only wish to understand the blackpill because it's becoming a threat to the social order, and to women. I would be more sympathetic to these authors (both of whom are women, which could lead to some subconcious bias) if they would try to consider the plight of these men that fall into this ideology, but all it appears to be is more damage control from a system that is inherently against men's interests and intends on fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.
This.


when it comes to animals (carnal humans), a human (in this case a "spiritual" focused person) needs to cage them up or structure them somehow less they themselves get killed or affected by animalistic behavior. Why do you think religion is always what follows after truth seeker movements, after the few individuals that actually gave a crap about truth. Thats why i call it a derivative. Pest control. Carnality is the way of the animal. Religion is the ordinance of the animal nature. Islam, christianity, whatever. Its the same thing. And they are all flawed. The frustration behind the argument for your religion is misdirected and carnal imo.


Cancer growth and metastasis in a fueled by the immune system being in a hyper allergen state (TH2).
Fasting greatly reduces allergic reactions to food, promoting a TH1 mediated immune response which is required for cancer cell clearance.
Excess histamine = Excess cortisol = Estrogen dominance = TH2 mediated immune response.
Liver and gallbladder function play a crucial role in these issues.
The problem is, when the allergen sensitivities stop, and TH1 mediated immune response turns back, the immune system will start going after any latent infections you were harboring.
This is known in holistic health circles as a “healing crisis”.


I don't wanna bring a son who will suffer in a matriarchal society or a daughter who would turn to OF hoe while i can't do nothing, we need to keep old school ideologies, it's even helps against hypergamy
Your better of creating or starting your own movement. Islam is already toast. Its doing what its always done. But for the animal, a country sized fence is almost as if it were no fence at all. Its going to have to be a new religion or derivative. Ultimately to get the attention of the carnal nature your going to have to use different tactics. Marketing, deception, favoritism etc. Look at how "hebrew isrealites" secluded the bible and used the race bait as a pull.


Areas with high population density (many people in an area) and high interaction (something as simple as seeing someone, even online or on a newspaper counts as an interaction, independent of if they know them or not) creates inequality. The more dense and the more interactions, the worse the inequality.
This is because, if there's a group of 5 people, things are more equal in every domain compared to if there were 500, or 5 million or 5 billion. The more people, the more outliers there are. These outliers create inequality (economic, dating, etc.)
The population density allows people to see the gap of their situation to their outliers. This outlier affects the normie.
High population creates outliers.
High population density allows people to be aware of the outliers.
These environments created what John B. Calhoun called "behavioral sinks". Basically, a behavioral sink is a collapse in productive social behavior, where increased negative emotions, disrupted social structures, and abnormal behaviors prevail.
The rats formed social and dating hierarchies, Chads got the women and the non-Chads usually either...
  • Developed non-straight sexualities
  • Became timid, weak, apathetic, withdrawn asexual hikikomoris/neets (adolescents and young adults who become recluses in their parents' homes, isolated from society)
  • Or desperate, erratic and unsuccessful (pickup autists and redpill roaches)
Chads became aggressive, and since the non-Chads were all withdrawn from society and responsibility, the women had to fend for themselves and protect Chad's children (with humans, it's either the cucked normie's child or she's childless, since Chad doesn't want to reproduce with her, only sex). The female rats became aggressive, neglectful of their children, and non-motherly.
Infant mortality rose due to neglect, male and female rats gave up on dating due to discontent and negative emotions, birth rates dropped, and the new and smaller children grew up to be asexual since they never really learned sexual behaviors due to their parents giving up on mating. The rat society aged to death due to population collapse and low birth rates.
Of course, this isn't perfectly applicable to humans, remember that. For humans, economic, and other kinds of inequalities also play a major role in behavioral sinks, but if if the trajectory of society keeps going where it's going, we could very well get a comparable result as human beings to what the rats got. Birth rates are plummeting and our societies are mentally ill, just like the rats.

Anyways, Why am I showing you all of this?

Because dating environments differ in blackpill severities. Due to population density and population count.
There could be "tiers" to the blackpill.
Basically, in some dating environments, you'll need to literally be perfect, in other environments, you have to be HTN at least.
Also, consider that the fact that dating environments men and women have been in the past also can influence their mating decisions.


Anti oxidants can actually be pro oxidants if you have mitochondrial membrane complex issues or NAD metabolic problems / imbalance with age.
How do free radicals get quenched and removed from the body? The body cleaves electrons off of the substance, reducing its reactivity, making it less dangerous and easier to incorporate or dispose of.
But what happens if large amounts of anti oxidants rapidly quench and reduce free radicals and pollutants in the body, releasing massive amounts of electrons?
Normally, those electrons would be shuttled into the electron transport chain and used to make ATP. But, as you get older, or if you have mitochondrial membrane complex 1 to 4 issues, your body is less able to handle a flood of electrons.
This can lead to metabolic bottle necks or even overflows.
What does this mean? Those electrons can lead to a flood of hydrogen peroxide in the body. If the H2O2 levels overwhelm the ability of Catalase to quench it all down to water; If it builds up: greying hair, stem cell issues, mtdna number decreases and telemorase issues, leading to lowered maximum replicative lifespan of stem cells and mitochondria.
Rapidly increased aging.
Vitamin E, a powerful anti oxidant, can significantly lower lifespan. The studies can never accurately tell you why. I can. It's the overwhelming flood of electrons into the ECC.
Resolving electron transport chain issues is important for healthy aging.
As for NAD+ and Nadh. NADh is an electron donor. If you have too high NADh, it shows metabolic disorder. Shows you have electron transport chain issues.
If you don't resolve them, it's possible supplementing NAD will just rapidly convert to NADh, adding fuel to metabolic fire.
The fix for that, in leiu of fixing the electron transport chain, is combining all anti oxidants with electron acceptors or getting more in the diet.
They can mop them up, order them properly, recycle them for use, or help dispose of them.
We need more electron acceptors and less electron donors in our diets. Especially when combined with NAD or anti oxidants.


I dislike most quotes and similar forms of socially popular truth "memes" shared online.
Theres no influence of truthful behavior (teaching people their own faults and to not do the same) without proactive and introspectively constructive honesty. Without this constructive honesty, there becomes a influx of people who highlight other people who know the truth, but are not even honest enough to recognize their own behavior and warn against that instead, as that would require actually knowing (being proactive and introspectively constructive), and not just speculative or socially influenced to think or perceive. When women or men repost or rethink about common troupes against each other, they don't really have any intellectual depth, but is sort of low effort, simple minded bait content used to alleviate common (sometimes unaware, or misguilded) frustrations. The reason i dislike this, is because its not coming from a place where the individual (viewer or even reposter) is actually self reflective on their own behavior that may have enabled such frustrations to occur, thus usually no intellectual response from the poster thus, usually no intellectual discussion or gain to the viewer. Think of the common trope that; “men are not shit”. Or even low iq incel bait posts like “women are this” etc, where the lack of intellectual discussion (in depth questions such as why, how, what, etc) do not occur on an individual level due to the format of the post not engaging the viewer to do such. I highlighted proactive honesty because only when a person is able to be proactively honest and introspective about these questions, and are honest about their behavior that may or may not enable such things, real discussion and data analysis can occur, Instead of just reposting. Think of how airplane investigations work. Constructive analysis where there is no side taken, where the women or man admit (be honest) of their behavior and the data is unbiasedly discussed and analyzed for accuracy and future correction. But of course this does not happen with these posts, nor does the UX structure (or even sentencing format the OP would use to create simple posts) allow introspective discussion or constructive analysis to happen. People see it, agree with it, and move on. Holding tight the building frustration until eventually the simple frustration becomes a trigger of hatred, regardless of if that person is actually enabling their own frustrations or not (which may often be the case). For this reason i strongly recommend and prefer data rich communication, no matter how "long", "aspie, autistic, or socially weird it may seem. Ultimately when working with data, its best to receive the best quality.


The following text was taken from the website “Shedding of the Ego” by Mr. K and reviewed by Savage, it's been adapted by John Cracovizk (literally me) for an easier (and less MGTOW) read to my LooksMax.org fellas. The link to the original text is available in the end of the thread, good read!

1. INTRODUCTION - What is Hybristofilia? The Joker and Quinn example

"Ok, gentlemen, today we are going to discuss hybristophilia, a term that seems to me to best summarize the female penchant for the “Bad Boy”.

First, the definition of the term according to an online medical dictionary:

Hybristophilia - Paraphilia in which a person is sexually attracted to someone who has committed a bombing or horrific crime.

It may be best to start with some examples found in pop culture and work our way up to real-world examples.

Many consider the dynamic duo of the DC comics universe, the Joker and his equally psychopathic companion, Harley Quinn, to be a clear example of the “Florence Nightingale effect” (In reference to the dedication of Florence Nightingale, who many consider to be the founder of modern nursing, demonstrated in her patients).
The Florence Nightingale effect is a situation in which a caregiver develops romantic and/or sexual feelings for their patient, even though there is very little communication or contact outside of basic care. The feelings may disappear when the patient no longer needs care, whether through recovery or death.

I believe this is a misdiagnosis of Quinn, or at least only a partial diagnosis.

If you're well-versed in the origins of Joker's bitch, you'll know that Quinn started out as an asylum psychiatrist in Arkham and her name was Dr. Harleen Frances Quinzel, M.D, who was tasked during her internship with the psychoanalysis of some of the worst and greatest psychopaths and criminals of Gotham, one of which was the Joker himself. During the interview process with the Joker, Quinn was mesmerized by his Charisma (personality pilled once again
:soy:
), a trait psychopaths often cultivate to hide their true nature.

Swayed by the strength of the Joker's personality and charm, Quinn fell deeply in love with him, culminating in helping him escape, unleashing one of the most dangerous psychopaths in the DC comics universe back onto the streets (women), until she finally gave up her comfortable life as a psychiatrist and joined him on his crime spree, taking on the persona of Harley Quinn, as we know her today.

Harley Quinn suffered not only from this “Florence Nightingale effect”, but from an advanced case of hybristophilia.

Furthermore, we speculate here that hybristophilia is a condition that is still poorly understood, which appears to be categorized into a very simplistic classification of women who are hybrostophilic and women who are not hybrostophilic, without there being a middle ground between the two.
2. EVOLVING DESIRES - The Complex Relationship Between Violence and Attraction
Now, think back to our remote existence, when human beings led prehistoric, short and often violent lives.

The comforts of our modern, technologically advanced civilization simply did not exist.

The caveman, who sought to have reproductive access to the female sex, had to offer something in return.
  • He needed to assure the females he wanted to mate with that he would provide them with resources, shelter, and sustenance on a regular basis.
  • He had to be violent enough to kill enough animals to feed himself, his women, and the children he would have with them.
  • He also had to have an innate ability to kill other men who wished to move into the resource-rich land that he controlled or that was controlled by the women he had sexual access to.
To put it bluntly, violent men have been selected by women for reproduction since time immemorial, and despite the fact that we have, through a manipulation of evolutionary impulses, built a civilization that largely mitigated this burden of violence, many women still yearn for violent men.


The average woman, of course, does not want to date a violent psychopath, at least not one of the status of a serial killer like Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez. But she longs for some of that caveman violence to emerge through the civilized exteriors of the men she is occasionally attracted to. In essence, women seek to ensure their security and provision in society through a kind of standardized double assault.

Simply extracting male provision via taxpayer subsidy is not enough.

The obsession with protection and provision that we see for women is expressed on a macro scale, through the occasional application of laws involving violence against women, such as “Rape Shield Laws” and “primary aggressor laws”, etc.

Spoiler: What is a Rape Shield Law?
Spoiler: What are Primary Aggressor Laws?

These laws often do not fully consider concepts of equality, such as due process and the luxury of a legal system that presumes innocence before guilt has already been established (this made me remember of this thread of mine where I talked about how your friends would probably leave you be eaten by wolves if someone came accusing you of rape, even though there isn't any proof).

To the collective unconscious, the hive mentality that drives the female masses, due process is irrelevant, they are voting with their hindbrain and therefore vote to ensure that their most primal needs and desires are met and satiated.

The problem is that women can never be satisfied; they point out and demand more security and more provisions… always.

In this way, while female involvement leverages the electoral process in her favor, and after the legal system implements as much gynocentrism as it can handle without collapsing, the individual woman also simultaneously cultivates her particular instinct for her own protection and provision.

In the form of what we call: “Alpha Brute”.
3. THE ALPHA BRUTE - Low Inhib and Dark Triad? Yes, but also a tool for the feminine

An individual prone to violence and physically imposing enough to do a lot of harm with hostility, who is also usually not intelligent enough to understand that he is in a servile position to the woman he is involved with, existing as a hired criminal who gets paid with sexual access.

It's like a pincer attack, designed to maximize benefits for the female collective, and frankly, men's lives, health, or rights have never influenced this process in any meaningful way.
This is just gynocentrism at its maximum power.

Take the following video as an example, preceded by a quick synopsis.

> The woman enters a cafeteria and skips the line.

> The man responds to whoever was on the phone that a woman jumped the queue.

> The woman hears and immediately intimidates him by staring at him, in a very rude, incisive and, finally, violent way.

> By chance, the boyfriend, a 150 kg ex-convict, enters the conversation, and at that moment there is a brief confrontation between the man and the boyfriend.-Out of nowhere, the boyfriend [ex-convict] punches the man, beating him violently.

See for yourself.

So... what do we witness here other than a vicious attack? Well, let's start from the woman's perspective.

Let's assume, hypothetically, that this woman could have started this confrontation without her boyfriend to protect her and that the man who attacked her in self-defense after she initiated the violence.
This woman would probably have no problem trusting the front line of gynocentric protection at her disposal, that being the macro-scale protection of a police force or a white knight who jumps to her defense without even questioning who initiated the violence.

This is why women advocate for first-offender laws, as blame almost universally falls on the man in domestic violence disputes, despite evidence to the contrary, if any. Once again, women want it that way, they are not concerned with due process and equal rights for men, they are concerned with leveraging the State and strengthening their fundamental reproductive habits.

However, in this case, it was her boyfriend who was nearby, who was, for all intents and purposes, the alpha brute we've described. He is prone to violence, physically imposing, and almost seems to take pleasure in subjecting another man to the brutality he can unleash in his master's name. This is an extreme example of what all women want to some degree, community protections from non-violent men in the form of a legal system, and individual protections from violent men in the form of these thugs who are more than willing to disregard those legal protections.

This is what drives the female tendency toward hybristophilia, which appears to only be pathological in the most extreme examples, but which actually lies on a continuum.

This is a spectrum of hybristophilia that ranges from the woman who prefers a beating from her man behind closed doors, to the “serial killer fanatics” who gained notoriety for fainting with excitement in the presence of hyper-violent serial killers, such as Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez, during the fanfare of his trials.

Every woman who asks you to choke her, spank her, spank her ass, or spit on her in a safe, controlled environment during consensual sex is acting on this misunderstood desire.

She is asking you to release your inner caveman, she is asking you to become a violent weapon that she can use for her protection, and in doing so, she receives vast sexual stimulation.

I don't hate women for that, much less do I expect them to change. I believe this is an innate quality of female sexual attraction. Nor do I absolve them if they act on these impulses in some way in real causes of violence, rather than simulated, against other human beings like the woman described above.

Women who are so dependent on their primitive impulses to the point of directing one of these brutes to harm others through violence should be locked up and kept away from civilized people. But in terms of desire, of female attraction to violent men, I suspect there's very little we can do to combat that.
Spoiler: Is there a solution maybe?

We will have to understand women's tendency to select violent men and we have to manage and discourage it as best we can. And so I begin my efforts here with a simple material.

5. EXAMPLES - Abandon all hope, ye who enter here

First, we start with , the “cultural Marxism” conspiracy theorist who killed 77 souls, most of whom were young teenagers. An article titled Norway’s mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik gets hundreds of love letters a year states the following:

STOCKHOLM (AFP) — She calls him by his first name, sends him letters every week and promises to wait for him.

It could be any love story, but Victoria's heart belongs to a mass murderer: Anders Behring Breivik. Responsible for Norway's worst peacetime murder since World War II, Breivik, like many other famous killers, has his share of admirers, a phenomenon that can be accompanied by sexual attraction and, in this case, there is even a term: hybristophilia.

“I really wouldn’t want to live a life without him,” says “Victoria,” who doesn’t want her real name published. A young Swedish woman in her 20s appears distant and impassive, ignoring her fresh cup of coffee in the lobby of a Stockholm hotel. But her voice breaks when she talks about her “dear Anders”.

From a small town in Sweden, she is doing everything she can to get Breivik's prison conditions eased: he has spent the last four years isolated in a high-security penitentiary. He is currently serving a 21-year sentence, which can be extended if he is still considered a danger to society.

Breivik killed 77 people on July 22, 2011, when he detonated a bomb near government offices in Oslo and opened fire at a summer camp for young workers on the island of Utoya. For Victoria, Breivik's isolation amounts to “torture”.

“I worry about him even more now that he's in such a vulnerable situation,” she says.

Unemployed due to health problems, she writes to him to encourage him—far more than the 150 letters ever written—or sends him small gifts, including a dark blue tie that he occasionally wore during his trial. In return, she received two letters from him — which she showed to AFP — the others were blocked by prison officers tasked with censoring his correspondence.

Marriage proposals:

It is not easy to define her relationship with Breivik, a man she has never met, since all her requests to visit him were denied.
She describes him as her “old friend” and as a kind of “brotherly figure” and protector, but admits that she finds him attractive and “there were romantic interests, at first, at least on my part.”
:lul:


She says that their first contact dates back to 2007, when they met through an online game. He cut ties with her two years later, presumably to focus on planning her attacks. But in early 2012, Victoria reconnected with the man who had by then become the most hated person in Norway. And she is not alone.

The Weekly Morgenbladet (A Norwegian weekly, intellectual newspaper, covering politics, culture and science.) reported last year that Breivik receives “at least” 800 letters a year, many of them from admiring women.

During the 2012 trial, a 16-year-old girl (a JB ) asked him to marry her.

Hybristophilia is a term used by criminologists — but not scientists — to describe a sexual attraction to violent killers in prison, who often receive racy love letters or sexy underwear from their fans. Also known as “Bonnie and Clyde syndrome,” it exists across time and place, .Josef Fritzl of Austria, who held his daughter captive and repeatedly raped her for 25 years, and American killer Charles Manson also have their own fan clubs.

According to Sheila Isenberg, an American author who interviewed 30 women for her book "Women Who Love Men Who Kill", says that these admirers often have a history of sexual abuse.

“It's a chance for a woman to be in control (the man is behind bars for life and has no control over anything), when previously she was abused by her father (or) by other men,” she explained to AFP.

“Plus, it’s romance with a capital R: exciting, thrilling, a never-ending rollercoaster. Nothing dull or ordinary about these relationships.”

However, there is no scientific evidence to support the widespread belief that these women feel they are on a mission to help the killer get on the right path in life, said Amanda Vicary, assistant professor of psychology at Wesleyan University in the United States.

“Some women tend to be attracted to famous men — it's possible that the reason some women are attracted to men who have done horrible things is not so much what they did, but the fame they received from their actions,” she said.

Victoria, Meanwhile, she says she's not looking for fame. Her involvement with Breivik has already cost her relationship with her sister, who, upon learning of her ties to him, told her: “You are dead to me.” And she distanced herself from her friends. She admits to “more or less sharing” Breivik's Islamophobic ideology, but says she opposes violence.

So how can she love a man who slaughtered dozens of terrified teenagers, some of whom begged him to spare their lives?

“I think I had to separate Anders from the real Breivik. I think of Anders as my old friend and Breivik as the person who did all these things. The years pass and yet she refuses to give up on him. “I miss you more and more every day. I think my feelings got a little stronger.”
Another interesting article I stumbled across will give you some real insight into the nature of this phenomenon, titled Editorial: On Love, Sex and Murderers and it's quite long so I'll only publish the parts I judge relevant:

At the same time, we are both repelled and fascinated by studying sociopaths and their quest for blood — and most of the time, men seek women's blood. The idea of the “good” Dexter-style serial killer is relatively new, but it is a known fact that women flooded Ted Bundy with love letters, a woman married Richard Ramirez while he was in prison, and there are countless other examples. of lesser-known criminals and their fanatics. Montages with Ted Bundy? Why? We wonder why serial killers do what they do all the time - perhaps that's where the fascination begins for people who identify as "hybristophiles."

A few years ago, I met a sixteen-year-old girl (another jb, I'm starting to see a pattern
:feelsthink:
) who identified herself as Ted-Head (a Ted Bundy groupie). It was easy to ignore the romanticization of a man whose horror she had never experienced. Other interests of hers were, like many of mine, dark and subversive. My thought at the time was that one day she would grow up and realize that finding a person interesting is not the same as finding them emotionally or sexually attractive. After all, Bundy used the fact that he was a handsome man to kill women. He's not exactly the kind of guy you'd want to date (you wouldn't want to go on a date with Rodney James Alcala either, but he won The Dating Game).

I wanted to write a little about the Ted Bundy phenomenon and how it continues into a new generation. I started on a site called Bundyphile, hoping to start at the source in my efforts to write about gaining some understanding from the young women who followed Bundy (one Facebook page referred to him as “The Misunderstood Voice of a Generation”) .

The themes presented on these sites were repetitive:

Bundy wasn’t “that bad.”

Bundy was misunderstood.

Yes, what Bundy did was wrong, but you can love and admire him without idolizing his crimes.

Many of the women and girls who are obsessed with Bundy and other serial killers seem to think that they could be the special person who would change or train them, or be “the one” who would be there for them and stop all the bad things that happenned. In one blog entry, a woman calling herself “Lolita” proclaims, in all caps for all to see, “EITHER WAY, IF MY OWN DEATH COULD FILL TED BOUNDY’S HOLLOW SOUL, I [REALLY] WOULD LOVE TO BE HIS LAST VICTIM." (Can you imagine being adored like this?
:feelsgiga:
)

She claimed they were similar, claimed to understand him. He was “different” (
:coffee:
) from other killers (remember, Ted Bundy was probably dead before this woman was born). Within minutes of my research, it became clear that you can't search for Ted-Heads without encountering Dahmer's “fangirls” and the obsession that many Internet fans have with gay male sex (suddenly fujoshi reference?
:dafuckfeels:
). Specifically, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer engaging in gay sex (wtf?
:feelskek:
). It was around this time that my research took a sharp left turn. Up until this point, women had not only seemed emotionally invested, but obsessed. They seemed to believe that a woman's love for them could have saved the violent men they so idolized.

When I reached the Mrs.Dahmer’s Infinityland website, it became clear that there was much more to this phenomenon than the tendency of high school/college girls to fall in love with “misunderstood” and “shady” men. The whole point of it was about sex. OK yes. I think we knew that, but this was deeply dark and disturbing sex, based completely on how violent and terrible these men were. A post on Tumblr says:

- Most girls: you've seen his big body, right?

- Me: You saw his death counter, right?

The page “Mrs. Dahmer” features several photos of Dahmer, most photos typically taken after being arrested or photos of him in prison jumpsuits. The photos have sweet captions, the same way a high school girl would caption a photo of her favorite Disney crush in her diary (
:dafuckfeels:
)

After I discovered the “hybristerotica” tag on Tumblr, things got really dark, and it happened really quickly. A Tumblr dedicated to celebrating hybristophilia drags me to a corner of the internet I never expected to find.

Sex and Crime All The Time features, among other things, photos of famous serial killers with sexually explicit “confessions” emblazoned on them and a serialized erotic story called Stockholm Syndrome, focusing on Richard Ramirez.

I want to take a moment to state here that I understand that rape fantasy is not the same as wanting to be raped and that many women with healthy sex lives are adept at this type of sex — however, I think this fantasy becomes a little different when the fantasies are focused on men known for violently stalking and attacking women.

I also wonder about this fine line, as these women proudly identify themselves as “hybristophiles” and defend the legitimacy of this attraction, although the profile of women who fit the definition is not a list of positive personality traits, and many of them admit this sexual dysfunction outside of situations where they are fantasizing about the killers.

Hardcore hybristophiles don't always bother to claim that the men they obsess over are “misunderstood” or “only half bad.” When an anonymous Tumblr fan asks if Ted Bundy loved his wife and son, the blog owner responds, “I don’t think so.” There seem to be limits, however.

One user says she is “sad” that Eric Harris’ diary featured homophobic sentiments. The blog owner comforts her by assuming that he would have overcome these feelings if he were alive (can't believe this shit). The conversation, however, had nothing to do with the way these men treated women. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, the more violent the fantasy.

It isn't over yet.
For some reason, I find the obsession with men like Bundy and Ramirez less disturbing than the sexual and romantic fantasies associated with more recent killers. There's a good chance that women who idolize Bundy will wear a pendant with his photo on it and look at his photo alive, given that Bundy died in 1989. He could be seen as a “character” like Loki from the Avengers or, yes, even something like Dexter. No one they know has had contact with him, they have not felt the fear and horror he caused personally.

But women fantasizing about Elliot Rodger were definitely alive and well when he opened fire in Santa Barbara in May of this year. Their obsession runs much deeper than their appearance — these women have studied their hate-filled videos and their manifesto. His hatred towards women had no effect on removing these hybristophiles. In fact, it seems to do the opposite, all the women attracted to Rodger have a common desire — to be his first girlfriend. Be the girl who calms your anger. Some fantasize about Rodger with Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris from the Columbine shooting, claiming they could show him how to win women. Hybristerotica presents two pieces of erotic “fan fiction” about Eliot Rodger, one written from his point of view and the other told from a woman's point of view — In Come Over and Fuck Me, she imagines herself as his lifelong friend, without realize his desire for her.

The erotica isn't well written, but that's not the point. It doesn't have to be like this. The very thought of fucking these dangerous men is what captivates the women who participate in the hybristophilia tags on Tumblr. Serial killer and hybristophile fans receive a lot of negative attention from other Tumblr users, particularly those who like true-crime but don't want to be associated with people who fetishize and idolize killers. If you go through any of the popular hybristophilia tags, you will see the defenses of hybristophilia over and over again. They insist that they are not mocking the victims or supporting the crime, they respect the victims — they are just attracted to the killer. The most interesting case is the group of young women obsessed with the high school shooter, TJ Lane.

While his fans insist they respect victims and their families, they also praise him for wearing a 'KILLER' shirt to court and share GIFs of him telling his victims' parents: “The hand that pulled the trigger to kill your children is now gone. Masturbates with the memory of them. Fuck you all,” while shocking everyone.

They call him “sass” and tag photos of him as “The King of Sass/The King of Attitude.” Almost all of TJ Lane's memes, GIFs, and collages involve this quote, either in full or just part of it. They love him, in large part, because he was disrespectful to the families of his victims. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, and the more violent the fantasy.

Some hybristophiles claim they are completely normal, one even cited her therapist in defense of her obsession with TJ Lane. Others assert that it is no different from any other paraphilia (a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depends on fantasy and engagement in atypical and extreme sexual behaviors) and as such should be respected.

It's worth noting that pedophilia is the most common type of paraphilia, and no one is suggesting that everyone supports pedophiles as normal — not even hybristophiliacs who like men who have abused children. The four most common types of paraphilia involve a rejection of consent — pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, and frotteurism — the act of rubbing against non-consenting people. Another fact worth considering in “respecting” as “normal” in hybristophiles is that paraphilia often leads to sexual dysfunction — needing what attracts them for sexual gratification.

If hybristophilia makes women [lovers of serial killers] unable to have a healthy sex life with men who don't want to rape or kill them, I would dare say it's not normal at all. These observations are not intended to judge hybristophilia communities, per se, but being fair to them also means showing the side that does not support their claims to normality.So why do women seek out sociopaths? Why does a killer with multiple victims attract them so much? There were even searches for Timothy McVeigh in the hybristophilia tags — there seems to be no limit. Some are purely sexual, some are borderline romantic, and some are downright disturbing considering the men are at the center of the discussion. Here are some of the tags about Jahar (Dzhokhar) Tsarnaev.

The deeper I dug into the hybristophilia tags and sites, the less sense it seemed to make. Going into this, I admit, I thought I would find some groups of misfits who still admired Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez. Like many, I read the published articles showing that the Tsarnaevs, James Holmes, and Adam Lanza (fucker kills lots of innocent children, females get wet) had attracted a female audience — but most of the content cited seemed to be “Wow, how hot he is,” which may be a real opinion — although Most people have a harder time separating a person's attractiveness from their actions.


The desire, the claims of love, the endless support and hero-worship definitely shook me. When I first glanced at the sexually explicit stories, I felt like I was losing my sanity. My brain really can't understand this, especially in cases like TJ Lane, who is not only someone without a shred of remorse, but also took joy in bragging about his crimes in front of the families of those he killed.

I've always watched things like Halloween, horror movies and books, and had a fascination with the dark and disturbing things, being a healthy reaction to a terrifying world. People study serial killers because we know that even though they behave like monsters, they are human. By learning about them, we gain knowledge and this helps us feel proactive and therefore safer. Because when we enter into horror and the supernatural, it becomes a terror that we can control.

It's like a paper mache skull that you can hold in your hand and know it's not so bad. What's troubling about hybristophiles on the internet, what becomes so disturbing, is knowing that they've crossed that line in some way. They went beyond a desire to understand, beyond a fascination, and into an uncontrolled obsession.

Link to the original text: http://sheddingoftheego.com/2015/08/23/hybristophilia-the-female-attraction-to-violence/

After adapting the text, I need to say this topic is DISGUSTING, but thanks for reading.


Womens wickedness is really subtle. The wicked carnal male nature is more upfront. Its like a beast. Fighting for resources, killing for pride/respect or mates.. and such carnalities. While womens are more subtle. Theirs is hypergamy, delusion, ambivalence.

I think in todays time the average person is more afflicted continuously by toxic women carnal nature than by toxic carnal men behavior. Though, as you rise/to rise in the ranks and popularity, you will be eventually gatekept by extremely toxic men behaviors (gang mentality, cuthroat, fight for resources/mates).

From what i observed they are equally toxic and work as a system. Both human carnal natures are unrighteous. But they are different in nature. But i agree, the intensity of a mans toxicity is way greater than a womans. Though, a womens toxicity is farther reaching, longer lasting, and more infectious, yet lower in potency. I compare it to water torture vs execution. Think today with feminism (90% of women now share some extremely feminist or hypergamous view, as well as a significant portion of men, of at least 50% who also share the same. And then you have women are wonderful effect). I think more women than men are legitimately toxic, but in a very small potency and in a more unidentified/hidden manner, compared to the men or masc beliefs that are so potent there isnt even a need for as much. Her toxicity (like hypergamy or the typical delusional takes and views) often goes unchecked also, and more readily accepted into society which it spreads like wildfire. Whereso a mans toxicity often requires some sort of RL force behind it to go anywhere.


One of many comments extolling the justice of God and calling Job out that his attitude was placing his own 'justice' about God

"If you sin, how does that affect him?
If your sins are many, what does that do to him?
If you are righteous, what do you give to him,
or what does he receive from your hand? Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself, and your righteousness only other people"
(Job 34:6-8)

This is one of Elihu's most important arguments, as it pointed out to Job that the righteousness of man cannot 'buy' God's favor, nor do the sins of man 'harm' God. Rather, God created his perfect law for the benefit of man. Elihu, conversely, promoted the righteousness of God in taking any course of action, regardless of the good or evil of man. He took Job to task for thinking that it was futile to be good then, if the good could face trials as well as the wicked. He pointed out that the Lord will repay men for what they have done (in this life or the next), so it is very profitable to fear the Lord even if one does not see immediate ben trying to explain the nature of God with only the limited information available to human knowledge, chrisolivertimes we are in book of job, story of cian aand abel first book of adam cain eroused by jelousy. jelousy good/bad perspective used to entice cain mimd pattern with xxxten vice city aka gta mind pattern supericial benifactors mind with story of job lesson


"God" mathematically, scientifically, and logically has to be real as long as we have a consciousness and can perceive living in any fashion. Forget how religion explains god, and forget the concept of "god" being exclusively a singular deity. Think of it like this,

Life has a paradox. The paradox of life is that something had to have created something else. Cause and effect. If aliens created humans, then who created aliens? If water and bacteria created flesh, then what created that? If energy created the big bang, what created energy? This question and paradox goes to infinity. The answer to that paradox is an equal infinity based concept. It is "god". All encompassing, or at the very least to our understanding, a thing or concept that is in that realm of infinity (nothing before it etc.). In shorter terms, the proof of gods existence is the answer to the paradox of life.


Women are not creatures of action, they operate best in a weak nature, hence why for example they are more proficient at doing things like organizing protests and social media hashtags. if they had the same mental aspect as males, their toxicity would manifest itself in much more abhorrent events and atrocities. also, the iq bell curve plays a part. almost all women are in the middle lower while men are more distributed along the curve. so more men can be unpredictably violent and impulsive.

Women nature were capable of acting out their desires like men, india, africa, and asia go bye bye. eugenics become officially government enforced policy. but they don't, instead they keep those thoughts secret and virtue signal. and all virtue signaling comes from fear of being discovered. why many male feminists are rapists. they virtue signal to camouflage their true nature and thoughts. and women and them are often the biggest virtue signallers


Its a deep rooted issue. Humanity itself is a sort of war between the animal body and the mind-(which implies higher intelligence). What differentiates us from animals are our minds. Our level of perceptions and mental and ability to manifest these things collectively. This is why i never see animals praying or deviating from the script, as much as humans are able to do.

Strong carnality is in most cases most associated with wickedness to the human level mind. As we are not just beings of the body(animal) intelligence. This is why animalistic natures such as murder are seen as okay and even righteous for a wild animal to do (as it is a being of the animal nature), but not okay for humanity(as we are not just exclusively beings of the body animal nature, and are observable to ourselves to posses a higher mind state than most if not all land animals). The essence of the mind, and the body work together, but are somewhat at conflicting states. Carnality and the ways of the heart are at odds with the higher intelligence that our mind implies. Its hard to explain exactly why, but the best way to see it is the body(the animal) and the mind as sort of separate systems. The case we have in todays time with humans are that most humans are more in agreeance with their animalistic nature, instead of their mind and higher intelligence (why this is the case is a variety of reasons to long to explain in this particular post.). But in essence, the cultivation of one side, usually means the abandonment/impairment or pain of another.

In other words, Most people operate in the carnal human body nature and are most familiar with it. Carnality is strongly attribed to wickedness, and humans are more familiar with carnality(thus wickedness). Wickedness is attractive to the human body as it usually manifest itself as carnality(animal behaviors). This is why wicked people, or popular people in general are known to be carnal. Think resource money hungry cartel boss, killer gangstar, sex fiend women. To become popular in generally usually means some sort of excessive carnal success. etc. To take it up a notch, the diety that represents evil is strongly associated with carnality. Satanists actually practice carnality. Their favorite day is their birthday.

Anyways, carnality includes standard female and male nature. For females, as an animal, carnality is what they are attracted to. Carnal male behaviors. This is why bad boys, mafia men, alpha guys who delve into that polygamous, cutthroat male carnal behavior win and imply to the female a strong sexual desire, than lets say a BETA(who plays into a feminine women nature) and even moreso a person who chooses to focus on a higher intelligence(think messiah figure), that actually is even below beta and alpha (a non participant in the dating pool).
This cycle is also why women always get left after their hypergamy, as the ones they chase are statistically more likely to be carnal, and thus toxic or toxically polygamous due to the preselection of such carnal behaviors. Also why this whole men blaming is seen as a circlejerk due to the predictability and cycle of events that occur. Ofc the war is waged, and the ones that will suffer and get the strays of hate will be the non participants.


This is wrong. Very baised. Men have it far much worst dating. While this one observation may make some sense, you fail to compare the mens side of things against women. If you were to do that, youd notice that men have at least double the amount of issues when it comes to this niche, compared to this one observation you made about women.

And while you may be somewhat right, its important to understand that this is an issue that they create for themselves due to their own hypergamy.

Hypergamy is relative. Put 1000 "gigachads" in a room with 10000 women, and the modern women nature will still find a way to statistically, and exclusively desire only the top 10-15% preselection wise. This is studies and observable in every facet of modern society.
What your explaining is post hypergamous decisions. Of course she will have trouble competing against the same men.

This issue is even more worst because men are statistically rarer than women, yet with all of the social structures that favor matriarchy and female natures, women just have an advantage socially and socioeconomically. Nor are as libido magnetized as a man. Theres no reason any men should be having trouble dating, yet here we are.

It is dishonestly wrong to claim:
" IN TERMS OF DATING. a guy has to be 1 tall, good lucking and thats it,"
No idea where you got this idea from. You must have never heard about preselection or women are wonderful effect. Anyways, men are known to have an extremely different level of qualifications to be acceptable in dating, one that literally is dynamic and ever changing relatively to all of the other men due to hypergamy. This is why old age men did not let the female nature take over societal wise and kept power(and thus their wives). If you think tall and goodlooking makes you passable then you have no idea about society and are looking through the lense of female influence. Aesthetics matter more to you, but not as much to her.


Women are very impressionable socially and are similar to children mentally. They learn and operate a different way than biological men. More proficient or prone to being; Subservient(which is why they excell in rule-following forms of academia), socially interested, impressionable and subject to subjective emotional bias. Anyways, i find it interesting why we can see in society, women or homosexual(or low T/intersex) men who are often in gatekeeping positions of power ,fame, money, and caste. Theres a reason for this. Women are generally are more influenced socially then biological men, better at following and creating a social acceptance to rule. Less divergent in thought. The male mind is more proficient or prone to being sidedly; independent(energetic to strive for freedom), deviant etc. Its been like this for a long time. Even old kings were known to have eunuchs around them instead of men in the courts due to the nature of men.

So its not just white or black. All women will naturally be programmable to propaganda, and especially social effects. Modern societys culture is their safe haven. So if the media and such tools that determine society's culture, exclusively advertise black or white men as sexy, then guess what comes next. Just look at the covid vaccine fiasco. Additionally, a women's main attraction comes from preselection. Things that imply attraction such as caste, status, wealth, money, looks. Does not have to exclusively be logically beneficial or objectively attractive traits. This is also a key to how to truly be attractive to women(also why babyalien can pull more women than 99% of people on this forum). To top it off, humanity is strongly attracted to unrighteousness, as carnality and the ways of the flesh are strongly associated with wickedness, thus wickedness more familiar and impressionable to the person than other moral levels.

Combine this with media that loves to garnish minorities who display deviantly exciting forms of poverty influenced behaviors, and you have a really interesting situation.
The most popular forms of media is hip hop and pop. Hip hop is majorly black . This sort of lights the impressionable brain that black people (as the amalgamation of western melanated people, regardless of actual ethnicity or facial looks), share the same SMV caste wise to the medias representation, especially if the person prolificates/displays the same archetypes that are socially known to be popular. This is why people say that if your not thugmaxxed as a black guy then your basically incel tier.

Think of all the old age beauty standards that we in todays time see as shit. Also think of all the supermodel faces you and people here call stacy yet i think are actually very masculine and intersex. Attraction is truly subjective, but its mainly influenced socially. Im not saying black people are ugly, but if you look at the fact that less than 50 years ago black people were considered monkeys and ugly to women, its very very very easy to see what caused the change. Media.


I think the vast majority of incels are high disgust standard-cels with more feminised sexuality than most men. We already know women are mostly Chad or HTN+ only, but that’s reasonable because they have the desirability to be so.

A lot of men get fuck all from women they are actually attracted to but the masculine imperative is to fuck by any means necessary. High disgust high inhib incels however, have adopted the female sexuality without the desirability to back it up.
Ironically this is the case i observed too.

Thats why a lot of people who are known to be traditionally incel still rave over stacy and becky, or oogle around rating men and women. I noticed them to be just as standardly hypergamous, without the actual masculine nature that equalizes the women aesthetic across board. To me, theres no such thing as a 10/10 or 1/10 women. This lack of fulfillment in the feminine hypergamous nature is what creates that typical feminine pattern i see so often with men who complain about how they cant be chad. Being traditionally masculine while still holding a high disgust leads to another form of reaction that is not "why cant he be me". This is the true level as it curbs the desirability problem through masculine imperatives.

Im conflicted about female desirability. I dont think they should have as much desirability. Its the feminine hypergamous nature within those starved men that help create such a thing. I also think its artificially inflated with social structures that favor the female nature. Truth is, men are biologically rarer than women, even moreso mentally and sex preference wise. So to me, its not reasonable for them to be hypergamous torwards an excusive class of men, considering their perception of exclusivity is relative. It was never reasonable and is always relative, and this is why men should (and have in the past) totally dominate the sexual market, even if it was by force. Like disregarding a childs cries when you take him out of the candy store. Its for their own good.


The concept of a common adversary as a unifying force in society is a notion that has been observed throughout history. The idea is that by having an external "enemy," whether it be a person, a group, or an ideology, the internal members of a community can strengthen their bonds with each other, focusing on this shared opposition rather than their internal differences. This external threat becomes a rallying point, a reason for solidarity, reducing the likelihood of conflicts within the group. My theory is that similarly, in building long-lasting relationships between individuals, a shared adversary or challenge can create a strong bond. Partners may find common ground and mutual understanding when faced with an outside force that tests their unity, encouraging cooperation and deeper connection.


W have a chameleon nature where they will learn and know the bad parts about their nature yet keep it "hidden" (conflict of interest). Part of the reason the exposed pilled information was led by mens revelations. Its like how you have a girl in a guys friend group who acts like the bros just to go around and tell her female friend group about men behaviors and such. The latter rarely happens. Its probably a nature within them built to ensure protection. On the bad side, they also have a tendency to not know shit about what they are saying and move their bais based on emotional reaction. Id say this is more biological and an estrogenic (female hormone) effect. Add that emotional bias and female nature, to the conflict of interest, to thirsty men, to harsh truths, to matriarchally dominated social structures, and you'd see this forum gone within a few months. Hence why women on this forum will eventually turn this into a shitshow. Hence why its easy to see who is male or female sometimes even based on the quality and types of post. At best this will overnight turn into a club. Also they are groups of intersex or gay/feminist women who actively sub out these types of mens communities. For whatever reason (sometimes due to cause-effect of hypergamous nature), (or even because of the significant pool of intersex men mascaraing as the rare biological men) they show a strong dislike towards men. Going as far to push the categorization of pilled truth subjects socially, under derogative labels. Just like how they labeled redpill/blackpill content "incel". Or how people who predict the goverments or wistleblow are considered socially, conspiracy theorists. Socially, they work to sort of disrupt and disturb mens spaces of this nature. Most people have no clue on what a real masculine nature is and will just label anything of this nature mysogonist or "hateful", despite the facts and statistics. Wheather its emotional bias, conflict of interest or whatever, theres a lot of reasons why this happens. Some of it is automatically encoded in their nature and DNA. It can also be a combination of all these factors. For example, subservience and this worlds natural Ai which ensures humanities progression, is observed to cull men and use women/matriarchy as a way to gatekeep excessive diversion/the (naturally proficient) male nature of mental and moral precision. This is just an example. More factors could be at play. Also, like i said before, women have a conflict of interest when it comes to subjects such as bad male nature (beta) bad female nature (feministic) and other such subjects, as they quite literally enjoy the wine of their fruit in todays time. Speaking up and encouraging mental and morally precise karmatic consequences when it comes to beta pedestaling, is for a lot of women past initial halo, seen as spiteful. Despite the behavior in itself being extremely toxic for humanity, for the male, and for society in general. They are similar cases where we can observe where we see this same conflict of interest.


Always has been like this. Love does not source itself within animals. The animal body is a automatous being. Although natural and not something like a iron artificial robot, explaining love as the ways of the body (male or female) is like observing a packaging machine to have the capability of love. Everything the carnal man and women think is love is usually sensuality or influenced by it. Giving, kissing, cuddling, sex. Its all sensuality. Its for the body. Just like how sensuality is a derivative of love, but love itself is not limited to sensuality. The capabilities of love in the human body is vastly limited and will ultimately revolve around neediness, as the human body is in a perpetual state of need, suffering, motion, decay etc. So we can only truly imply love. Some are better than others when it comes to love. Sometimes, the less sensual the derivative of love you display, the greater the essence of "love". This is why one of the greatest forms of love are known to come in a way where the reciprocate party may dislike or not agree emotionally or physically, with your action or behavior (like telling harsh truths, or mentally having the best interest for a kid).
Love is something far more complex, and in a way, love is already at full capacity as love can be described in essence, as intent. Life itself is love, and things like hate, sensuality, are also synonymous or derivatives of love.
This modern day level of love of money and resources is a real animalistic and carnal form of love. Its needy, just like the body. Its not respectable to me for a human being with a functioning consciousness to act like this. But regardless, Im no animal abuser so im not that proactive of harm, or eradication. Its just that people with these level of consciousness should not represent or be put in the position to influence others to share the same view (reason why i dislike carnality, because it proves to be the most influential behaviors). Even so, this behavior is as a animal, and people ultimately prove how they should be treated based on their level of consciousness and mental and moral precision. But to determine that, it depends. For SOME women though, paypig behavior is a common theme. Its despicable, and in most cases a telling sign of their level of consciousness as their QOL and nature relative to the male species more easily reveals their own actions and behaviors that led to this form of love to show fruit (same reason causes of such behaviors and views are so commonly predicted by many people in pilled communities).


Intersex conditions have their brain wired both sides.

That transgender statement of configuration has some truth into it, but its lacking important information. They underestimate the system we call the body. Science does also. The body is extremely complex and almost falls under the quote "physicist Emerson Pugh famously said, “If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

Think of all the electrons, atomic systems that work together, and the almost impossibly large amount of micro and macro chemicals that react with each other to create a functioning system. Testosterone and estrogen are simply the macros. Those chemicals are not even close to the only ones that actually make a man or a women, musicalized or fem. Things like DHT, Control Hormones, and other varying androgens and the varying ratios between male and female are not mentioned but are very important. This is why you cant turn a man into a women, or a women to a man via hormones or by cutting of your dick etc. If anything, the only chance you have at actually sharing both traits is intersex, and that runs though biology and genetics itself. This process is secretly referred to as "in utero"

The key is intersex. This is a personal observation, but i can see clearly that society is increasingly intersex. They are a lot of variables that would come to play. There is Evidence that shows how endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment can cause reproductive variation through dysregulation of normal reproductive tissue differentiation, growth, and maturation if the fetus is exposed to EDCs during critical developmental times in utero. But common sense, nature, humanities history, GMOs, will show you how quality of the seed will always change and vary (usually for the worst unless intently preserved, which does not happen in a society that loves the opposite of mental and moral precision). Same applies to the human body.

Anyways, even people with intersex conditions are not completely 50/50 male/female, though they are some that get close. And, if my suspicion is right, i think that the majority of human males do have intersex conditions, Maybe not entirely physical and sometimes mentally, (though, you can still observe the excessive curves in most males vs a authentic transgender, or lack of jaw in males but prevalent jaws in women models as as well as transgenders)),,,as the male biology has always since the start been rarer to produce and procure. And they are no mistakes in nature. No feature that does not have meaning behind it. Anyways, so i think the case is likely a significant amount of actual intersex women mascaraing as men, as well as the pool of regular women, intersex women, and then intersex men. The order of prevalent percentage in that order also, making authentic biologicals males (physically and mentally), very rare or last on the list. You can easily prove this by comparing and mixing traits of pre estrogen transgenders to your average men and women. You will very quickly observe prevalent traits in T men, that are not as common with your average men, and some traits of T men, which are common with average women. Reverse this process and you can reverse mix traits and eventually have a pool of different traits of males and female. Do the data right, and they will be certain types of men (physically) that you seriously do not see often. Its like how NFTs have different rarity percentages. And this isn't even classifying mental effects (since sex hormones effect the shape of your body and features), which would make the pool even more significant. So unlike what the transgender in your post said, the configurations don't stop at male/female. This is the simple delusional way of looking at it. And perhaps it should not even start with those 2 categories either.

This means a significant pool of men who are more prone to turning the other way or being attracted to the womenly way of thinking and fem nature, and also things like intersex women who associate themselves to the masculine way of thinking and such. This is clearly observed today. They are also varying studies and terms that describe this attachment of behavior like women are wonderful effect, and other observations. Then on top of that, you have the "be yourself" propaganda media which deliberately lures men to become more feminine, plus the other factors such as the significantly dominating matriarchal systems placed in modern society, which make it extremely hard to live as a male and associate yourself to the masculine mental and moral precision way of thinking. This is why i think they are a significant boost of transgenders and DL gay people.


The books of people who tried to find god should have never been introduced to normies. Its not something your average person can comprehend lest it turns into some low IQ fem/carnal slave following shit where the actual content is tossed to the side and instead is replaced with "religion" aka a social group and order that social vamps join to play around and pass time.

The books of people who tried to find god is not something your average person can comprehend lest it turns into some low IQ fem/carnal slave following shit where the actual content is tossed to the side and instead is replaced with "religion" aka a social group and order that social vamps join to play around and pass time. It has derivatives of truth but it isnt the meat of the content. Sadly though, these derivatives become more of a popular take than the meat, which influences others to share the same rock IQ takes.

Thats why you have so many people who say jesus this and jesus that as a person, not even knowing "jesus" was best used as a figurative of. Because obviously the name jesus was probably not the same name that was first introduced in the writing. Its the same with all the other religious books. If you pay attention, the redundancy becomes obvious. Good content and information turns into carnal worship and shit when these types of people blindly interpret it. "Grass is green because of chlorophyll" turns into, "grass is green because god loves you" Both could be correct, but ultimately it depends on how deep your knowledge about the situation is. And the way information works, it can get infinitely deep. The only problem in todays time ab religious thinking, is that theres no accurate foundation nor accurate progression to the knowledge of the situation. So you have people saying grass is green because chrorophyll and then you have people saying grass is green because god loves you, and none of them recons the level of understanding in both (how both of them can be true, but one more practical and considered a progression of intelligence in todays time).

You learn not to touch fire when you are a kid because your mom warns you about it. Then you learn again that you shouldnt touch it because fire is hot. Then as you get older, you learn again the science of why fire is hot, and as you get even older, you learn the science of what happens when you touch it etc. This happens repeatedly. But the issue with the books of religion is tricky, as many dont learn past the elementary infant stage, and the whole matter just becomes low IQ and non practical. So we have wars and shit, (according to the book) end time prophecies and whatnot going on, yet theres no coherence or understanding between it all with these people as they are either missing prerequisites, or further understanding.


This. By default, there will always be a massive power imbalance in a relationship that favors the woman. She can leave the relationship at any point and immediately have hundreds of other men being willing to be in a relationship with her, whereas 95% of men will never have this kind of opportunity. It creates an emotional dependence from the man on the women and compels him to be desperately submissive to her and make concessions to keep her around.

Women have no objection to taking advantage of these power imbalances when it favors themselves though. It's only a problem when men do it. Feminism in a nutshell.

That whole sub should be deleted from reddit. Its a mockery to people who actually have legitimate issues with dating and such. Most of it is relative entitlement. People who are eating grass fed ribeye complaining about never having wagyu.

Just scroll down. Many posts are about them not having "as much" attention as what pretty girls have had. I see claims with these same women claiming they get male gaze, and that they are trying to remove themselves from it. They consider it toxic. This is equivalent to a man complaining on a forum that women actually talk to them or even consider then irl. It makes no sense and ive noticed these types of women spaces are made from spite. Like purplepill debate, pinkpill, women going their own way. Its always a reaction or derivative from authentic male movements. Theres a reason why these pilled movements orgin primarily by men. Its because statistically and logically, men actually do have issues with these things.

The main problems is what women(and most people) think love is. Love as a human, is sensuality. To the human body, sensuality is love.
Men who want to have sex with you is fulfilling the requirements of sensuality they so so desire. This is why men say these women dont want to be loved, they want to be worshiped. Because actual "love" is something that everyone has without exception, and does not require sensuality and shit like constant stimulus. Love(or even derivatives of love such as hate) is akin to the act of consciousness and life itself. Proof of intent.
But human(body) love is sensuality, and this is something all of these women get to significant degrees, yet they are unable to recognize it. Instead they call it toxic. So its not like they dont have love, its that they are tired of this certain form of it. And lets not even go into how man and women work differently biologically, and how libido works. The whole concept of "he only wants me for my body, actually makes no sense at all". As people who say this fail to recognize that they are in the body.

What they desire so much is moreso of a different type of sensuality, a worship. hence why i compare their experiences of human love akin to a spoiled child. If your desired sexually by men, regardless of how toxic you think it is, regardless of how much you hate those groups or types of men, its not a problem with you not being desired, its something other than that. Its preference of the type of "love" your getting. The issue is that they dont admit this and try to act as if incels or men spaces of the same subject are on the same level.

And to top it off, they are relationship focused. Inceldom is more about relationships, its about socioeconomic status and shit too. Like how your biological composition affects what jobs you get, what your expected to do in life, friends and family and other life/death situations. Factually, 80% of men are in general, at a worst place in todays society compared to every single women. There's even syndromes and studied terms that probes this (like women are wonderful effect)

Real incel categories are things like not being sexually attractive statistically to the opposite gender. No sex, nobody wanting to have sex. Also things even branching out past just sexual attraction. Everyone has these issues, but the real issue is that a extremely significant more amount of males that have it than women, and that the discussion of the causes behind them are always blotted.
This is why i can sympathize with the male inceldom as it makes more sense, its not someone eating steak dinner and complaining about apple pie, its not someone eating shitty McDonald meals and not having steakhouse. Its someone not even having leftovers and crumbs to eat at all. Its a total non negotiable lack of life quality, no options. Though, i do believe women inceldoom could exist, i think if we remove a lot of those psudo classifications with ideas that people have not understood like "men only want to have sex with me, not "love" me""... or emotional triggers, it would be significantly less women who actually fit the bill of being incel. Id think this group would be primarily transgender's, people with mental personal conflicts, people who are widely deformed, or extremely obese to the point of high risk. Not people who have preferences.


We live in a very gynocentric society that is sexist against men. To give a few examples, men get longer prison sentences, are convicted at higher rates for the same crimes, and receive longer sentences for killing women than for killing men. (i.e. men are disposable)

We always assume men to be the aggressor in any encounter. Women actually commit more domestic violence than men, yet we always assume it's the man who is abusive. Another example, "My husband tells me what I should wear" Sounds bad right? How about "My wife tells me what I should wear." The first sounds worse because we assume that a man with some power in the relationship will abuse his power, but we don't assume the same for women.

Men have to be extraordinarily careful not to sound like they are blaming women whenever they vent any sort of frustration or emotion. For instance, "Why do women like that asshole and not me?" is something that you might find mocked in r/niceguys or r/justneckbeardthings. Yet if a woman says something like "Why does that guy like the hot girl but not me?" she would be most likely receive sympathy. Men have to be super careful in choosing their words, which is ironic because we encourage men to express their emotions more. Yet when they do, we shame them for it.

Male sexuality is considered shameful. Men are considered creepy if they have a blow up doll, for an example. Yet it's perfectly normal for a woman to have a collection of dildos. Men are shamed if they date much younger women, even if she is a consenting adult.

Perhaps this isn't too controversial, but women are attracted to status, masculinity, power, and good looks. They are more attracted to a man if other women want him. They are no less superficial in their sexual preferences than men. Weakness is unattractive to women. Being an emotional, sensitive man is a death sentence in the dating world.

RPillers have a right to be angry and upset because men are almost always blamed for everything. They are assumed to be the bad guy. TRP is the one place that they can get relief from this and where women can be the bad guy for once. I also feel like all women are partially responsible for their state. We should have been the ones to stand up and defend men. Men have a hard time standing up for themselves without being perceived as weak or misogynist.

The more power the man has in the relationship, the longer the relationship lasts and the more power the woman has, the unhappier the relationship.


@ProklysmosThe "never change" thing is pretty strange to me. There have been numerous times in my life where I've had people call me out for expressing opinions or behaving in a way that contradicts things I said or did when I was much younger. It felt like they were basically pulling a "gotcha" or attacking me for changing over time. Some people actually do stop becoming more mature or mentally developing at a younger age than other people. Those are the kind of people who have "immature" thoughts, temperament, and interests long into their adult lives. One example I'm thinking of is when I recently told my 30 year old sister that paying $400 to get her hair dyed seemed excessive to me, she brought up how when I was a teenager I would pay to get haircuts at a relatively expensive barber shop. I responded by saying something like, "yeah, but I was immature and materialistic back then" and she got offended. This same sister still listens to the same pop music she listened to back then 15+ years ago. She bought tickets to a Taylor Swift concert in 2020, but the tour got cancelled due to Covid. This year she got free tickets for the redo tour, but the resale price of the average ticket was ultra-inflated because people had been waiting for 3 years. I asked my sister how much the tickets were going for online, but she wouldn't tell me. I asked, "what, $1000?" she laughed and said no. 1500? She laughed again. 2000? She shook her head and made it obvious she didn't want me to keep asking. They were tickets for good seats in a Los Angeles tour date, so they were definitely somewhere between like $2500 and $5000 a piece. And she had two tickets for herself and her fiance. So they passed up on a free $5000 at minimum because she was very attached to a pop culture fantasy experience she's been living since the 00's. She and her fiance have been engaged for several years now, postponing the wedding for financial reasons, and they have put off having children because they don't think they've got enough money for that either. Sorry, wall of text for illustration purposes, basically I agree with a lot of what you're describing here. Our mother is extremely narcissistic and I worry that my two sisters acquired a lot of her traits, though they aren't nearly as toxic.


People who always complain about not being loved despite going through so many relationships. You see this commonly with narcy women and carnal men. Loved??? No they want to be worshipped they want to cause stress while you shoulder it, want to hold you to traditional gender roles while seeking liberation from the traditional balance to those roles, thjen claim you’re not a real if you question the hypocrisy do you not hear the attitude


A surprisingly interesting subject. For my entire life I had accepted the conventional wisdom that men and women had the same IQs on average, but that men had a greater variance, thus there were 3x as many men that scored as Genius on IQ tests (and presumably 3x as many men that scored as idiots, but that part was never clearly elucidated). But there is a huge problem with the data set, it is based almost exclusively on 18-22 year olds, and just presumes that IQ is fixed throughout life for each sex. And it appears the tests were manipulated to exclude questions that men scored considerably better on than women.


shapeshift nature of women into anything they want, this is why people dont see the truth about female nature correctly especially the nature the word speaks of.

The nature of women and male nature is automatic. the reason i feel some way about fem or male content that reveals truth about feminism or whatever is because my association to this animal. After the spiritual disassociation it becomes like looking at how animals in the field work, like learning about horses and whatnot. My anger or emotion is moreso about my situation of animalistic domination.
bro is not one of us
never seen anyone do the same thing you did maybe some do but they are very rare
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii
Hey.
Here's a compilation of truth/conspiracy/female nature/blackpill etc/ posts submitted and typed by various ORG users across this and other platforms.

Lately, i have noticed there has been reports of this forum to bad actors, as well as observable server downtime. For this reason, i think it may be beneficial to amalgamate high effort discussions and posts, so that if one day this forum goes bye bye, it could still be possible to reintroduce these posts and topics to the next boat. Feel free to copypaste/archive these texts or add to the collection. Also, i apologize if i fail to source you or the original author in some texts. A lot of sourcing information is lost in translation.

WARNING. LONG TEXT POSTS.















I'm not missing that fact, its just that emotions don't mean anything, everyone has them and they don't really have any importance except to that individual. Except the real world is unforgiving no matter who you are which is why we have to judge things objectively and not through each persons individual lense. If you want to treat women as children that get stressed out and struggle with minor things then they should also have all rights and responsibilities stripped down to a child like level. You cant give women all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men while simultaneously claiming that they need to be constantly forgiven and made special care for because they're actually incapable of handling all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men.

Capable people and incapable people should be treated accordingly and the instant you start straying from this, it can only result in incapable people being thrust into positions that they should never have been in and cant handle. Unconditionally forgiving women's flaws for no other reason than "its their nature" is as ridiculous as saying men should be allowed to rape and murder at will because its "in their nature" and we should just be understanding of that. The purpose of civilization is to overcome nature which is why we place rules and expectations on peoples behavior instead of just allowing them to act however they want at any given moment

But there's literally no need to understand the emotional perspective of an individual since it doesn't matter. How is any one individuals emotions relevant to anything that actually takes place in the real world? Understanding women is very easy and every culture in human history came to the same conclusions: if women, or anyone for that matter, are not capable of getting over themselves and thinking/behaving rationally instead of being slaves to their emotions then what they think or say doesn't matter. Not everyone's perspective is important, especially people who can only see things from the lens of their own emotions and ego instead of just seeing things the way they are

A good example of this is your own response. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it or not, civilization is the opposite of a natural state and cannot exist without controlling peoples nature and their base instinctual urges which is why every civilization in human history has had strict laws and rules on what people are allowed to do and not to do. You don't have to like it and it also doesn't matter whether you do but the more civilization advances, the further and further we are removed from our natural state. It is unhealthy to go too far over the edge but its still happening anyway and will continue to happen. This is achievable, every first world country on the planet currently operates like this and areas of the world that did not set increasingly strict control on human behaviors never developed past the third world because everyone constantly engaged in their most primitive urges with no sense of order which makes it impossible to advance

If rape and murder were not a part of human nature then why do they exist so commonly through human history and why has every properly established culture have laws against them? An example of what's not a part of human nature is grazing in a field or swimming up stream to birth a bunch of eggs. It doesn't matter how you feel about rape or violence, they are a part of human nature and that's why we create laws to control and prevent it. Entirely hypocritical to say that civilization is not about conquering nature and then say that rape and murder is "beastly" when in our most primitive and pre-civilisation eras, these things were extremely common. Go to any third world country on the world where there is a breakdown of infrastructure making it difficult to control the worst of human behavior and you'll see just how common it all is


evil can sometimes be described as militant ignorance. the original concept of sin is a process that leads us to miss the mark and fall short of perfection. While most people are conscious of this, at some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness check. Those that are evil attempt to escape and hide from their own conscience (though means like self deception and such etc.). Now thing of the evil of see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil archetypes. The unwilling to listen to clear truth and such. Ignorant mindsets in todays time where people actively and popularly disregard and have a sort of "happiness to disregard" things of good consciousness.

Antichrist was never referred to be a person, but instead a spirit. They are many people with the antichrist spirit.

Donald Trump just posted this image on his Instagram page. Many will say this picture represents Jesus being by his side through persecution. That is not what this photo represents. This is Trump’s persecution being likened to Jesus’s persecution, as has been done many times before by many including his son, Donald Trump Jr as I’ve pointed out before. Make no mistake, Trump in his heart believes he is a Christ-like, messiah figure that will save the world so he can take credit for it. Trump sees the praise and adoration Jesus receives and wants that for himself. His entire life philosophy has always been about being number 1. This is exactly why the religious zionists in his corner are and will continue to push for him to fulfill these messianic prophecies of protecting Israel and bringing peace to all nations. So that he can claim to be the messiah. Lucifer fell because of pride. And so too will the Antichrist be led into perdition. Because he magnifies himself in his heart. That’s what the biblical Antichrist is, a man with the prideful characteristics of Lucifer who tries to be Jesus. This is exactly the strong delusion talked about in 2 Thessalonians 2:11. Keep your eyes and heart on Jesus Christ alone, and look not to earthly princes to save you.


@justlolatthisworld7917 "Einstein" means "a rock" in German. "Einstein" was literally "as dumb as a rock". Open mocking in plain sight. I thought of this yesterday and it made me think of you anon, since I've heard you rightfully mention how Einstein was a literal moron.


Honestly its a lot of complication in the bible. Many things are not to be taken literal, or to be taken BOTH literal AND nonliteral. And i dont think this is because the bible was made to be inherently complicated, but even moreso the fact that language translations lose meanings overtimes. This is the reason strongs concordance exists.

We have to remember were reading the book in english. Theres so many double meanings in the English language, and words that categorize new meanings outside of the predecessor synonyms ETC.

For example, the beasts referenced in the bible. Clearly that is not literal but moreso referencing a country/system (technology hub in todays time) sort of thing. Christ was also implied to be the living law. Its even hard right now to explain in words.

But the point im trying to make is, i think the whole categorization of "demon", to a singular independent being, is kind of shallow thinking. The word demon is limited to what we learn about it. For many, this means some singular metaphysical deity. But lets look at it from a physical perspective. There has to be a system to everything. Thats the physical world we live in. Anything that materializes or influences behavior in such a manner has to sort of have some sort of physical(or metaphysical) process to incept or influence. Especially a demon, which has questionable authority over life. For example, the body in itself i guess could be a called a demon, or a host of wickedness, and that being dedicated to fulfilling the bodys desires leaves you "possessesed" into the bodies lusts. Hence why demons and body sickness are strongly correlated. Technically all of the prerequisite boxes would check off. Meaning the fruit of the "demons" which is posession (leaving you to do its own will, weather the lust is the satification for abusing, or all the other carnalities that people grow to adapt and be proficient in).

Not saying this is exactly how things work, but just to give a perspective. I feel like your question in itself is too narrow and it reminds me that sometimes the confusion is not in truth, but perspective of whats actually going on.


You lot of you would be better off learning how to be more cunning in society as that's how most social normies operate.
Also realising how they are taken by appearances. Not just appearance of your look but appearance of your general demeanour, as they use this to both gage how good life is going for you and whether you are a social success.
Learning that beauty standards are higher in major cities like London, LA, Miami, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Toronto, Sydney etc. No shit. It's a city. The rate race is stronger.
Most normies are not that talented at much. They just conform with mannerisms, slang, mainstream ideological narratives, shit they wear and what they believe in. They are followers and very agreeable until they see you being disagreeable to popular culture. They aren't that insightful, interesting or humorous.
Even guys with their own minds and that are not followers learn this. Unless you are making a deeper connection with a person, all that matters is how you appear on the surface. And if they are a matrix plugged in normie you should not even be making a deeper connection. They should be your associate to connections.
Realise everything is about immediate identifiable perception with normies. While you might be more open minded before sussing what somebody is all about, they ain't the same way lol. They are so plugged in that they run on autopilot and everyone needs to be in a box that they can understand otherwise something is off and fishy about them. So identify yourself before they identify you and treat you the way they think you are. This is very subtle.
And yes if you are someone bordering on chadlite you will be even more under this scrutiny, because the last thing a normie wants to see is a guy that looks stand out good and is not plugged into normie wavelength of communication


This is because the concept of being a "loser" was created to shame men by other men. Men created the concept of being a "loser". Now, since women hold so much power in society and the dating market the idea of being a loser has shifted toward a more superficial end. Where you were judged in the past by other men, now you are judged mostly by women who aren't rational and will judge you off how you look rather then what you do. Men in power are meritocratic, whereas women in power are emotionally unstable eugenicists. Whats worse is there is now no checks and balances to control these power that women hold. Affirming these ridiculous, and useless standards for an actual flourishing society.


About trying to settle the deal about inceldoom to official channels. They have there own skin in the game to keep this ideology from spreading. Skimming the paper, It doesn't seem to really consider WHY this ideology is becoming popular, just how to stop if from doing so. Now, it is written in a journal of criminology so I can see the reasoning, but why is it even in a journal like that in the first place? You would think a sociological or cultural journal would be better. They only wish to understand the blackpill because it's becoming a threat to the social order, and to women. I would be more sympathetic to these authors (both of whom are women, which could lead to some subconcious bias) if they would try to consider the plight of these men that fall into this ideology, but all it appears to be is more damage control from a system that is inherently against men's interests and intends on fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.
This.


when it comes to animals (carnal humans), a human (in this case a "spiritual" focused person) needs to cage them up or structure them somehow less they themselves get killed or affected by animalistic behavior. Why do you think religion is always what follows after truth seeker movements, after the few individuals that actually gave a crap about truth. Thats why i call it a derivative. Pest control. Carnality is the way of the animal. Religion is the ordinance of the animal nature. Islam, christianity, whatever. Its the same thing. And they are all flawed. The frustration behind the argument for your religion is misdirected and carnal imo.


Cancer growth and metastasis in a fueled by the immune system being in a hyper allergen state (TH2).
Fasting greatly reduces allergic reactions to food, promoting a TH1 mediated immune response which is required for cancer cell clearance.
Excess histamine = Excess cortisol = Estrogen dominance = TH2 mediated immune response.
Liver and gallbladder function play a crucial role in these issues.
The problem is, when the allergen sensitivities stop, and TH1 mediated immune response turns back, the immune system will start going after any latent infections you were harboring.
This is known in holistic health circles as a “healing crisis”.


I don't wanna bring a son who will suffer in a matriarchal society or a daughter who would turn to OF hoe while i can't do nothing, we need to keep old school ideologies, it's even helps against hypergamy
Your better of creating or starting your own movement. Islam is already toast. Its doing what its always done. But for the animal, a country sized fence is almost as if it were no fence at all. Its going to have to be a new religion or derivative. Ultimately to get the attention of the carnal nature your going to have to use different tactics. Marketing, deception, favoritism etc. Look at how "hebrew isrealites" secluded the bible and used the race bait as a pull.


Areas with high population density (many people in an area) and high interaction (something as simple as seeing someone, even online or on a newspaper counts as an interaction, independent of if they know them or not) creates inequality. The more dense and the more interactions, the worse the inequality.
This is because, if there's a group of 5 people, things are more equal in every domain compared to if there were 500, or 5 million or 5 billion. The more people, the more outliers there are. These outliers create inequality (economic, dating, etc.)
The population density allows people to see the gap of their situation to their outliers. This outlier affects the normie.
High population creates outliers.
High population density allows people to be aware of the outliers.
These environments created what John B. Calhoun called "behavioral sinks". Basically, a behavioral sink is a collapse in productive social behavior, where increased negative emotions, disrupted social structures, and abnormal behaviors prevail.
The rats formed social and dating hierarchies, Chads got the women and the non-Chads usually either...
  • Developed non-straight sexualities
  • Became timid, weak, apathetic, withdrawn asexual hikikomoris/neets (adolescents and young adults who become recluses in their parents' homes, isolated from society)
  • Or desperate, erratic and unsuccessful (pickup autists and redpill roaches)
Chads became aggressive, and since the non-Chads were all withdrawn from society and responsibility, the women had to fend for themselves and protect Chad's children (with humans, it's either the cucked normie's child or she's childless, since Chad doesn't want to reproduce with her, only sex). The female rats became aggressive, neglectful of their children, and non-motherly.
Infant mortality rose due to neglect, male and female rats gave up on dating due to discontent and negative emotions, birth rates dropped, and the new and smaller children grew up to be asexual since they never really learned sexual behaviors due to their parents giving up on mating. The rat society aged to death due to population collapse and low birth rates.
Of course, this isn't perfectly applicable to humans, remember that. For humans, economic, and other kinds of inequalities also play a major role in behavioral sinks, but if if the trajectory of society keeps going where it's going, we could very well get a comparable result as human beings to what the rats got. Birth rates are plummeting and our societies are mentally ill, just like the rats.

Anyways, Why am I showing you all of this?

Because dating environments differ in blackpill severities. Due to population density and population count.
There could be "tiers" to the blackpill.
Basically, in some dating environments, you'll need to literally be perfect, in other environments, you have to be HTN at least.
Also, consider that the fact that dating environments men and women have been in the past also can influence their mating decisions.


Anti oxidants can actually be pro oxidants if you have mitochondrial membrane complex issues or NAD metabolic problems / imbalance with age.
How do free radicals get quenched and removed from the body? The body cleaves electrons off of the substance, reducing its reactivity, making it less dangerous and easier to incorporate or dispose of.
But what happens if large amounts of anti oxidants rapidly quench and reduce free radicals and pollutants in the body, releasing massive amounts of electrons?
Normally, those electrons would be shuttled into the electron transport chain and used to make ATP. But, as you get older, or if you have mitochondrial membrane complex 1 to 4 issues, your body is less able to handle a flood of electrons.
This can lead to metabolic bottle necks or even overflows.
What does this mean? Those electrons can lead to a flood of hydrogen peroxide in the body. If the H2O2 levels overwhelm the ability of Catalase to quench it all down to water; If it builds up: greying hair, stem cell issues, mtdna number decreases and telemorase issues, leading to lowered maximum replicative lifespan of stem cells and mitochondria.
Rapidly increased aging.
Vitamin E, a powerful anti oxidant, can significantly lower lifespan. The studies can never accurately tell you why. I can. It's the overwhelming flood of electrons into the ECC.
Resolving electron transport chain issues is important for healthy aging.
As for NAD+ and Nadh. NADh is an electron donor. If you have too high NADh, it shows metabolic disorder. Shows you have electron transport chain issues.
If you don't resolve them, it's possible supplementing NAD will just rapidly convert to NADh, adding fuel to metabolic fire.
The fix for that, in leiu of fixing the electron transport chain, is combining all anti oxidants with electron acceptors or getting more in the diet.
They can mop them up, order them properly, recycle them for use, or help dispose of them.
We need more electron acceptors and less electron donors in our diets. Especially when combined with NAD or anti oxidants.


I dislike most quotes and similar forms of socially popular truth "memes" shared online.
Theres no influence of truthful behavior (teaching people their own faults and to not do the same) without proactive and introspectively constructive honesty. Without this constructive honesty, there becomes a influx of people who highlight other people who know the truth, but are not even honest enough to recognize their own behavior and warn against that instead, as that would require actually knowing (being proactive and introspectively constructive), and not just speculative or socially influenced to think or perceive. When women or men repost or rethink about common troupes against each other, they don't really have any intellectual depth, but is sort of low effort, simple minded bait content used to alleviate common (sometimes unaware, or misguilded) frustrations. The reason i dislike this, is because its not coming from a place where the individual (viewer or even reposter) is actually self reflective on their own behavior that may have enabled such frustrations to occur, thus usually no intellectual response from the poster thus, usually no intellectual discussion or gain to the viewer. Think of the common trope that; “men are not shit”. Or even low iq incel bait posts like “women are this” etc, where the lack of intellectual discussion (in depth questions such as why, how, what, etc) do not occur on an individual level due to the format of the post not engaging the viewer to do such. I highlighted proactive honesty because only when a person is able to be proactively honest and introspective about these questions, and are honest about their behavior that may or may not enable such things, real discussion and data analysis can occur, Instead of just reposting. Think of how airplane investigations work. Constructive analysis where there is no side taken, where the women or man admit (be honest) of their behavior and the data is unbiasedly discussed and analyzed for accuracy and future correction. But of course this does not happen with these posts, nor does the UX structure (or even sentencing format the OP would use to create simple posts) allow introspective discussion or constructive analysis to happen. People see it, agree with it, and move on. Holding tight the building frustration until eventually the simple frustration becomes a trigger of hatred, regardless of if that person is actually enabling their own frustrations or not (which may often be the case). For this reason i strongly recommend and prefer data rich communication, no matter how "long", "aspie, autistic, or socially weird it may seem. Ultimately when working with data, its best to receive the best quality.


The following text was taken from the website “Shedding of the Ego” by Mr. K and reviewed by Savage, it's been adapted by John Cracovizk (literally me) for an easier (and less MGTOW) read to my LooksMax.org fellas. The link to the original text is available in the end of the thread, good read!

1. INTRODUCTION - What is Hybristofilia? The Joker and Quinn example

"Ok, gentlemen, today we are going to discuss hybristophilia, a term that seems to me to best summarize the female penchant for the “Bad Boy”.

First, the definition of the term according to an online medical dictionary:

Hybristophilia - Paraphilia in which a person is sexually attracted to someone who has committed a bombing or horrific crime.

It may be best to start with some examples found in pop culture and work our way up to real-world examples.

Many consider the dynamic duo of the DC comics universe, the Joker and his equally psychopathic companion, Harley Quinn, to be a clear example of the “Florence Nightingale effect” (In reference to the dedication of Florence Nightingale, who many consider to be the founder of modern nursing, demonstrated in her patients).
The Florence Nightingale effect is a situation in which a caregiver develops romantic and/or sexual feelings for their patient, even though there is very little communication or contact outside of basic care. The feelings may disappear when the patient no longer needs care, whether through recovery or death.

I believe this is a misdiagnosis of Quinn, or at least only a partial diagnosis.

If you're well-versed in the origins of Joker's bitch, you'll know that Quinn started out as an asylum psychiatrist in Arkham and her name was Dr. Harleen Frances Quinzel, M.D, who was tasked during her internship with the psychoanalysis of some of the worst and greatest psychopaths and criminals of Gotham, one of which was the Joker himself. During the interview process with the Joker, Quinn was mesmerized by his Charisma (personality pilled once again
:soy:
), a trait psychopaths often cultivate to hide their true nature.

Swayed by the strength of the Joker's personality and charm, Quinn fell deeply in love with him, culminating in helping him escape, unleashing one of the most dangerous psychopaths in the DC comics universe back onto the streets (women), until she finally gave up her comfortable life as a psychiatrist and joined him on his crime spree, taking on the persona of Harley Quinn, as we know her today.

Harley Quinn suffered not only from this “Florence Nightingale effect”, but from an advanced case of hybristophilia.

Furthermore, we speculate here that hybristophilia is a condition that is still poorly understood, which appears to be categorized into a very simplistic classification of women who are hybrostophilic and women who are not hybrostophilic, without there being a middle ground between the two.
2. EVOLVING DESIRES - The Complex Relationship Between Violence and Attraction
Now, think back to our remote existence, when human beings led prehistoric, short and often violent lives.

The comforts of our modern, technologically advanced civilization simply did not exist.

The caveman, who sought to have reproductive access to the female sex, had to offer something in return.
  • He needed to assure the females he wanted to mate with that he would provide them with resources, shelter, and sustenance on a regular basis.
  • He had to be violent enough to kill enough animals to feed himself, his women, and the children he would have with them.
  • He also had to have an innate ability to kill other men who wished to move into the resource-rich land that he controlled or that was controlled by the women he had sexual access to.
To put it bluntly, violent men have been selected by women for reproduction since time immemorial, and despite the fact that we have, through a manipulation of evolutionary impulses, built a civilization that largely mitigated this burden of violence, many women still yearn for violent men.


The average woman, of course, does not want to date a violent psychopath, at least not one of the status of a serial killer like Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez. But she longs for some of that caveman violence to emerge through the civilized exteriors of the men she is occasionally attracted to. In essence, women seek to ensure their security and provision in society through a kind of standardized double assault.

Simply extracting male provision via taxpayer subsidy is not enough.

The obsession with protection and provision that we see for women is expressed on a macro scale, through the occasional application of laws involving violence against women, such as “Rape Shield Laws” and “primary aggressor laws”, etc.

Spoiler: What is a Rape Shield Law?
Spoiler: What are Primary Aggressor Laws?

These laws often do not fully consider concepts of equality, such as due process and the luxury of a legal system that presumes innocence before guilt has already been established (this made me remember of this thread of mine where I talked about how your friends would probably leave you be eaten by wolves if someone came accusing you of rape, even though there isn't any proof).

To the collective unconscious, the hive mentality that drives the female masses, due process is irrelevant, they are voting with their hindbrain and therefore vote to ensure that their most primal needs and desires are met and satiated.

The problem is that women can never be satisfied; they point out and demand more security and more provisions… always.

In this way, while female involvement leverages the electoral process in her favor, and after the legal system implements as much gynocentrism as it can handle without collapsing, the individual woman also simultaneously cultivates her particular instinct for her own protection and provision.

In the form of what we call: “Alpha Brute”.
3. THE ALPHA BRUTE - Low Inhib and Dark Triad? Yes, but also a tool for the feminine

An individual prone to violence and physically imposing enough to do a lot of harm with hostility, who is also usually not intelligent enough to understand that he is in a servile position to the woman he is involved with, existing as a hired criminal who gets paid with sexual access.

It's like a pincer attack, designed to maximize benefits for the female collective, and frankly, men's lives, health, or rights have never influenced this process in any meaningful way.
This is just gynocentrism at its maximum power.

Take the following video as an example, preceded by a quick synopsis.

> The woman enters a cafeteria and skips the line.

> The man responds to whoever was on the phone that a woman jumped the queue.

> The woman hears and immediately intimidates him by staring at him, in a very rude, incisive and, finally, violent way.

> By chance, the boyfriend, a 150 kg ex-convict, enters the conversation, and at that moment there is a brief confrontation between the man and the boyfriend.-Out of nowhere, the boyfriend [ex-convict] punches the man, beating him violently.

See for yourself.

So... what do we witness here other than a vicious attack? Well, let's start from the woman's perspective.

Let's assume, hypothetically, that this woman could have started this confrontation without her boyfriend to protect her and that the man who attacked her in self-defense after she initiated the violence.
This woman would probably have no problem trusting the front line of gynocentric protection at her disposal, that being the macro-scale protection of a police force or a white knight who jumps to her defense without even questioning who initiated the violence.

This is why women advocate for first-offender laws, as blame almost universally falls on the man in domestic violence disputes, despite evidence to the contrary, if any. Once again, women want it that way, they are not concerned with due process and equal rights for men, they are concerned with leveraging the State and strengthening their fundamental reproductive habits.

However, in this case, it was her boyfriend who was nearby, who was, for all intents and purposes, the alpha brute we've described. He is prone to violence, physically imposing, and almost seems to take pleasure in subjecting another man to the brutality he can unleash in his master's name. This is an extreme example of what all women want to some degree, community protections from non-violent men in the form of a legal system, and individual protections from violent men in the form of these thugs who are more than willing to disregard those legal protections.

This is what drives the female tendency toward hybristophilia, which appears to only be pathological in the most extreme examples, but which actually lies on a continuum.

This is a spectrum of hybristophilia that ranges from the woman who prefers a beating from her man behind closed doors, to the “serial killer fanatics” who gained notoriety for fainting with excitement in the presence of hyper-violent serial killers, such as Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez, during the fanfare of his trials.

Every woman who asks you to choke her, spank her, spank her ass, or spit on her in a safe, controlled environment during consensual sex is acting on this misunderstood desire.

She is asking you to release your inner caveman, she is asking you to become a violent weapon that she can use for her protection, and in doing so, she receives vast sexual stimulation.

I don't hate women for that, much less do I expect them to change. I believe this is an innate quality of female sexual attraction. Nor do I absolve them if they act on these impulses in some way in real causes of violence, rather than simulated, against other human beings like the woman described above.

Women who are so dependent on their primitive impulses to the point of directing one of these brutes to harm others through violence should be locked up and kept away from civilized people. But in terms of desire, of female attraction to violent men, I suspect there's very little we can do to combat that.
Spoiler: Is there a solution maybe?

We will have to understand women's tendency to select violent men and we have to manage and discourage it as best we can. And so I begin my efforts here with a simple material.

5. EXAMPLES - Abandon all hope, ye who enter here

First, we start with , the “cultural Marxism” conspiracy theorist who killed 77 souls, most of whom were young teenagers. An article titled Norway’s mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik gets hundreds of love letters a year states the following:

STOCKHOLM (AFP) — She calls him by his first name, sends him letters every week and promises to wait for him.

It could be any love story, but Victoria's heart belongs to a mass murderer: Anders Behring Breivik. Responsible for Norway's worst peacetime murder since World War II, Breivik, like many other famous killers, has his share of admirers, a phenomenon that can be accompanied by sexual attraction and, in this case, there is even a term: hybristophilia.

“I really wouldn’t want to live a life without him,” says “Victoria,” who doesn’t want her real name published. A young Swedish woman in her 20s appears distant and impassive, ignoring her fresh cup of coffee in the lobby of a Stockholm hotel. But her voice breaks when she talks about her “dear Anders”.

From a small town in Sweden, she is doing everything she can to get Breivik's prison conditions eased: he has spent the last four years isolated in a high-security penitentiary. He is currently serving a 21-year sentence, which can be extended if he is still considered a danger to society.

Breivik killed 77 people on July 22, 2011, when he detonated a bomb near government offices in Oslo and opened fire at a summer camp for young workers on the island of Utoya. For Victoria, Breivik's isolation amounts to “torture”.

“I worry about him even more now that he's in such a vulnerable situation,” she says.

Unemployed due to health problems, she writes to him to encourage him—far more than the 150 letters ever written—or sends him small gifts, including a dark blue tie that he occasionally wore during his trial. In return, she received two letters from him — which she showed to AFP — the others were blocked by prison officers tasked with censoring his correspondence.

Marriage proposals:

It is not easy to define her relationship with Breivik, a man she has never met, since all her requests to visit him were denied.
She describes him as her “old friend” and as a kind of “brotherly figure” and protector, but admits that she finds him attractive and “there were romantic interests, at first, at least on my part.”
:lul:


She says that their first contact dates back to 2007, when they met through an online game. He cut ties with her two years later, presumably to focus on planning her attacks. But in early 2012, Victoria reconnected with the man who had by then become the most hated person in Norway. And she is not alone.

The Weekly Morgenbladet (A Norwegian weekly, intellectual newspaper, covering politics, culture and science.) reported last year that Breivik receives “at least” 800 letters a year, many of them from admiring women.

During the 2012 trial, a 16-year-old girl (a JB ) asked him to marry her.

Hybristophilia is a term used by criminologists — but not scientists — to describe a sexual attraction to violent killers in prison, who often receive racy love letters or sexy underwear from their fans. Also known as “Bonnie and Clyde syndrome,” it exists across time and place, .Josef Fritzl of Austria, who held his daughter captive and repeatedly raped her for 25 years, and American killer Charles Manson also have their own fan clubs.

According to Sheila Isenberg, an American author who interviewed 30 women for her book "Women Who Love Men Who Kill", says that these admirers often have a history of sexual abuse.

“It's a chance for a woman to be in control (the man is behind bars for life and has no control over anything), when previously she was abused by her father (or) by other men,” she explained to AFP.

“Plus, it’s romance with a capital R: exciting, thrilling, a never-ending rollercoaster. Nothing dull or ordinary about these relationships.”

However, there is no scientific evidence to support the widespread belief that these women feel they are on a mission to help the killer get on the right path in life, said Amanda Vicary, assistant professor of psychology at Wesleyan University in the United States.

“Some women tend to be attracted to famous men — it's possible that the reason some women are attracted to men who have done horrible things is not so much what they did, but the fame they received from their actions,” she said.

Victoria, Meanwhile, she says she's not looking for fame. Her involvement with Breivik has already cost her relationship with her sister, who, upon learning of her ties to him, told her: “You are dead to me.” And she distanced herself from her friends. She admits to “more or less sharing” Breivik's Islamophobic ideology, but says she opposes violence.

So how can she love a man who slaughtered dozens of terrified teenagers, some of whom begged him to spare their lives?

“I think I had to separate Anders from the real Breivik. I think of Anders as my old friend and Breivik as the person who did all these things. The years pass and yet she refuses to give up on him. “I miss you more and more every day. I think my feelings got a little stronger.”
Another interesting article I stumbled across will give you some real insight into the nature of this phenomenon, titled Editorial: On Love, Sex and Murderers and it's quite long so I'll only publish the parts I judge relevant:

At the same time, we are both repelled and fascinated by studying sociopaths and their quest for blood — and most of the time, men seek women's blood. The idea of the “good” Dexter-style serial killer is relatively new, but it is a known fact that women flooded Ted Bundy with love letters, a woman married Richard Ramirez while he was in prison, and there are countless other examples. of lesser-known criminals and their fanatics. Montages with Ted Bundy? Why? We wonder why serial killers do what they do all the time - perhaps that's where the fascination begins for people who identify as "hybristophiles."

A few years ago, I met a sixteen-year-old girl (another jb, I'm starting to see a pattern
:feelsthink:
) who identified herself as Ted-Head (a Ted Bundy groupie). It was easy to ignore the romanticization of a man whose horror she had never experienced. Other interests of hers were, like many of mine, dark and subversive. My thought at the time was that one day she would grow up and realize that finding a person interesting is not the same as finding them emotionally or sexually attractive. After all, Bundy used the fact that he was a handsome man to kill women. He's not exactly the kind of guy you'd want to date (you wouldn't want to go on a date with Rodney James Alcala either, but he won The Dating Game).

I wanted to write a little about the Ted Bundy phenomenon and how it continues into a new generation. I started on a site called Bundyphile, hoping to start at the source in my efforts to write about gaining some understanding from the young women who followed Bundy (one Facebook page referred to him as “The Misunderstood Voice of a Generation”) .

The themes presented on these sites were repetitive:

Bundy wasn’t “that bad.”

Bundy was misunderstood.

Yes, what Bundy did was wrong, but you can love and admire him without idolizing his crimes.

Many of the women and girls who are obsessed with Bundy and other serial killers seem to think that they could be the special person who would change or train them, or be “the one” who would be there for them and stop all the bad things that happenned. In one blog entry, a woman calling herself “Lolita” proclaims, in all caps for all to see, “EITHER WAY, IF MY OWN DEATH COULD FILL TED BOUNDY’S HOLLOW SOUL, I [REALLY] WOULD LOVE TO BE HIS LAST VICTIM." (Can you imagine being adored like this?
:feelsgiga:
)

She claimed they were similar, claimed to understand him. He was “different” (
:coffee:
) from other killers (remember, Ted Bundy was probably dead before this woman was born). Within minutes of my research, it became clear that you can't search for Ted-Heads without encountering Dahmer's “fangirls” and the obsession that many Internet fans have with gay male sex (suddenly fujoshi reference?
:dafuckfeels:
). Specifically, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer engaging in gay sex (wtf?
:feelskek:
). It was around this time that my research took a sharp left turn. Up until this point, women had not only seemed emotionally invested, but obsessed. They seemed to believe that a woman's love for them could have saved the violent men they so idolized.

When I reached the Mrs.Dahmer’s Infinityland website, it became clear that there was much more to this phenomenon than the tendency of high school/college girls to fall in love with “misunderstood” and “shady” men. The whole point of it was about sex. OK yes. I think we knew that, but this was deeply dark and disturbing sex, based completely on how violent and terrible these men were. A post on Tumblr says:

- Most girls: you've seen his big body, right?

- Me: You saw his death counter, right?

The page “Mrs. Dahmer” features several photos of Dahmer, most photos typically taken after being arrested or photos of him in prison jumpsuits. The photos have sweet captions, the same way a high school girl would caption a photo of her favorite Disney crush in her diary (
:dafuckfeels:
)

After I discovered the “hybristerotica” tag on Tumblr, things got really dark, and it happened really quickly. A Tumblr dedicated to celebrating hybristophilia drags me to a corner of the internet I never expected to find.

Sex and Crime All The Time features, among other things, photos of famous serial killers with sexually explicit “confessions” emblazoned on them and a serialized erotic story called Stockholm Syndrome, focusing on Richard Ramirez.

I want to take a moment to state here that I understand that rape fantasy is not the same as wanting to be raped and that many women with healthy sex lives are adept at this type of sex — however, I think this fantasy becomes a little different when the fantasies are focused on men known for violently stalking and attacking women.

I also wonder about this fine line, as these women proudly identify themselves as “hybristophiles” and defend the legitimacy of this attraction, although the profile of women who fit the definition is not a list of positive personality traits, and many of them admit this sexual dysfunction outside of situations where they are fantasizing about the killers.

Hardcore hybristophiles don't always bother to claim that the men they obsess over are “misunderstood” or “only half bad.” When an anonymous Tumblr fan asks if Ted Bundy loved his wife and son, the blog owner responds, “I don’t think so.” There seem to be limits, however.

One user says she is “sad” that Eric Harris’ diary featured homophobic sentiments. The blog owner comforts her by assuming that he would have overcome these feelings if he were alive (can't believe this shit). The conversation, however, had nothing to do with the way these men treated women. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, the more violent the fantasy.

It isn't over yet.
For some reason, I find the obsession with men like Bundy and Ramirez less disturbing than the sexual and romantic fantasies associated with more recent killers. There's a good chance that women who idolize Bundy will wear a pendant with his photo on it and look at his photo alive, given that Bundy died in 1989. He could be seen as a “character” like Loki from the Avengers or, yes, even something like Dexter. No one they know has had contact with him, they have not felt the fear and horror he caused personally.

But women fantasizing about Elliot Rodger were definitely alive and well when he opened fire in Santa Barbara in May of this year. Their obsession runs much deeper than their appearance — these women have studied their hate-filled videos and their manifesto. His hatred towards women had no effect on removing these hybristophiles. In fact, it seems to do the opposite, all the women attracted to Rodger have a common desire — to be his first girlfriend. Be the girl who calms your anger. Some fantasize about Rodger with Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris from the Columbine shooting, claiming they could show him how to win women. Hybristerotica presents two pieces of erotic “fan fiction” about Eliot Rodger, one written from his point of view and the other told from a woman's point of view — In Come Over and Fuck Me, she imagines herself as his lifelong friend, without realize his desire for her.

The erotica isn't well written, but that's not the point. It doesn't have to be like this. The very thought of fucking these dangerous men is what captivates the women who participate in the hybristophilia tags on Tumblr. Serial killer and hybristophile fans receive a lot of negative attention from other Tumblr users, particularly those who like true-crime but don't want to be associated with people who fetishize and idolize killers. If you go through any of the popular hybristophilia tags, you will see the defenses of hybristophilia over and over again. They insist that they are not mocking the victims or supporting the crime, they respect the victims — they are just attracted to the killer. The most interesting case is the group of young women obsessed with the high school shooter, TJ Lane.

While his fans insist they respect victims and their families, they also praise him for wearing a 'KILLER' shirt to court and share GIFs of him telling his victims' parents: “The hand that pulled the trigger to kill your children is now gone. Masturbates with the memory of them. Fuck you all,” while shocking everyone.

They call him “sass” and tag photos of him as “The King of Sass/The King of Attitude.” Almost all of TJ Lane's memes, GIFs, and collages involve this quote, either in full or just part of it. They love him, in large part, because he was disrespectful to the families of his victims. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, and the more violent the fantasy.

Some hybristophiles claim they are completely normal, one even cited her therapist in defense of her obsession with TJ Lane. Others assert that it is no different from any other paraphilia (a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depends on fantasy and engagement in atypical and extreme sexual behaviors) and as such should be respected.

It's worth noting that pedophilia is the most common type of paraphilia, and no one is suggesting that everyone supports pedophiles as normal — not even hybristophiliacs who like men who have abused children. The four most common types of paraphilia involve a rejection of consent — pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, and frotteurism — the act of rubbing against non-consenting people. Another fact worth considering in “respecting” as “normal” in hybristophiles is that paraphilia often leads to sexual dysfunction — needing what attracts them for sexual gratification.

If hybristophilia makes women [lovers of serial killers] unable to have a healthy sex life with men who don't want to rape or kill them, I would dare say it's not normal at all. These observations are not intended to judge hybristophilia communities, per se, but being fair to them also means showing the side that does not support their claims to normality.So why do women seek out sociopaths? Why does a killer with multiple victims attract them so much? There were even searches for Timothy McVeigh in the hybristophilia tags — there seems to be no limit. Some are purely sexual, some are borderline romantic, and some are downright disturbing considering the men are at the center of the discussion. Here are some of the tags about Jahar (Dzhokhar) Tsarnaev.

The deeper I dug into the hybristophilia tags and sites, the less sense it seemed to make. Going into this, I admit, I thought I would find some groups of misfits who still admired Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez. Like many, I read the published articles showing that the Tsarnaevs, James Holmes, and Adam Lanza (fucker kills lots of innocent children, females get wet) had attracted a female audience — but most of the content cited seemed to be “Wow, how hot he is,” which may be a real opinion — although Most people have a harder time separating a person's attractiveness from their actions.


The desire, the claims of love, the endless support and hero-worship definitely shook me. When I first glanced at the sexually explicit stories, I felt like I was losing my sanity. My brain really can't understand this, especially in cases like TJ Lane, who is not only someone without a shred of remorse, but also took joy in bragging about his crimes in front of the families of those he killed.

I've always watched things like Halloween, horror movies and books, and had a fascination with the dark and disturbing things, being a healthy reaction to a terrifying world. People study serial killers because we know that even though they behave like monsters, they are human. By learning about them, we gain knowledge and this helps us feel proactive and therefore safer. Because when we enter into horror and the supernatural, it becomes a terror that we can control.

It's like a paper mache skull that you can hold in your hand and know it's not so bad. What's troubling about hybristophiles on the internet, what becomes so disturbing, is knowing that they've crossed that line in some way. They went beyond a desire to understand, beyond a fascination, and into an uncontrolled obsession.

Link to the original text: http://sheddingoftheego.com/2015/08/23/hybristophilia-the-female-attraction-to-violence/

After adapting the text, I need to say this topic is DISGUSTING, but thanks for reading.


Womens wickedness is really subtle. The wicked carnal male nature is more upfront. Its like a beast. Fighting for resources, killing for pride/respect or mates.. and such carnalities. While womens are more subtle. Theirs is hypergamy, delusion, ambivalence.

I think in todays time the average person is more afflicted continuously by toxic women carnal nature than by toxic carnal men behavior. Though, as you rise/to rise in the ranks and popularity, you will be eventually gatekept by extremely toxic men behaviors (gang mentality, cuthroat, fight for resources/mates).

From what i observed they are equally toxic and work as a system. Both human carnal natures are unrighteous. But they are different in nature. But i agree, the intensity of a mans toxicity is way greater than a womans. Though, a womens toxicity is farther reaching, longer lasting, and more infectious, yet lower in potency. I compare it to water torture vs execution. Think today with feminism (90% of women now share some extremely feminist or hypergamous view, as well as a significant portion of men, of at least 50% who also share the same. And then you have women are wonderful effect). I think more women than men are legitimately toxic, but in a very small potency and in a more unidentified/hidden manner, compared to the men or masc beliefs that are so potent there isnt even a need for as much. Her toxicity (like hypergamy or the typical delusional takes and views) often goes unchecked also, and more readily accepted into society which it spreads like wildfire. Whereso a mans toxicity often requires some sort of RL force behind it to go anywhere.


One of many comments extolling the justice of God and calling Job out that his attitude was placing his own 'justice' about God

"If you sin, how does that affect him?
If your sins are many, what does that do to him?
If you are righteous, what do you give to him,
or what does he receive from your hand? Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself, and your righteousness only other people"
(Job 34:6-8)

This is one of Elihu's most important arguments, as it pointed out to Job that the righteousness of man cannot 'buy' God's favor, nor do the sins of man 'harm' God. Rather, God created his perfect law for the benefit of man. Elihu, conversely, promoted the righteousness of God in taking any course of action, regardless of the good or evil of man. He took Job to task for thinking that it was futile to be good then, if the good could face trials as well as the wicked. He pointed out that the Lord will repay men for what they have done (in this life or the next), so it is very profitable to fear the Lord even if one does not see immediate ben trying to explain the nature of God with only the limited information available to human knowledge, chrisolivertimes we are in book of job, story of cian aand abel first book of adam cain eroused by jelousy. jelousy good/bad perspective used to entice cain mimd pattern with xxxten vice city aka gta mind pattern supericial benifactors mind with story of job lesson


"God" mathematically, scientifically, and logically has to be real as long as we have a consciousness and can perceive living in any fashion. Forget how religion explains god, and forget the concept of "god" being exclusively a singular deity. Think of it like this,

Life has a paradox. The paradox of life is that something had to have created something else. Cause and effect. If aliens created humans, then who created aliens? If water and bacteria created flesh, then what created that? If energy created the big bang, what created energy? This question and paradox goes to infinity. The answer to that paradox is an equal infinity based concept. It is "god". All encompassing, or at the very least to our understanding, a thing or concept that is in that realm of infinity (nothing before it etc.). In shorter terms, the proof of gods existence is the answer to the paradox of life.


Women are not creatures of action, they operate best in a weak nature, hence why for example they are more proficient at doing things like organizing protests and social media hashtags. if they had the same mental aspect as males, their toxicity would manifest itself in much more abhorrent events and atrocities. also, the iq bell curve plays a part. almost all women are in the middle lower while men are more distributed along the curve. so more men can be unpredictably violent and impulsive.

Women nature were capable of acting out their desires like men, india, africa, and asia go bye bye. eugenics become officially government enforced policy. but they don't, instead they keep those thoughts secret and virtue signal. and all virtue signaling comes from fear of being discovered. why many male feminists are rapists. they virtue signal to camouflage their true nature and thoughts. and women and them are often the biggest virtue signallers


Its a deep rooted issue. Humanity itself is a sort of war between the animal body and the mind-(which implies higher intelligence). What differentiates us from animals are our minds. Our level of perceptions and mental and ability to manifest these things collectively. This is why i never see animals praying or deviating from the script, as much as humans are able to do.

Strong carnality is in most cases most associated with wickedness to the human level mind. As we are not just beings of the body(animal) intelligence. This is why animalistic natures such as murder are seen as okay and even righteous for a wild animal to do (as it is a being of the animal nature), but not okay for humanity(as we are not just exclusively beings of the body animal nature, and are observable to ourselves to posses a higher mind state than most if not all land animals). The essence of the mind, and the body work together, but are somewhat at conflicting states. Carnality and the ways of the heart are at odds with the higher intelligence that our mind implies. Its hard to explain exactly why, but the best way to see it is the body(the animal) and the mind as sort of separate systems. The case we have in todays time with humans are that most humans are more in agreeance with their animalistic nature, instead of their mind and higher intelligence (why this is the case is a variety of reasons to long to explain in this particular post.). But in essence, the cultivation of one side, usually means the abandonment/impairment or pain of another.

In other words, Most people operate in the carnal human body nature and are most familiar with it. Carnality is strongly attribed to wickedness, and humans are more familiar with carnality(thus wickedness). Wickedness is attractive to the human body as it usually manifest itself as carnality(animal behaviors). This is why wicked people, or popular people in general are known to be carnal. Think resource money hungry cartel boss, killer gangstar, sex fiend women. To become popular in generally usually means some sort of excessive carnal success. etc. To take it up a notch, the diety that represents evil is strongly associated with carnality. Satanists actually practice carnality. Their favorite day is their birthday.

Anyways, carnality includes standard female and male nature. For females, as an animal, carnality is what they are attracted to. Carnal male behaviors. This is why bad boys, mafia men, alpha guys who delve into that polygamous, cutthroat male carnal behavior win and imply to the female a strong sexual desire, than lets say a BETA(who plays into a feminine women nature) and even moreso a person who chooses to focus on a higher intelligence(think messiah figure), that actually is even below beta and alpha (a non participant in the dating pool).
This cycle is also why women always get left after their hypergamy, as the ones they chase are statistically more likely to be carnal, and thus toxic or toxically polygamous due to the preselection of such carnal behaviors. Also why this whole men blaming is seen as a circlejerk due to the predictability and cycle of events that occur. Ofc the war is waged, and the ones that will suffer and get the strays of hate will be the non participants.


This is wrong. Very baised. Men have it far much worst dating. While this one observation may make some sense, you fail to compare the mens side of things against women. If you were to do that, youd notice that men have at least double the amount of issues when it comes to this niche, compared to this one observation you made about women.

And while you may be somewhat right, its important to understand that this is an issue that they create for themselves due to their own hypergamy.

Hypergamy is relative. Put 1000 "gigachads" in a room with 10000 women, and the modern women nature will still find a way to statistically, and exclusively desire only the top 10-15% preselection wise. This is studies and observable in every facet of modern society.
What your explaining is post hypergamous decisions. Of course she will have trouble competing against the same men.

This issue is even more worst because men are statistically rarer than women, yet with all of the social structures that favor matriarchy and female natures, women just have an advantage socially and socioeconomically. Nor are as libido magnetized as a man. Theres no reason any men should be having trouble dating, yet here we are.

It is dishonestly wrong to claim:
" IN TERMS OF DATING. a guy has to be 1 tall, good lucking and thats it,"
No idea where you got this idea from. You must have never heard about preselection or women are wonderful effect. Anyways, men are known to have an extremely different level of qualifications to be acceptable in dating, one that literally is dynamic and ever changing relatively to all of the other men due to hypergamy. This is why old age men did not let the female nature take over societal wise and kept power(and thus their wives). If you think tall and goodlooking makes you passable then you have no idea about society and are looking through the lense of female influence. Aesthetics matter more to you, but not as much to her.


Women are very impressionable socially and are similar to children mentally. They learn and operate a different way than biological men. More proficient or prone to being; Subservient(which is why they excell in rule-following forms of academia), socially interested, impressionable and subject to subjective emotional bias. Anyways, i find it interesting why we can see in society, women or homosexual(or low T/intersex) men who are often in gatekeeping positions of power ,fame, money, and caste. Theres a reason for this. Women are generally are more influenced socially then biological men, better at following and creating a social acceptance to rule. Less divergent in thought. The male mind is more proficient or prone to being sidedly; independent(energetic to strive for freedom), deviant etc. Its been like this for a long time. Even old kings were known to have eunuchs around them instead of men in the courts due to the nature of men.

So its not just white or black. All women will naturally be programmable to propaganda, and especially social effects. Modern societys culture is their safe haven. So if the media and such tools that determine society's culture, exclusively advertise black or white men as sexy, then guess what comes next. Just look at the covid vaccine fiasco. Additionally, a women's main attraction comes from preselection. Things that imply attraction such as caste, status, wealth, money, looks. Does not have to exclusively be logically beneficial or objectively attractive traits. This is also a key to how to truly be attractive to women(also why babyalien can pull more women than 99% of people on this forum). To top it off, humanity is strongly attracted to unrighteousness, as carnality and the ways of the flesh are strongly associated with wickedness, thus wickedness more familiar and impressionable to the person than other moral levels.

Combine this with media that loves to garnish minorities who display deviantly exciting forms of poverty influenced behaviors, and you have a really interesting situation.
The most popular forms of media is hip hop and pop. Hip hop is majorly black . This sort of lights the impressionable brain that black people (as the amalgamation of western melanated people, regardless of actual ethnicity or facial looks), share the same SMV caste wise to the medias representation, especially if the person prolificates/displays the same archetypes that are socially known to be popular. This is why people say that if your not thugmaxxed as a black guy then your basically incel tier.

Think of all the old age beauty standards that we in todays time see as shit. Also think of all the supermodel faces you and people here call stacy yet i think are actually very masculine and intersex. Attraction is truly subjective, but its mainly influenced socially. Im not saying black people are ugly, but if you look at the fact that less than 50 years ago black people were considered monkeys and ugly to women, its very very very easy to see what caused the change. Media.


I think the vast majority of incels are high disgust standard-cels with more feminised sexuality than most men. We already know women are mostly Chad or HTN+ only, but that’s reasonable because they have the desirability to be so.

A lot of men get fuck all from women they are actually attracted to but the masculine imperative is to fuck by any means necessary. High disgust high inhib incels however, have adopted the female sexuality without the desirability to back it up.
Ironically this is the case i observed too.

Thats why a lot of people who are known to be traditionally incel still rave over stacy and becky, or oogle around rating men and women. I noticed them to be just as standardly hypergamous, without the actual masculine nature that equalizes the women aesthetic across board. To me, theres no such thing as a 10/10 or 1/10 women. This lack of fulfillment in the feminine hypergamous nature is what creates that typical feminine pattern i see so often with men who complain about how they cant be chad. Being traditionally masculine while still holding a high disgust leads to another form of reaction that is not "why cant he be me". This is the true level as it curbs the desirability problem through masculine imperatives.

Im conflicted about female desirability. I dont think they should have as much desirability. Its the feminine hypergamous nature within those starved men that help create such a thing. I also think its artificially inflated with social structures that favor the female nature. Truth is, men are biologically rarer than women, even moreso mentally and sex preference wise. So to me, its not reasonable for them to be hypergamous torwards an excusive class of men, considering their perception of exclusivity is relative. It was never reasonable and is always relative, and this is why men should (and have in the past) totally dominate the sexual market, even if it was by force. Like disregarding a childs cries when you take him out of the candy store. Its for their own good.


The concept of a common adversary as a unifying force in society is a notion that has been observed throughout history. The idea is that by having an external "enemy," whether it be a person, a group, or an ideology, the internal members of a community can strengthen their bonds with each other, focusing on this shared opposition rather than their internal differences. This external threat becomes a rallying point, a reason for solidarity, reducing the likelihood of conflicts within the group. My theory is that similarly, in building long-lasting relationships between individuals, a shared adversary or challenge can create a strong bond. Partners may find common ground and mutual understanding when faced with an outside force that tests their unity, encouraging cooperation and deeper connection.


W have a chameleon nature where they will learn and know the bad parts about their nature yet keep it "hidden" (conflict of interest). Part of the reason the exposed pilled information was led by mens revelations. Its like how you have a girl in a guys friend group who acts like the bros just to go around and tell her female friend group about men behaviors and such. The latter rarely happens. Its probably a nature within them built to ensure protection. On the bad side, they also have a tendency to not know shit about what they are saying and move their bais based on emotional reaction. Id say this is more biological and an estrogenic (female hormone) effect. Add that emotional bias and female nature, to the conflict of interest, to thirsty men, to harsh truths, to matriarchally dominated social structures, and you'd see this forum gone within a few months. Hence why women on this forum will eventually turn this into a shitshow. Hence why its easy to see who is male or female sometimes even based on the quality and types of post. At best this will overnight turn into a club. Also they are groups of intersex or gay/feminist women who actively sub out these types of mens communities. For whatever reason (sometimes due to cause-effect of hypergamous nature), (or even because of the significant pool of intersex men mascaraing as the rare biological men) they show a strong dislike towards men. Going as far to push the categorization of pilled truth subjects socially, under derogative labels. Just like how they labeled redpill/blackpill content "incel". Or how people who predict the goverments or wistleblow are considered socially, conspiracy theorists. Socially, they work to sort of disrupt and disturb mens spaces of this nature. Most people have no clue on what a real masculine nature is and will just label anything of this nature mysogonist or "hateful", despite the facts and statistics. Wheather its emotional bias, conflict of interest or whatever, theres a lot of reasons why this happens. Some of it is automatically encoded in their nature and DNA. It can also be a combination of all these factors. For example, subservience and this worlds natural Ai which ensures humanities progression, is observed to cull men and use women/matriarchy as a way to gatekeep excessive diversion/the (naturally proficient) male nature of mental and moral precision. This is just an example. More factors could be at play. Also, like i said before, women have a conflict of interest when it comes to subjects such as bad male nature (beta) bad female nature (feministic) and other such subjects, as they quite literally enjoy the wine of their fruit in todays time. Speaking up and encouraging mental and morally precise karmatic consequences when it comes to beta pedestaling, is for a lot of women past initial halo, seen as spiteful. Despite the behavior in itself being extremely toxic for humanity, for the male, and for society in general. They are similar cases where we can observe where we see this same conflict of interest.


Always has been like this. Love does not source itself within animals. The animal body is a automatous being. Although natural and not something like a iron artificial robot, explaining love as the ways of the body (male or female) is like observing a packaging machine to have the capability of love. Everything the carnal man and women think is love is usually sensuality or influenced by it. Giving, kissing, cuddling, sex. Its all sensuality. Its for the body. Just like how sensuality is a derivative of love, but love itself is not limited to sensuality. The capabilities of love in the human body is vastly limited and will ultimately revolve around neediness, as the human body is in a perpetual state of need, suffering, motion, decay etc. So we can only truly imply love. Some are better than others when it comes to love. Sometimes, the less sensual the derivative of love you display, the greater the essence of "love". This is why one of the greatest forms of love are known to come in a way where the reciprocate party may dislike or not agree emotionally or physically, with your action or behavior (like telling harsh truths, or mentally having the best interest for a kid).
Love is something far more complex, and in a way, love is already at full capacity as love can be described in essence, as intent. Life itself is love, and things like hate, sensuality, are also synonymous or derivatives of love.
This modern day level of love of money and resources is a real animalistic and carnal form of love. Its needy, just like the body. Its not respectable to me for a human being with a functioning consciousness to act like this. But regardless, Im no animal abuser so im not that proactive of harm, or eradication. Its just that people with these level of consciousness should not represent or be put in the position to influence others to share the same view (reason why i dislike carnality, because it proves to be the most influential behaviors). Even so, this behavior is as a animal, and people ultimately prove how they should be treated based on their level of consciousness and mental and moral precision. But to determine that, it depends. For SOME women though, paypig behavior is a common theme. Its despicable, and in most cases a telling sign of their level of consciousness as their QOL and nature relative to the male species more easily reveals their own actions and behaviors that led to this form of love to show fruit (same reason causes of such behaviors and views are so commonly predicted by many people in pilled communities).


Intersex conditions have their brain wired both sides.

That transgender statement of configuration has some truth into it, but its lacking important information. They underestimate the system we call the body. Science does also. The body is extremely complex and almost falls under the quote "physicist Emerson Pugh famously said, “If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

Think of all the electrons, atomic systems that work together, and the almost impossibly large amount of micro and macro chemicals that react with each other to create a functioning system. Testosterone and estrogen are simply the macros. Those chemicals are not even close to the only ones that actually make a man or a women, musicalized or fem. Things like DHT, Control Hormones, and other varying androgens and the varying ratios between male and female are not mentioned but are very important. This is why you cant turn a man into a women, or a women to a man via hormones or by cutting of your dick etc. If anything, the only chance you have at actually sharing both traits is intersex, and that runs though biology and genetics itself. This process is secretly referred to as "in utero"

The key is intersex. This is a personal observation, but i can see clearly that society is increasingly intersex. They are a lot of variables that would come to play. There is Evidence that shows how endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment can cause reproductive variation through dysregulation of normal reproductive tissue differentiation, growth, and maturation if the fetus is exposed to EDCs during critical developmental times in utero. But common sense, nature, humanities history, GMOs, will show you how quality of the seed will always change and vary (usually for the worst unless intently preserved, which does not happen in a society that loves the opposite of mental and moral precision). Same applies to the human body.

Anyways, even people with intersex conditions are not completely 50/50 male/female, though they are some that get close. And, if my suspicion is right, i think that the majority of human males do have intersex conditions, Maybe not entirely physical and sometimes mentally, (though, you can still observe the excessive curves in most males vs a authentic transgender, or lack of jaw in males but prevalent jaws in women models as as well as transgenders)),,,as the male biology has always since the start been rarer to produce and procure. And they are no mistakes in nature. No feature that does not have meaning behind it. Anyways, so i think the case is likely a significant amount of actual intersex women mascaraing as men, as well as the pool of regular women, intersex women, and then intersex men. The order of prevalent percentage in that order also, making authentic biologicals males (physically and mentally), very rare or last on the list. You can easily prove this by comparing and mixing traits of pre estrogen transgenders to your average men and women. You will very quickly observe prevalent traits in T men, that are not as common with your average men, and some traits of T men, which are common with average women. Reverse this process and you can reverse mix traits and eventually have a pool of different traits of males and female. Do the data right, and they will be certain types of men (physically) that you seriously do not see often. Its like how NFTs have different rarity percentages. And this isn't even classifying mental effects (since sex hormones effect the shape of your body and features), which would make the pool even more significant. So unlike what the transgender in your post said, the configurations don't stop at male/female. This is the simple delusional way of looking at it. And perhaps it should not even start with those 2 categories either.

This means a significant pool of men who are more prone to turning the other way or being attracted to the womenly way of thinking and fem nature, and also things like intersex women who associate themselves to the masculine way of thinking and such. This is clearly observed today. They are also varying studies and terms that describe this attachment of behavior like women are wonderful effect, and other observations. Then on top of that, you have the "be yourself" propaganda media which deliberately lures men to become more feminine, plus the other factors such as the significantly dominating matriarchal systems placed in modern society, which make it extremely hard to live as a male and associate yourself to the masculine mental and moral precision way of thinking. This is why i think they are a significant boost of transgenders and DL gay people.


The books of people who tried to find god should have never been introduced to normies. Its not something your average person can comprehend lest it turns into some low IQ fem/carnal slave following shit where the actual content is tossed to the side and instead is replaced with "religion" aka a social group and order that social vamps join to play around and pass time.

The books of people who tried to find god is not something your average person can comprehend lest it turns into some low IQ fem/carnal slave following shit where the actual content is tossed to the side and instead is replaced with "religion" aka a social group and order that social vamps join to play around and pass time. It has derivatives of truth but it isnt the meat of the content. Sadly though, these derivatives become more of a popular take than the meat, which influences others to share the same rock IQ takes.

Thats why you have so many people who say jesus this and jesus that as a person, not even knowing "jesus" was best used as a figurative of. Because obviously the name jesus was probably not the same name that was first introduced in the writing. Its the same with all the other religious books. If you pay attention, the redundancy becomes obvious. Good content and information turns into carnal worship and shit when these types of people blindly interpret it. "Grass is green because of chlorophyll" turns into, "grass is green because god loves you" Both could be correct, but ultimately it depends on how deep your knowledge about the situation is. And the way information works, it can get infinitely deep. The only problem in todays time ab religious thinking, is that theres no accurate foundation nor accurate progression to the knowledge of the situation. So you have people saying grass is green because chrorophyll and then you have people saying grass is green because god loves you, and none of them recons the level of understanding in both (how both of them can be true, but one more practical and considered a progression of intelligence in todays time).

You learn not to touch fire when you are a kid because your mom warns you about it. Then you learn again that you shouldnt touch it because fire is hot. Then as you get older, you learn again the science of why fire is hot, and as you get even older, you learn the science of what happens when you touch it etc. This happens repeatedly. But the issue with the books of religion is tricky, as many dont learn past the elementary infant stage, and the whole matter just becomes low IQ and non practical. So we have wars and shit, (according to the book) end time prophecies and whatnot going on, yet theres no coherence or understanding between it all with these people as they are either missing prerequisites, or further understanding.


This. By default, there will always be a massive power imbalance in a relationship that favors the woman. She can leave the relationship at any point and immediately have hundreds of other men being willing to be in a relationship with her, whereas 95% of men will never have this kind of opportunity. It creates an emotional dependence from the man on the women and compels him to be desperately submissive to her and make concessions to keep her around.

Women have no objection to taking advantage of these power imbalances when it favors themselves though. It's only a problem when men do it. Feminism in a nutshell.

That whole sub should be deleted from reddit. Its a mockery to people who actually have legitimate issues with dating and such. Most of it is relative entitlement. People who are eating grass fed ribeye complaining about never having wagyu.

Just scroll down. Many posts are about them not having "as much" attention as what pretty girls have had. I see claims with these same women claiming they get male gaze, and that they are trying to remove themselves from it. They consider it toxic. This is equivalent to a man complaining on a forum that women actually talk to them or even consider then irl. It makes no sense and ive noticed these types of women spaces are made from spite. Like purplepill debate, pinkpill, women going their own way. Its always a reaction or derivative from authentic male movements. Theres a reason why these pilled movements orgin primarily by men. Its because statistically and logically, men actually do have issues with these things.

The main problems is what women(and most people) think love is. Love as a human, is sensuality. To the human body, sensuality is love.
Men who want to have sex with you is fulfilling the requirements of sensuality they so so desire. This is why men say these women dont want to be loved, they want to be worshiped. Because actual "love" is something that everyone has without exception, and does not require sensuality and shit like constant stimulus. Love(or even derivatives of love such as hate) is akin to the act of consciousness and life itself. Proof of intent.
But human(body) love is sensuality, and this is something all of these women get to significant degrees, yet they are unable to recognize it. Instead they call it toxic. So its not like they dont have love, its that they are tired of this certain form of it. And lets not even go into how man and women work differently biologically, and how libido works. The whole concept of "he only wants me for my body, actually makes no sense at all". As people who say this fail to recognize that they are in the body.

What they desire so much is moreso of a different type of sensuality, a worship. hence why i compare their experiences of human love akin to a spoiled child. If your desired sexually by men, regardless of how toxic you think it is, regardless of how much you hate those groups or types of men, its not a problem with you not being desired, its something other than that. Its preference of the type of "love" your getting. The issue is that they dont admit this and try to act as if incels or men spaces of the same subject are on the same level.

And to top it off, they are relationship focused. Inceldom is more about relationships, its about socioeconomic status and shit too. Like how your biological composition affects what jobs you get, what your expected to do in life, friends and family and other life/death situations. Factually, 80% of men are in general, at a worst place in todays society compared to every single women. There's even syndromes and studied terms that probes this (like women are wonderful effect)

Real incel categories are things like not being sexually attractive statistically to the opposite gender. No sex, nobody wanting to have sex. Also things even branching out past just sexual attraction. Everyone has these issues, but the real issue is that a extremely significant more amount of males that have it than women, and that the discussion of the causes behind them are always blotted.
This is why i can sympathize with the male inceldom as it makes more sense, its not someone eating steak dinner and complaining about apple pie, its not someone eating shitty McDonald meals and not having steakhouse. Its someone not even having leftovers and crumbs to eat at all. Its a total non negotiable lack of life quality, no options. Though, i do believe women inceldoom could exist, i think if we remove a lot of those psudo classifications with ideas that people have not understood like "men only want to have sex with me, not "love" me""... or emotional triggers, it would be significantly less women who actually fit the bill of being incel. Id think this group would be primarily transgender's, people with mental personal conflicts, people who are widely deformed, or extremely obese to the point of high risk. Not people who have preferences.


We live in a very gynocentric society that is sexist against men. To give a few examples, men get longer prison sentences, are convicted at higher rates for the same crimes, and receive longer sentences for killing women than for killing men. (i.e. men are disposable)

We always assume men to be the aggressor in any encounter. Women actually commit more domestic violence than men, yet we always assume it's the man who is abusive. Another example, "My husband tells me what I should wear" Sounds bad right? How about "My wife tells me what I should wear." The first sounds worse because we assume that a man with some power in the relationship will abuse his power, but we don't assume the same for women.

Men have to be extraordinarily careful not to sound like they are blaming women whenever they vent any sort of frustration or emotion. For instance, "Why do women like that asshole and not me?" is something that you might find mocked in r/niceguys or r/justneckbeardthings. Yet if a woman says something like "Why does that guy like the hot girl but not me?" she would be most likely receive sympathy. Men have to be super careful in choosing their words, which is ironic because we encourage men to express their emotions more. Yet when they do, we shame them for it.

Male sexuality is considered shameful. Men are considered creepy if they have a blow up doll, for an example. Yet it's perfectly normal for a woman to have a collection of dildos. Men are shamed if they date much younger women, even if she is a consenting adult.

Perhaps this isn't too controversial, but women are attracted to status, masculinity, power, and good looks. They are more attracted to a man if other women want him. They are no less superficial in their sexual preferences than men. Weakness is unattractive to women. Being an emotional, sensitive man is a death sentence in the dating world.

RPillers have a right to be angry and upset because men are almost always blamed for everything. They are assumed to be the bad guy. TRP is the one place that they can get relief from this and where women can be the bad guy for once. I also feel like all women are partially responsible for their state. We should have been the ones to stand up and defend men. Men have a hard time standing up for themselves without being perceived as weak or misogynist.

The more power the man has in the relationship, the longer the relationship lasts and the more power the woman has, the unhappier the relationship.


@ProklysmosThe "never change" thing is pretty strange to me. There have been numerous times in my life where I've had people call me out for expressing opinions or behaving in a way that contradicts things I said or did when I was much younger. It felt like they were basically pulling a "gotcha" or attacking me for changing over time. Some people actually do stop becoming more mature or mentally developing at a younger age than other people. Those are the kind of people who have "immature" thoughts, temperament, and interests long into their adult lives. One example I'm thinking of is when I recently told my 30 year old sister that paying $400 to get her hair dyed seemed excessive to me, she brought up how when I was a teenager I would pay to get haircuts at a relatively expensive barber shop. I responded by saying something like, "yeah, but I was immature and materialistic back then" and she got offended. This same sister still listens to the same pop music she listened to back then 15+ years ago. She bought tickets to a Taylor Swift concert in 2020, but the tour got cancelled due to Covid. This year she got free tickets for the redo tour, but the resale price of the average ticket was ultra-inflated because people had been waiting for 3 years. I asked my sister how much the tickets were going for online, but she wouldn't tell me. I asked, "what, $1000?" she laughed and said no. 1500? She laughed again. 2000? She shook her head and made it obvious she didn't want me to keep asking. They were tickets for good seats in a Los Angeles tour date, so they were definitely somewhere between like $2500 and $5000 a piece. And she had two tickets for herself and her fiance. So they passed up on a free $5000 at minimum because she was very attached to a pop culture fantasy experience she's been living since the 00's. She and her fiance have been engaged for several years now, postponing the wedding for financial reasons, and they have put off having children because they don't think they've got enough money for that either. Sorry, wall of text for illustration purposes, basically I agree with a lot of what you're describing here. Our mother is extremely narcissistic and I worry that my two sisters acquired a lot of her traits, though they aren't nearly as toxic.


People who always complain about not being loved despite going through so many relationships. You see this commonly with narcy women and carnal men. Loved??? No they want to be worshipped they want to cause stress while you shoulder it, want to hold you to traditional gender roles while seeking liberation from the traditional balance to those roles, thjen claim you’re not a real if you question the hypocrisy do you not hear the attitude


A surprisingly interesting subject. For my entire life I had accepted the conventional wisdom that men and women had the same IQs on average, but that men had a greater variance, thus there were 3x as many men that scored as Genius on IQ tests (and presumably 3x as many men that scored as idiots, but that part was never clearly elucidated). But there is a huge problem with the data set, it is based almost exclusively on 18-22 year olds, and just presumes that IQ is fixed throughout life for each sex. And it appears the tests were manipulated to exclude questions that men scored considerably better on than women.


shapeshift nature of women into anything they want, this is why people dont see the truth about female nature correctly especially the nature the word speaks of.

The nature of women and male nature is automatic. the reason i feel some way about fem or male content that reveals truth about feminism or whatever is because my association to this animal. After the spiritual disassociation it becomes like looking at how animals in the field work, like learning about horses and whatnot. My anger or emotion is moreso about my situation of animalistic domination.
read word for read, excellent thread!
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii
Read it without skipping.

But it sounds more redpill than blackpill
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii, FutureSlayer and dreamcake1mo
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii and dreamcake1mo
youre retarded if you think any average org user will read it.

btw, yeah DNRD
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii and dreamcake1mo
Hey.
Here's a compilation of truth/conspiracy/female nature/blackpill etc/ posts submitted and typed by various ORG users across this and other platforms.

Lately, i have noticed there has been reports of this forum to bad actors, as well as observable server downtime. For this reason, i think it may be beneficial to amalgamate high effort discussions and posts, so that if one day this forum goes bye bye, it could still be possible to reintroduce these posts and topics to the next boat. Feel free to copypaste/archive these texts or add to the collection. Also, i apologize if i fail to source you or the original author in some texts. A lot of sourcing information is lost in translation.

WARNING. LONG TEXT POSTS.















I'm not missing that fact, its just that emotions don't mean anything, everyone has them and they don't really have any importance except to that individual. Except the real world is unforgiving no matter who you are which is why we have to judge things objectively and not through each persons individual lense. If you want to treat women as children that get stressed out and struggle with minor things then they should also have all rights and responsibilities stripped down to a child like level. You cant give women all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men while simultaneously claiming that they need to be constantly forgiven and made special care for because they're actually incapable of handling all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men.

Capable people and incapable people should be treated accordingly and the instant you start straying from this, it can only result in incapable people being thrust into positions that they should never have been in and cant handle. Unconditionally forgiving women's flaws for no other reason than "its their nature" is as ridiculous as saying men should be allowed to rape and murder at will because its "in their nature" and we should just be understanding of that. The purpose of civilization is to overcome nature which is why we place rules and expectations on peoples behavior instead of just allowing them to act however they want at any given moment

But there's literally no need to understand the emotional perspective of an individual since it doesn't matter. How is any one individuals emotions relevant to anything that actually takes place in the real world? Understanding women is very easy and every culture in human history came to the same conclusions: if women, or anyone for that matter, are not capable of getting over themselves and thinking/behaving rationally instead of being slaves to their emotions then what they think or say doesn't matter. Not everyone's perspective is important, especially people who can only see things from the lens of their own emotions and ego instead of just seeing things the way they are

A good example of this is your own response. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it or not, civilization is the opposite of a natural state and cannot exist without controlling peoples nature and their base instinctual urges which is why every civilization in human history has had strict laws and rules on what people are allowed to do and not to do. You don't have to like it and it also doesn't matter whether you do but the more civilization advances, the further and further we are removed from our natural state. It is unhealthy to go too far over the edge but its still happening anyway and will continue to happen. This is achievable, every first world country on the planet currently operates like this and areas of the world that did not set increasingly strict control on human behaviors never developed past the third world because everyone constantly engaged in their most primitive urges with no sense of order which makes it impossible to advance

If rape and murder were not a part of human nature then why do they exist so commonly through human history and why has every properly established culture have laws against them? An example of what's not a part of human nature is grazing in a field or swimming up stream to birth a bunch of eggs. It doesn't matter how you feel about rape or violence, they are a part of human nature and that's why we create laws to control and prevent it. Entirely hypocritical to say that civilization is not about conquering nature and then say that rape and murder is "beastly" when in our most primitive and pre-civilisation eras, these things were extremely common. Go to any third world country on the world where there is a breakdown of infrastructure making it difficult to control the worst of human behavior and you'll see just how common it all is


evil can sometimes be described as militant ignorance. the original concept of sin is a process that leads us to miss the mark and fall short of perfection. While most people are conscious of this, at some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness check. Those that are evil attempt to escape and hide from their own conscience (though means like self deception and such etc.). Now thing of the evil of see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil archetypes. The unwilling to listen to clear truth and such. Ignorant mindsets in todays time where people actively and popularly disregard and have a sort of "happiness to disregard" things of good consciousness.

Antichrist was never referred to be a person, but instead a spirit. They are many people with the antichrist spirit.

Donald Trump just posted this image on his Instagram page. Many will say this picture represents Jesus being by his side through persecution. That is not what this photo represents. This is Trump’s persecution being likened to Jesus’s persecution, as has been done many times before by many including his son, Donald Trump Jr as I’ve pointed out before. Make no mistake, Trump in his heart believes he is a Christ-like, messiah figure that will save the world so he can take credit for it. Trump sees the praise and adoration Jesus receives and wants that for himself. His entire life philosophy has always been about being number 1. This is exactly why the religious zionists in his corner are and will continue to push for him to fulfill these messianic prophecies of protecting Israel and bringing peace to all nations. So that he can claim to be the messiah. Lucifer fell because of pride. And so too will the Antichrist be led into perdition. Because he magnifies himself in his heart. That’s what the biblical Antichrist is, a man with the prideful characteristics of Lucifer who tries to be Jesus. This is exactly the strong delusion talked about in 2 Thessalonians 2:11. Keep your eyes and heart on Jesus Christ alone, and look not to earthly princes to save you.


@justlolatthisworld7917 "Einstein" means "a rock" in German. "Einstein" was literally "as dumb as a rock". Open mocking in plain sight. I thought of this yesterday and it made me think of you anon, since I've heard you rightfully mention how Einstein was a literal moron.


Honestly its a lot of complication in the bible. Many things are not to be taken literal, or to be taken BOTH literal AND nonliteral. And i dont think this is because the bible was made to be inherently complicated, but even moreso the fact that language translations lose meanings overtimes. This is the reason strongs concordance exists.

We have to remember were reading the book in english. Theres so many double meanings in the English language, and words that categorize new meanings outside of the predecessor synonyms ETC.

For example, the beasts referenced in the bible. Clearly that is not literal but moreso referencing a country/system (technology hub in todays time) sort of thing. Christ was also implied to be the living law. Its even hard right now to explain in words.

But the point im trying to make is, i think the whole categorization of "demon", to a singular independent being, is kind of shallow thinking. The word demon is limited to what we learn about it. For many, this means some singular metaphysical deity. But lets look at it from a physical perspective. There has to be a system to everything. Thats the physical world we live in. Anything that materializes or influences behavior in such a manner has to sort of have some sort of physical(or metaphysical) process to incept or influence. Especially a demon, which has questionable authority over life. For example, the body in itself i guess could be a called a demon, or a host of wickedness, and that being dedicated to fulfilling the bodys desires leaves you "possessesed" into the bodies lusts. Hence why demons and body sickness are strongly correlated. Technically all of the prerequisite boxes would check off. Meaning the fruit of the "demons" which is posession (leaving you to do its own will, weather the lust is the satification for abusing, or all the other carnalities that people grow to adapt and be proficient in).

Not saying this is exactly how things work, but just to give a perspective. I feel like your question in itself is too narrow and it reminds me that sometimes the confusion is not in truth, but perspective of whats actually going on.


You lot of you would be better off learning how to be more cunning in society as that's how most social normies operate.
Also realising how they are taken by appearances. Not just appearance of your look but appearance of your general demeanour, as they use this to both gage how good life is going for you and whether you are a social success.
Learning that beauty standards are higher in major cities like London, LA, Miami, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Toronto, Sydney etc. No shit. It's a city. The rate race is stronger.
Most normies are not that talented at much. They just conform with mannerisms, slang, mainstream ideological narratives, shit they wear and what they believe in. They are followers and very agreeable until they see you being disagreeable to popular culture. They aren't that insightful, interesting or humorous.
Even guys with their own minds and that are not followers learn this. Unless you are making a deeper connection with a person, all that matters is how you appear on the surface. And if they are a matrix plugged in normie you should not even be making a deeper connection. They should be your associate to connections.
Realise everything is about immediate identifiable perception with normies. While you might be more open minded before sussing what somebody is all about, they ain't the same way lol. They are so plugged in that they run on autopilot and everyone needs to be in a box that they can understand otherwise something is off and fishy about them. So identify yourself before they identify you and treat you the way they think you are. This is very subtle.
And yes if you are someone bordering on chadlite you will be even more under this scrutiny, because the last thing a normie wants to see is a guy that looks stand out good and is not plugged into normie wavelength of communication


This is because the concept of being a "loser" was created to shame men by other men. Men created the concept of being a "loser". Now, since women hold so much power in society and the dating market the idea of being a loser has shifted toward a more superficial end. Where you were judged in the past by other men, now you are judged mostly by women who aren't rational and will judge you off how you look rather then what you do. Men in power are meritocratic, whereas women in power are emotionally unstable eugenicists. Whats worse is there is now no checks and balances to control these power that women hold. Affirming these ridiculous, and useless standards for an actual flourishing society.


About trying to settle the deal about inceldoom to official channels. They have there own skin in the game to keep this ideology from spreading. Skimming the paper, It doesn't seem to really consider WHY this ideology is becoming popular, just how to stop if from doing so. Now, it is written in a journal of criminology so I can see the reasoning, but why is it even in a journal like that in the first place? You would think a sociological or cultural journal would be better. They only wish to understand the blackpill because it's becoming a threat to the social order, and to women. I would be more sympathetic to these authors (both of whom are women, which could lead to some subconcious bias) if they would try to consider the plight of these men that fall into this ideology, but all it appears to be is more damage control from a system that is inherently against men's interests and intends on fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.
This.


when it comes to animals (carnal humans), a human (in this case a "spiritual" focused person) needs to cage them up or structure them somehow less they themselves get killed or affected by animalistic behavior. Why do you think religion is always what follows after truth seeker movements, after the few individuals that actually gave a crap about truth. Thats why i call it a derivative. Pest control. Carnality is the way of the animal. Religion is the ordinance of the animal nature. Islam, christianity, whatever. Its the same thing. And they are all flawed. The frustration behind the argument for your religion is misdirected and carnal imo.


Cancer growth and metastasis in a fueled by the immune system being in a hyper allergen state (TH2).
Fasting greatly reduces allergic reactions to food, promoting a TH1 mediated immune response which is required for cancer cell clearance.
Excess histamine = Excess cortisol = Estrogen dominance = TH2 mediated immune response.
Liver and gallbladder function play a crucial role in these issues.
The problem is, when the allergen sensitivities stop, and TH1 mediated immune response turns back, the immune system will start going after any latent infections you were harboring.
This is known in holistic health circles as a “healing crisis”.


I don't wanna bring a son who will suffer in a matriarchal society or a daughter who would turn to OF hoe while i can't do nothing, we need to keep old school ideologies, it's even helps against hypergamy
Your better of creating or starting your own movement. Islam is already toast. Its doing what its always done. But for the animal, a country sized fence is almost as if it were no fence at all. Its going to have to be a new religion or derivative. Ultimately to get the attention of the carnal nature your going to have to use different tactics. Marketing, deception, favoritism etc. Look at how "hebrew isrealites" secluded the bible and used the race bait as a pull.


Areas with high population density (many people in an area) and high interaction (something as simple as seeing someone, even online or on a newspaper counts as an interaction, independent of if they know them or not) creates inequality. The more dense and the more interactions, the worse the inequality.
This is because, if there's a group of 5 people, things are more equal in every domain compared to if there were 500, or 5 million or 5 billion. The more people, the more outliers there are. These outliers create inequality (economic, dating, etc.)
The population density allows people to see the gap of their situation to their outliers. This outlier affects the normie.
High population creates outliers.
High population density allows people to be aware of the outliers.
These environments created what John B. Calhoun called "behavioral sinks". Basically, a behavioral sink is a collapse in productive social behavior, where increased negative emotions, disrupted social structures, and abnormal behaviors prevail.
The rats formed social and dating hierarchies, Chads got the women and the non-Chads usually either...
  • Developed non-straight sexualities
  • Became timid, weak, apathetic, withdrawn asexual hikikomoris/neets (adolescents and young adults who become recluses in their parents' homes, isolated from society)
  • Or desperate, erratic and unsuccessful (pickup autists and redpill roaches)
Chads became aggressive, and since the non-Chads were all withdrawn from society and responsibility, the women had to fend for themselves and protect Chad's children (with humans, it's either the cucked normie's child or she's childless, since Chad doesn't want to reproduce with her, only sex). The female rats became aggressive, neglectful of their children, and non-motherly.
Infant mortality rose due to neglect, male and female rats gave up on dating due to discontent and negative emotions, birth rates dropped, and the new and smaller children grew up to be asexual since they never really learned sexual behaviors due to their parents giving up on mating. The rat society aged to death due to population collapse and low birth rates.
Of course, this isn't perfectly applicable to humans, remember that. For humans, economic, and other kinds of inequalities also play a major role in behavioral sinks, but if if the trajectory of society keeps going where it's going, we could very well get a comparable result as human beings to what the rats got. Birth rates are plummeting and our societies are mentally ill, just like the rats.

Anyways, Why am I showing you all of this?

Because dating environments differ in blackpill severities. Due to population density and population count.
There could be "tiers" to the blackpill.
Basically, in some dating environments, you'll need to literally be perfect, in other environments, you have to be HTN at least.
Also, consider that the fact that dating environments men and women have been in the past also can influence their mating decisions.


Anti oxidants can actually be pro oxidants if you have mitochondrial membrane complex issues or NAD metabolic problems / imbalance with age.
How do free radicals get quenched and removed from the body? The body cleaves electrons off of the substance, reducing its reactivity, making it less dangerous and easier to incorporate or dispose of.
But what happens if large amounts of anti oxidants rapidly quench and reduce free radicals and pollutants in the body, releasing massive amounts of electrons?
Normally, those electrons would be shuttled into the electron transport chain and used to make ATP. But, as you get older, or if you have mitochondrial membrane complex 1 to 4 issues, your body is less able to handle a flood of electrons.
This can lead to metabolic bottle necks or even overflows.
What does this mean? Those electrons can lead to a flood of hydrogen peroxide in the body. If the H2O2 levels overwhelm the ability of Catalase to quench it all down to water; If it builds up: greying hair, stem cell issues, mtdna number decreases and telemorase issues, leading to lowered maximum replicative lifespan of stem cells and mitochondria.
Rapidly increased aging.
Vitamin E, a powerful anti oxidant, can significantly lower lifespan. The studies can never accurately tell you why. I can. It's the overwhelming flood of electrons into the ECC.
Resolving electron transport chain issues is important for healthy aging.
As for NAD+ and Nadh. NADh is an electron donor. If you have too high NADh, it shows metabolic disorder. Shows you have electron transport chain issues.
If you don't resolve them, it's possible supplementing NAD will just rapidly convert to NADh, adding fuel to metabolic fire.
The fix for that, in leiu of fixing the electron transport chain, is combining all anti oxidants with electron acceptors or getting more in the diet.
They can mop them up, order them properly, recycle them for use, or help dispose of them.
We need more electron acceptors and less electron donors in our diets. Especially when combined with NAD or anti oxidants.


I dislike most quotes and similar forms of socially popular truth "memes" shared online.
Theres no influence of truthful behavior (teaching people their own faults and to not do the same) without proactive and introspectively constructive honesty. Without this constructive honesty, there becomes a influx of people who highlight other people who know the truth, but are not even honest enough to recognize their own behavior and warn against that instead, as that would require actually knowing (being proactive and introspectively constructive), and not just speculative or socially influenced to think or perceive. When women or men repost or rethink about common troupes against each other, they don't really have any intellectual depth, but is sort of low effort, simple minded bait content used to alleviate common (sometimes unaware, or misguilded) frustrations. The reason i dislike this, is because its not coming from a place where the individual (viewer or even reposter) is actually self reflective on their own behavior that may have enabled such frustrations to occur, thus usually no intellectual response from the poster thus, usually no intellectual discussion or gain to the viewer. Think of the common trope that; “men are not shit”. Or even low iq incel bait posts like “women are this” etc, where the lack of intellectual discussion (in depth questions such as why, how, what, etc) do not occur on an individual level due to the format of the post not engaging the viewer to do such. I highlighted proactive honesty because only when a person is able to be proactively honest and introspective about these questions, and are honest about their behavior that may or may not enable such things, real discussion and data analysis can occur, Instead of just reposting. Think of how airplane investigations work. Constructive analysis where there is no side taken, where the women or man admit (be honest) of their behavior and the data is unbiasedly discussed and analyzed for accuracy and future correction. But of course this does not happen with these posts, nor does the UX structure (or even sentencing format the OP would use to create simple posts) allow introspective discussion or constructive analysis to happen. People see it, agree with it, and move on. Holding tight the building frustration until eventually the simple frustration becomes a trigger of hatred, regardless of if that person is actually enabling their own frustrations or not (which may often be the case). For this reason i strongly recommend and prefer data rich communication, no matter how "long", "aspie, autistic, or socially weird it may seem. Ultimately when working with data, its best to receive the best quality.


The following text was taken from the website “Shedding of the Ego” by Mr. K and reviewed by Savage, it's been adapted by John Cracovizk (literally me) for an easier (and less MGTOW) read to my LooksMax.org fellas. The link to the original text is available in the end of the thread, good read!

1. INTRODUCTION - What is Hybristofilia? The Joker and Quinn example

"Ok, gentlemen, today we are going to discuss hybristophilia, a term that seems to me to best summarize the female penchant for the “Bad Boy”.

First, the definition of the term according to an online medical dictionary:

Hybristophilia - Paraphilia in which a person is sexually attracted to someone who has committed a bombing or horrific crime.

It may be best to start with some examples found in pop culture and work our way up to real-world examples.

Many consider the dynamic duo of the DC comics universe, the Joker and his equally psychopathic companion, Harley Quinn, to be a clear example of the “Florence Nightingale effect” (In reference to the dedication of Florence Nightingale, who many consider to be the founder of modern nursing, demonstrated in her patients).
The Florence Nightingale effect is a situation in which a caregiver develops romantic and/or sexual feelings for their patient, even though there is very little communication or contact outside of basic care. The feelings may disappear when the patient no longer needs care, whether through recovery or death.

I believe this is a misdiagnosis of Quinn, or at least only a partial diagnosis.

If you're well-versed in the origins of Joker's bitch, you'll know that Quinn started out as an asylum psychiatrist in Arkham and her name was Dr. Harleen Frances Quinzel, M.D, who was tasked during her internship with the psychoanalysis of some of the worst and greatest psychopaths and criminals of Gotham, one of which was the Joker himself. During the interview process with the Joker, Quinn was mesmerized by his Charisma (personality pilled once again
:soy:
), a trait psychopaths often cultivate to hide their true nature.

Swayed by the strength of the Joker's personality and charm, Quinn fell deeply in love with him, culminating in helping him escape, unleashing one of the most dangerous psychopaths in the DC comics universe back onto the streets (women), until she finally gave up her comfortable life as a psychiatrist and joined him on his crime spree, taking on the persona of Harley Quinn, as we know her today.

Harley Quinn suffered not only from this “Florence Nightingale effect”, but from an advanced case of hybristophilia.

Furthermore, we speculate here that hybristophilia is a condition that is still poorly understood, which appears to be categorized into a very simplistic classification of women who are hybrostophilic and women who are not hybrostophilic, without there being a middle ground between the two.
2. EVOLVING DESIRES - The Complex Relationship Between Violence and Attraction
Now, think back to our remote existence, when human beings led prehistoric, short and often violent lives.

The comforts of our modern, technologically advanced civilization simply did not exist.

The caveman, who sought to have reproductive access to the female sex, had to offer something in return.
  • He needed to assure the females he wanted to mate with that he would provide them with resources, shelter, and sustenance on a regular basis.
  • He had to be violent enough to kill enough animals to feed himself, his women, and the children he would have with them.
  • He also had to have an innate ability to kill other men who wished to move into the resource-rich land that he controlled or that was controlled by the women he had sexual access to.
To put it bluntly, violent men have been selected by women for reproduction since time immemorial, and despite the fact that we have, through a manipulation of evolutionary impulses, built a civilization that largely mitigated this burden of violence, many women still yearn for violent men.


The average woman, of course, does not want to date a violent psychopath, at least not one of the status of a serial killer like Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez. But she longs for some of that caveman violence to emerge through the civilized exteriors of the men she is occasionally attracted to. In essence, women seek to ensure their security and provision in society through a kind of standardized double assault.

Simply extracting male provision via taxpayer subsidy is not enough.

The obsession with protection and provision that we see for women is expressed on a macro scale, through the occasional application of laws involving violence against women, such as “Rape Shield Laws” and “primary aggressor laws”, etc.

Spoiler: What is a Rape Shield Law?
Spoiler: What are Primary Aggressor Laws?

These laws often do not fully consider concepts of equality, such as due process and the luxury of a legal system that presumes innocence before guilt has already been established (this made me remember of this thread of mine where I talked about how your friends would probably leave you be eaten by wolves if someone came accusing you of rape, even though there isn't any proof).

To the collective unconscious, the hive mentality that drives the female masses, due process is irrelevant, they are voting with their hindbrain and therefore vote to ensure that their most primal needs and desires are met and satiated.

The problem is that women can never be satisfied; they point out and demand more security and more provisions… always.

In this way, while female involvement leverages the electoral process in her favor, and after the legal system implements as much gynocentrism as it can handle without collapsing, the individual woman also simultaneously cultivates her particular instinct for her own protection and provision.

In the form of what we call: “Alpha Brute”.
3. THE ALPHA BRUTE - Low Inhib and Dark Triad? Yes, but also a tool for the feminine

An individual prone to violence and physically imposing enough to do a lot of harm with hostility, who is also usually not intelligent enough to understand that he is in a servile position to the woman he is involved with, existing as a hired criminal who gets paid with sexual access.

It's like a pincer attack, designed to maximize benefits for the female collective, and frankly, men's lives, health, or rights have never influenced this process in any meaningful way.
This is just gynocentrism at its maximum power.

Take the following video as an example, preceded by a quick synopsis.

> The woman enters a cafeteria and skips the line.

> The man responds to whoever was on the phone that a woman jumped the queue.

> The woman hears and immediately intimidates him by staring at him, in a very rude, incisive and, finally, violent way.

> By chance, the boyfriend, a 150 kg ex-convict, enters the conversation, and at that moment there is a brief confrontation between the man and the boyfriend.-Out of nowhere, the boyfriend [ex-convict] punches the man, beating him violently.

See for yourself.

So... what do we witness here other than a vicious attack? Well, let's start from the woman's perspective.

Let's assume, hypothetically, that this woman could have started this confrontation without her boyfriend to protect her and that the man who attacked her in self-defense after she initiated the violence.
This woman would probably have no problem trusting the front line of gynocentric protection at her disposal, that being the macro-scale protection of a police force or a white knight who jumps to her defense without even questioning who initiated the violence.

This is why women advocate for first-offender laws, as blame almost universally falls on the man in domestic violence disputes, despite evidence to the contrary, if any. Once again, women want it that way, they are not concerned with due process and equal rights for men, they are concerned with leveraging the State and strengthening their fundamental reproductive habits.

However, in this case, it was her boyfriend who was nearby, who was, for all intents and purposes, the alpha brute we've described. He is prone to violence, physically imposing, and almost seems to take pleasure in subjecting another man to the brutality he can unleash in his master's name. This is an extreme example of what all women want to some degree, community protections from non-violent men in the form of a legal system, and individual protections from violent men in the form of these thugs who are more than willing to disregard those legal protections.

This is what drives the female tendency toward hybristophilia, which appears to only be pathological in the most extreme examples, but which actually lies on a continuum.

This is a spectrum of hybristophilia that ranges from the woman who prefers a beating from her man behind closed doors, to the “serial killer fanatics” who gained notoriety for fainting with excitement in the presence of hyper-violent serial killers, such as Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez, during the fanfare of his trials.

Every woman who asks you to choke her, spank her, spank her ass, or spit on her in a safe, controlled environment during consensual sex is acting on this misunderstood desire.

She is asking you to release your inner caveman, she is asking you to become a violent weapon that she can use for her protection, and in doing so, she receives vast sexual stimulation.

I don't hate women for that, much less do I expect them to change. I believe this is an innate quality of female sexual attraction. Nor do I absolve them if they act on these impulses in some way in real causes of violence, rather than simulated, against other human beings like the woman described above.

Women who are so dependent on their primitive impulses to the point of directing one of these brutes to harm others through violence should be locked up and kept away from civilized people. But in terms of desire, of female attraction to violent men, I suspect there's very little we can do to combat that.
Spoiler: Is there a solution maybe?

We will have to understand women's tendency to select violent men and we have to manage and discourage it as best we can. And so I begin my efforts here with a simple material.

5. EXAMPLES - Abandon all hope, ye who enter here

First, we start with , the “cultural Marxism” conspiracy theorist who killed 77 souls, most of whom were young teenagers. An article titled Norway’s mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik gets hundreds of love letters a year states the following:

STOCKHOLM (AFP) — She calls him by his first name, sends him letters every week and promises to wait for him.

It could be any love story, but Victoria's heart belongs to a mass murderer: Anders Behring Breivik. Responsible for Norway's worst peacetime murder since World War II, Breivik, like many other famous killers, has his share of admirers, a phenomenon that can be accompanied by sexual attraction and, in this case, there is even a term: hybristophilia.

“I really wouldn’t want to live a life without him,” says “Victoria,” who doesn’t want her real name published. A young Swedish woman in her 20s appears distant and impassive, ignoring her fresh cup of coffee in the lobby of a Stockholm hotel. But her voice breaks when she talks about her “dear Anders”.

From a small town in Sweden, she is doing everything she can to get Breivik's prison conditions eased: he has spent the last four years isolated in a high-security penitentiary. He is currently serving a 21-year sentence, which can be extended if he is still considered a danger to society.

Breivik killed 77 people on July 22, 2011, when he detonated a bomb near government offices in Oslo and opened fire at a summer camp for young workers on the island of Utoya. For Victoria, Breivik's isolation amounts to “torture”.

“I worry about him even more now that he's in such a vulnerable situation,” she says.

Unemployed due to health problems, she writes to him to encourage him—far more than the 150 letters ever written—or sends him small gifts, including a dark blue tie that he occasionally wore during his trial. In return, she received two letters from him — which she showed to AFP — the others were blocked by prison officers tasked with censoring his correspondence.

Marriage proposals:

It is not easy to define her relationship with Breivik, a man she has never met, since all her requests to visit him were denied.
She describes him as her “old friend” and as a kind of “brotherly figure” and protector, but admits that she finds him attractive and “there were romantic interests, at first, at least on my part.”
:lul:


She says that their first contact dates back to 2007, when they met through an online game. He cut ties with her two years later, presumably to focus on planning her attacks. But in early 2012, Victoria reconnected with the man who had by then become the most hated person in Norway. And she is not alone.

The Weekly Morgenbladet (A Norwegian weekly, intellectual newspaper, covering politics, culture and science.) reported last year that Breivik receives “at least” 800 letters a year, many of them from admiring women.

During the 2012 trial, a 16-year-old girl (a JB ) asked him to marry her.

Hybristophilia is a term used by criminologists — but not scientists — to describe a sexual attraction to violent killers in prison, who often receive racy love letters or sexy underwear from their fans. Also known as “Bonnie and Clyde syndrome,” it exists across time and place, .Josef Fritzl of Austria, who held his daughter captive and repeatedly raped her for 25 years, and American killer Charles Manson also have their own fan clubs.

According to Sheila Isenberg, an American author who interviewed 30 women for her book "Women Who Love Men Who Kill", says that these admirers often have a history of sexual abuse.

“It's a chance for a woman to be in control (the man is behind bars for life and has no control over anything), when previously she was abused by her father (or) by other men,” she explained to AFP.

“Plus, it’s romance with a capital R: exciting, thrilling, a never-ending rollercoaster. Nothing dull or ordinary about these relationships.”

However, there is no scientific evidence to support the widespread belief that these women feel they are on a mission to help the killer get on the right path in life, said Amanda Vicary, assistant professor of psychology at Wesleyan University in the United States.

“Some women tend to be attracted to famous men — it's possible that the reason some women are attracted to men who have done horrible things is not so much what they did, but the fame they received from their actions,” she said.

Victoria, Meanwhile, she says she's not looking for fame. Her involvement with Breivik has already cost her relationship with her sister, who, upon learning of her ties to him, told her: “You are dead to me.” And she distanced herself from her friends. She admits to “more or less sharing” Breivik's Islamophobic ideology, but says she opposes violence.

So how can she love a man who slaughtered dozens of terrified teenagers, some of whom begged him to spare their lives?

“I think I had to separate Anders from the real Breivik. I think of Anders as my old friend and Breivik as the person who did all these things. The years pass and yet she refuses to give up on him. “I miss you more and more every day. I think my feelings got a little stronger.”
Another interesting article I stumbled across will give you some real insight into the nature of this phenomenon, titled Editorial: On Love, Sex and Murderers and it's quite long so I'll only publish the parts I judge relevant:

At the same time, we are both repelled and fascinated by studying sociopaths and their quest for blood — and most of the time, men seek women's blood. The idea of the “good” Dexter-style serial killer is relatively new, but it is a known fact that women flooded Ted Bundy with love letters, a woman married Richard Ramirez while he was in prison, and there are countless other examples. of lesser-known criminals and their fanatics. Montages with Ted Bundy? Why? We wonder why serial killers do what they do all the time - perhaps that's where the fascination begins for people who identify as "hybristophiles."

A few years ago, I met a sixteen-year-old girl (another jb, I'm starting to see a pattern
:feelsthink:
) who identified herself as Ted-Head (a Ted Bundy groupie). It was easy to ignore the romanticization of a man whose horror she had never experienced. Other interests of hers were, like many of mine, dark and subversive. My thought at the time was that one day she would grow up and realize that finding a person interesting is not the same as finding them emotionally or sexually attractive. After all, Bundy used the fact that he was a handsome man to kill women. He's not exactly the kind of guy you'd want to date (you wouldn't want to go on a date with Rodney James Alcala either, but he won The Dating Game).

I wanted to write a little about the Ted Bundy phenomenon and how it continues into a new generation. I started on a site called Bundyphile, hoping to start at the source in my efforts to write about gaining some understanding from the young women who followed Bundy (one Facebook page referred to him as “The Misunderstood Voice of a Generation”) .

The themes presented on these sites were repetitive:

Bundy wasn’t “that bad.”

Bundy was misunderstood.

Yes, what Bundy did was wrong, but you can love and admire him without idolizing his crimes.

Many of the women and girls who are obsessed with Bundy and other serial killers seem to think that they could be the special person who would change or train them, or be “the one” who would be there for them and stop all the bad things that happenned. In one blog entry, a woman calling herself “Lolita” proclaims, in all caps for all to see, “EITHER WAY, IF MY OWN DEATH COULD FILL TED BOUNDY’S HOLLOW SOUL, I [REALLY] WOULD LOVE TO BE HIS LAST VICTIM." (Can you imagine being adored like this?
:feelsgiga:
)

She claimed they were similar, claimed to understand him. He was “different” (
:coffee:
) from other killers (remember, Ted Bundy was probably dead before this woman was born). Within minutes of my research, it became clear that you can't search for Ted-Heads without encountering Dahmer's “fangirls” and the obsession that many Internet fans have with gay male sex (suddenly fujoshi reference?
:dafuckfeels:
). Specifically, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer engaging in gay sex (wtf?
:feelskek:
). It was around this time that my research took a sharp left turn. Up until this point, women had not only seemed emotionally invested, but obsessed. They seemed to believe that a woman's love for them could have saved the violent men they so idolized.

When I reached the Mrs.Dahmer’s Infinityland website, it became clear that there was much more to this phenomenon than the tendency of high school/college girls to fall in love with “misunderstood” and “shady” men. The whole point of it was about sex. OK yes. I think we knew that, but this was deeply dark and disturbing sex, based completely on how violent and terrible these men were. A post on Tumblr says:

- Most girls: you've seen his big body, right?

- Me: You saw his death counter, right?

The page “Mrs. Dahmer” features several photos of Dahmer, most photos typically taken after being arrested or photos of him in prison jumpsuits. The photos have sweet captions, the same way a high school girl would caption a photo of her favorite Disney crush in her diary (
:dafuckfeels:
)

After I discovered the “hybristerotica” tag on Tumblr, things got really dark, and it happened really quickly. A Tumblr dedicated to celebrating hybristophilia drags me to a corner of the internet I never expected to find.

Sex and Crime All The Time features, among other things, photos of famous serial killers with sexually explicit “confessions” emblazoned on them and a serialized erotic story called Stockholm Syndrome, focusing on Richard Ramirez.

I want to take a moment to state here that I understand that rape fantasy is not the same as wanting to be raped and that many women with healthy sex lives are adept at this type of sex — however, I think this fantasy becomes a little different when the fantasies are focused on men known for violently stalking and attacking women.

I also wonder about this fine line, as these women proudly identify themselves as “hybristophiles” and defend the legitimacy of this attraction, although the profile of women who fit the definition is not a list of positive personality traits, and many of them admit this sexual dysfunction outside of situations where they are fantasizing about the killers.

Hardcore hybristophiles don't always bother to claim that the men they obsess over are “misunderstood” or “only half bad.” When an anonymous Tumblr fan asks if Ted Bundy loved his wife and son, the blog owner responds, “I don’t think so.” There seem to be limits, however.

One user says she is “sad” that Eric Harris’ diary featured homophobic sentiments. The blog owner comforts her by assuming that he would have overcome these feelings if he were alive (can't believe this shit). The conversation, however, had nothing to do with the way these men treated women. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, the more violent the fantasy.

It isn't over yet.
For some reason, I find the obsession with men like Bundy and Ramirez less disturbing than the sexual and romantic fantasies associated with more recent killers. There's a good chance that women who idolize Bundy will wear a pendant with his photo on it and look at his photo alive, given that Bundy died in 1989. He could be seen as a “character” like Loki from the Avengers or, yes, even something like Dexter. No one they know has had contact with him, they have not felt the fear and horror he caused personally.

But women fantasizing about Elliot Rodger were definitely alive and well when he opened fire in Santa Barbara in May of this year. Their obsession runs much deeper than their appearance — these women have studied their hate-filled videos and their manifesto. His hatred towards women had no effect on removing these hybristophiles. In fact, it seems to do the opposite, all the women attracted to Rodger have a common desire — to be his first girlfriend. Be the girl who calms your anger. Some fantasize about Rodger with Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris from the Columbine shooting, claiming they could show him how to win women. Hybristerotica presents two pieces of erotic “fan fiction” about Eliot Rodger, one written from his point of view and the other told from a woman's point of view — In Come Over and Fuck Me, she imagines herself as his lifelong friend, without realize his desire for her.

The erotica isn't well written, but that's not the point. It doesn't have to be like this. The very thought of fucking these dangerous men is what captivates the women who participate in the hybristophilia tags on Tumblr. Serial killer and hybristophile fans receive a lot of negative attention from other Tumblr users, particularly those who like true-crime but don't want to be associated with people who fetishize and idolize killers. If you go through any of the popular hybristophilia tags, you will see the defenses of hybristophilia over and over again. They insist that they are not mocking the victims or supporting the crime, they respect the victims — they are just attracted to the killer. The most interesting case is the group of young women obsessed with the high school shooter, TJ Lane.

While his fans insist they respect victims and their families, they also praise him for wearing a 'KILLER' shirt to court and share GIFs of him telling his victims' parents: “The hand that pulled the trigger to kill your children is now gone. Masturbates with the memory of them. Fuck you all,” while shocking everyone.

They call him “sass” and tag photos of him as “The King of Sass/The King of Attitude.” Almost all of TJ Lane's memes, GIFs, and collages involve this quote, either in full or just part of it. They love him, in large part, because he was disrespectful to the families of his victims. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, and the more violent the fantasy.

Some hybristophiles claim they are completely normal, one even cited her therapist in defense of her obsession with TJ Lane. Others assert that it is no different from any other paraphilia (a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depends on fantasy and engagement in atypical and extreme sexual behaviors) and as such should be respected.

It's worth noting that pedophilia is the most common type of paraphilia, and no one is suggesting that everyone supports pedophiles as normal — not even hybristophiliacs who like men who have abused children. The four most common types of paraphilia involve a rejection of consent — pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, and frotteurism — the act of rubbing against non-consenting people. Another fact worth considering in “respecting” as “normal” in hybristophiles is that paraphilia often leads to sexual dysfunction — needing what attracts them for sexual gratification.

If hybristophilia makes women [lovers of serial killers] unable to have a healthy sex life with men who don't want to rape or kill them, I would dare say it's not normal at all. These observations are not intended to judge hybristophilia communities, per se, but being fair to them also means showing the side that does not support their claims to normality.So why do women seek out sociopaths? Why does a killer with multiple victims attract them so much? There were even searches for Timothy McVeigh in the hybristophilia tags — there seems to be no limit. Some are purely sexual, some are borderline romantic, and some are downright disturbing considering the men are at the center of the discussion. Here are some of the tags about Jahar (Dzhokhar) Tsarnaev.

The deeper I dug into the hybristophilia tags and sites, the less sense it seemed to make. Going into this, I admit, I thought I would find some groups of misfits who still admired Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez. Like many, I read the published articles showing that the Tsarnaevs, James Holmes, and Adam Lanza (fucker kills lots of innocent children, females get wet) had attracted a female audience — but most of the content cited seemed to be “Wow, how hot he is,” which may be a real opinion — although Most people have a harder time separating a person's attractiveness from their actions.


The desire, the claims of love, the endless support and hero-worship definitely shook me. When I first glanced at the sexually explicit stories, I felt like I was losing my sanity. My brain really can't understand this, especially in cases like TJ Lane, who is not only someone without a shred of remorse, but also took joy in bragging about his crimes in front of the families of those he killed.

I've always watched things like Halloween, horror movies and books, and had a fascination with the dark and disturbing things, being a healthy reaction to a terrifying world. People study serial killers because we know that even though they behave like monsters, they are human. By learning about them, we gain knowledge and this helps us feel proactive and therefore safer. Because when we enter into horror and the supernatural, it becomes a terror that we can control.

It's like a paper mache skull that you can hold in your hand and know it's not so bad. What's troubling about hybristophiles on the internet, what becomes so disturbing, is knowing that they've crossed that line in some way. They went beyond a desire to understand, beyond a fascination, and into an uncontrolled obsession.

Link to the original text: http://sheddingoftheego.com/2015/08/23/hybristophilia-the-female-attraction-to-violence/

After adapting the text, I need to say this topic is DISGUSTING, but thanks for reading.


Womens wickedness is really subtle. The wicked carnal male nature is more upfront. Its like a beast. Fighting for resources, killing for pride/respect or mates.. and such carnalities. While womens are more subtle. Theirs is hypergamy, delusion, ambivalence.

I think in todays time the average person is more afflicted continuously by toxic women carnal nature than by toxic carnal men behavior. Though, as you rise/to rise in the ranks and popularity, you will be eventually gatekept by extremely toxic men behaviors (gang mentality, cuthroat, fight for resources/mates).

From what i observed they are equally toxic and work as a system. Both human carnal natures are unrighteous. But they are different in nature. But i agree, the intensity of a mans toxicity is way greater than a womans. Though, a womens toxicity is farther reaching, longer lasting, and more infectious, yet lower in potency. I compare it to water torture vs execution. Think today with feminism (90% of women now share some extremely feminist or hypergamous view, as well as a significant portion of men, of at least 50% who also share the same. And then you have women are wonderful effect). I think more women than men are legitimately toxic, but in a very small potency and in a more unidentified/hidden manner, compared to the men or masc beliefs that are so potent there isnt even a need for as much. Her toxicity (like hypergamy or the typical delusional takes and views) often goes unchecked also, and more readily accepted into society which it spreads like wildfire. Whereso a mans toxicity often requires some sort of RL force behind it to go anywhere.


One of many comments extolling the justice of God and calling Job out that his attitude was placing his own 'justice' about God

"If you sin, how does that affect him?
If your sins are many, what does that do to him?
If you are righteous, what do you give to him,
or what does he receive from your hand? Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself, and your righteousness only other people"
(Job 34:6-8)

This is one of Elihu's most important arguments, as it pointed out to Job that the righteousness of man cannot 'buy' God's favor, nor do the sins of man 'harm' God. Rather, God created his perfect law for the benefit of man. Elihu, conversely, promoted the righteousness of God in taking any course of action, regardless of the good or evil of man. He took Job to task for thinking that it was futile to be good then, if the good could face trials as well as the wicked. He pointed out that the Lord will repay men for what they have done (in this life or the next), so it is very profitable to fear the Lord even if one does not see immediate ben trying to explain the nature of God with only the limited information available to human knowledge, chrisolivertimes we are in book of job, story of cian aand abel first book of adam cain eroused by jelousy. jelousy good/bad perspective used to entice cain mimd pattern with xxxten vice city aka gta mind pattern supericial benifactors mind with story of job lesson


"God" mathematically, scientifically, and logically has to be real as long as we have a consciousness and can perceive living in any fashion. Forget how religion explains god, and forget the concept of "god" being exclusively a singular deity. Think of it like this,

Life has a paradox. The paradox of life is that something had to have created something else. Cause and effect. If aliens created humans, then who created aliens? If water and bacteria created flesh, then what created that? If energy created the big bang, what created energy? This question and paradox goes to infinity. The answer to that paradox is an equal infinity based concept. It is "god". All encompassing, or at the very least to our understanding, a thing or concept that is in that realm of infinity (nothing before it etc.). In shorter terms, the proof of gods existence is the answer to the paradox of life.


Women are not creatures of action, they operate best in a weak nature, hence why for example they are more proficient at doing things like organizing protests and social media hashtags. if they had the same mental aspect as males, their toxicity would manifest itself in much more abhorrent events and atrocities. also, the iq bell curve plays a part. almost all women are in the middle lower while men are more distributed along the curve. so more men can be unpredictably violent and impulsive.

Women nature were capable of acting out their desires like men, india, africa, and asia go bye bye. eugenics become officially government enforced policy. but they don't, instead they keep those thoughts secret and virtue signal. and all virtue signaling comes from fear of being discovered. why many male feminists are rapists. they virtue signal to camouflage their true nature and thoughts. and women and them are often the biggest virtue signallers


Its a deep rooted issue. Humanity itself is a sort of war between the animal body and the mind-(which implies higher intelligence). What differentiates us from animals are our minds. Our level of perceptions and mental and ability to manifest these things collectively. This is why i never see animals praying or deviating from the script, as much as humans are able to do.

Strong carnality is in most cases most associated with wickedness to the human level mind. As we are not just beings of the body(animal) intelligence. This is why animalistic natures such as murder are seen as okay and even righteous for a wild animal to do (as it is a being of the animal nature), but not okay for humanity(as we are not just exclusively beings of the body animal nature, and are observable to ourselves to posses a higher mind state than most if not all land animals). The essence of the mind, and the body work together, but are somewhat at conflicting states. Carnality and the ways of the heart are at odds with the higher intelligence that our mind implies. Its hard to explain exactly why, but the best way to see it is the body(the animal) and the mind as sort of separate systems. The case we have in todays time with humans are that most humans are more in agreeance with their animalistic nature, instead of their mind and higher intelligence (why this is the case is a variety of reasons to long to explain in this particular post.). But in essence, the cultivation of one side, usually means the abandonment/impairment or pain of another.

In other words, Most people operate in the carnal human body nature and are most familiar with it. Carnality is strongly attribed to wickedness, and humans are more familiar with carnality(thus wickedness). Wickedness is attractive to the human body as it usually manifest itself as carnality(animal behaviors). This is why wicked people, or popular people in general are known to be carnal. Think resource money hungry cartel boss, killer gangstar, sex fiend women. To become popular in generally usually means some sort of excessive carnal success. etc. To take it up a notch, the diety that represents evil is strongly associated with carnality. Satanists actually practice carnality. Their favorite day is their birthday.

Anyways, carnality includes standard female and male nature. For females, as an animal, carnality is what they are attracted to. Carnal male behaviors. This is why bad boys, mafia men, alpha guys who delve into that polygamous, cutthroat male carnal behavior win and imply to the female a strong sexual desire, than lets say a BETA(who plays into a feminine women nature) and even moreso a person who chooses to focus on a higher intelligence(think messiah figure), that actually is even below beta and alpha (a non participant in the dating pool).
This cycle is also why women always get left after their hypergamy, as the ones they chase are statistically more likely to be carnal, and thus toxic or toxically polygamous due to the preselection of such carnal behaviors. Also why this whole men blaming is seen as a circlejerk due to the predictability and cycle of events that occur. Ofc the war is waged, and the ones that will suffer and get the strays of hate will be the non participants.


This is wrong. Very baised. Men have it far much worst dating. While this one observation may make some sense, you fail to compare the mens side of things against women. If you were to do that, youd notice that men have at least double the amount of issues when it comes to this niche, compared to this one observation you made about women.

And while you may be somewhat right, its important to understand that this is an issue that they create for themselves due to their own hypergamy.

Hypergamy is relative. Put 1000 "gigachads" in a room with 10000 women, and the modern women nature will still find a way to statistically, and exclusively desire only the top 10-15% preselection wise. This is studies and observable in every facet of modern society.
What your explaining is post hypergamous decisions. Of course she will have trouble competing against the same men.

This issue is even more worst because men are statistically rarer than women, yet with all of the social structures that favor matriarchy and female natures, women just have an advantage socially and socioeconomically. Nor are as libido magnetized as a man. Theres no reason any men should be having trouble dating, yet here we are.

It is dishonestly wrong to claim:
" IN TERMS OF DATING. a guy has to be 1 tall, good lucking and thats it,"
No idea where you got this idea from. You must have never heard about preselection or women are wonderful effect. Anyways, men are known to have an extremely different level of qualifications to be acceptable in dating, one that literally is dynamic and ever changing relatively to all of the other men due to hypergamy. This is why old age men did not let the female nature take over societal wise and kept power(and thus their wives). If you think tall and goodlooking makes you passable then you have no idea about society and are looking through the lense of female influence. Aesthetics matter more to you, but not as much to her.


Women are very impressionable socially and are similar to children mentally. They learn and operate a different way than biological men. More proficient or prone to being; Subservient(which is why they excell in rule-following forms of academia), socially interested, impressionable and subject to subjective emotional bias. Anyways, i find it interesting why we can see in society, women or homosexual(or low T/intersex) men who are often in gatekeeping positions of power ,fame, money, and caste. Theres a reason for this. Women are generally are more influenced socially then biological men, better at following and creating a social acceptance to rule. Less divergent in thought. The male mind is more proficient or prone to being sidedly; independent(energetic to strive for freedom), deviant etc. Its been like this for a long time. Even old kings were known to have eunuchs around them instead of men in the courts due to the nature of men.

So its not just white or black. All women will naturally be programmable to propaganda, and especially social effects. Modern societys culture is their safe haven. So if the media and such tools that determine society's culture, exclusively advertise black or white men as sexy, then guess what comes next. Just look at the covid vaccine fiasco. Additionally, a women's main attraction comes from preselection. Things that imply attraction such as caste, status, wealth, money, looks. Does not have to exclusively be logically beneficial or objectively attractive traits. This is also a key to how to truly be attractive to women(also why babyalien can pull more women than 99% of people on this forum). To top it off, humanity is strongly attracted to unrighteousness, as carnality and the ways of the flesh are strongly associated with wickedness, thus wickedness more familiar and impressionable to the person than other moral levels.

Combine this with media that loves to garnish minorities who display deviantly exciting forms of poverty influenced behaviors, and you have a really interesting situation.
The most popular forms of media is hip hop and pop. Hip hop is majorly black . This sort of lights the impressionable brain that black people (as the amalgamation of western melanated people, regardless of actual ethnicity or facial looks), share the same SMV caste wise to the medias representation, especially if the person prolificates/displays the same archetypes that are socially known to be popular. This is why people say that if your not thugmaxxed as a black guy then your basically incel tier.

Think of all the old age beauty standards that we in todays time see as shit. Also think of all the supermodel faces you and people here call stacy yet i think are actually very masculine and intersex. Attraction is truly subjective, but its mainly influenced socially. Im not saying black people are ugly, but if you look at the fact that less than 50 years ago black people were considered monkeys and ugly to women, its very very very easy to see what caused the change. Media.


I think the vast majority of incels are high disgust standard-cels with more feminised sexuality than most men. We already know women are mostly Chad or HTN+ only, but that’s reasonable because they have the desirability to be so.

A lot of men get fuck all from women they are actually attracted to but the masculine imperative is to fuck by any means necessary. High disgust high inhib incels however, have adopted the female sexuality without the desirability to back it up.
Ironically this is the case i observed too.

Thats why a lot of people who are known to be traditionally incel still rave over stacy and becky, or oogle around rating men and women. I noticed them to be just as standardly hypergamous, without the actual masculine nature that equalizes the women aesthetic across board. To me, theres no such thing as a 10/10 or 1/10 women. This lack of fulfillment in the feminine hypergamous nature is what creates that typical feminine pattern i see so often with men who complain about how they cant be chad. Being traditionally masculine while still holding a high disgust leads to another form of reaction that is not "why cant he be me". This is the true level as it curbs the desirability problem through masculine imperatives.

Im conflicted about female desirability. I dont think they should have as much desirability. Its the feminine hypergamous nature within those starved men that help create such a thing. I also think its artificially inflated with social structures that favor the female nature. Truth is, men are biologically rarer than women, even moreso mentally and sex preference wise. So to me, its not reasonable for them to be hypergamous torwards an excusive class of men, considering their perception of exclusivity is relative. It was never reasonable and is always relative, and this is why men should (and have in the past) totally dominate the sexual market, even if it was by force. Like disregarding a childs cries when you take him out of the candy store. Its for their own good.


The concept of a common adversary as a unifying force in society is a notion that has been observed throughout history. The idea is that by having an external "enemy," whether it be a person, a group, or an ideology, the internal members of a community can strengthen their bonds with each other, focusing on this shared opposition rather than their internal differences. This external threat becomes a rallying point, a reason for solidarity, reducing the likelihood of conflicts within the group. My theory is that similarly, in building long-lasting relationships between individuals, a shared adversary or challenge can create a strong bond. Partners may find common ground and mutual understanding when faced with an outside force that tests their unity, encouraging cooperation and deeper connection.


W have a chameleon nature where they will learn and know the bad parts about their nature yet keep it "hidden" (conflict of interest). Part of the reason the exposed pilled information was led by mens revelations. Its like how you have a girl in a guys friend group who acts like the bros just to go around and tell her female friend group about men behaviors and such. The latter rarely happens. Its probably a nature within them built to ensure protection. On the bad side, they also have a tendency to not know shit about what they are saying and move their bais based on emotional reaction. Id say this is more biological and an estrogenic (female hormone) effect. Add that emotional bias and female nature, to the conflict of interest, to thirsty men, to harsh truths, to matriarchally dominated social structures, and you'd see this forum gone within a few months. Hence why women on this forum will eventually turn this into a shitshow. Hence why its easy to see who is male or female sometimes even based on the quality and types of post. At best this will overnight turn into a club. Also they are groups of intersex or gay/feminist women who actively sub out these types of mens communities. For whatever reason (sometimes due to cause-effect of hypergamous nature), (or even because of the significant pool of intersex men mascaraing as the rare biological men) they show a strong dislike towards men. Going as far to push the categorization of pilled truth subjects socially, under derogative labels. Just like how they labeled redpill/blackpill content "incel". Or how people who predict the goverments or wistleblow are considered socially, conspiracy theorists. Socially, they work to sort of disrupt and disturb mens spaces of this nature. Most people have no clue on what a real masculine nature is and will just label anything of this nature mysogonist or "hateful", despite the facts and statistics. Wheather its emotional bias, conflict of interest or whatever, theres a lot of reasons why this happens. Some of it is automatically encoded in their nature and DNA. It can also be a combination of all these factors. For example, subservience and this worlds natural Ai which ensures humanities progression, is observed to cull men and use women/matriarchy as a way to gatekeep excessive diversion/the (naturally proficient) male nature of mental and moral precision. This is just an example. More factors could be at play. Also, like i said before, women have a conflict of interest when it comes to subjects such as bad male nature (beta) bad female nature (feministic) and other such subjects, as they quite literally enjoy the wine of their fruit in todays time. Speaking up and encouraging mental and morally precise karmatic consequences when it comes to beta pedestaling, is for a lot of women past initial halo, seen as spiteful. Despite the behavior in itself being extremely toxic for humanity, for the male, and for society in general. They are similar cases where we can observe where we see this same conflict of interest.


Always has been like this. Love does not source itself within animals. The animal body is a automatous being. Although natural and not something like a iron artificial robot, explaining love as the ways of the body (male or female) is like observing a packaging machine to have the capability of love. Everything the carnal man and women think is love is usually sensuality or influenced by it. Giving, kissing, cuddling, sex. Its all sensuality. Its for the body. Just like how sensuality is a derivative of love, but love itself is not limited to sensuality. The capabilities of love in the human body is vastly limited and will ultimately revolve around neediness, as the human body is in a perpetual state of need, suffering, motion, decay etc. So we can only truly imply love. Some are better than others when it comes to love. Sometimes, the less sensual the derivative of love you display, the greater the essence of "love". This is why one of the greatest forms of love are known to come in a way where the reciprocate party may dislike or not agree emotionally or physically, with your action or behavior (like telling harsh truths, or mentally having the best interest for a kid).
Love is something far more complex, and in a way, love is already at full capacity as love can be described in essence, as intent. Life itself is love, and things like hate, sensuality, are also synonymous or derivatives of love.
This modern day level of love of money and resources is a real animalistic and carnal form of love. Its needy, just like the body. Its not respectable to me for a human being with a functioning consciousness to act like this. But regardless, Im no animal abuser so im not that proactive of harm, or eradication. Its just that people with these level of consciousness should not represent or be put in the position to influence others to share the same view (reason why i dislike carnality, because it proves to be the most influential behaviors). Even so, this behavior is as a animal, and people ultimately prove how they should be treated based on their level of consciousness and mental and moral precision. But to determine that, it depends. For SOME women though, paypig behavior is a common theme. Its despicable, and in most cases a telling sign of their level of consciousness as their QOL and nature relative to the male species more easily reveals their own actions and behaviors that led to this form of love to show fruit (same reason causes of such behaviors and views are so commonly predicted by many people in pilled communities).


Intersex conditions have their brain wired both sides.

That transgender statement of configuration has some truth into it, but its lacking important information. They underestimate the system we call the body. Science does also. The body is extremely complex and almost falls under the quote "physicist Emerson Pugh famously said, “If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

Think of all the electrons, atomic systems that work together, and the almost impossibly large amount of micro and macro chemicals that react with each other to create a functioning system. Testosterone and estrogen are simply the macros. Those chemicals are not even close to the only ones that actually make a man or a women, musicalized or fem. Things like DHT, Control Hormones, and other varying androgens and the varying ratios between male and female are not mentioned but are very important. This is why you cant turn a man into a women, or a women to a man via hormones or by cutting of your dick etc. If anything, the only chance you have at actually sharing both traits is intersex, and that runs though biology and genetics itself. This process is secretly referred to as "in utero"

The key is intersex. This is a personal observation, but i can see clearly that society is increasingly intersex. They are a lot of variables that would come to play. There is Evidence that shows how endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment can cause reproductive variation through dysregulation of normal reproductive tissue differentiation, growth, and maturation if the fetus is exposed to EDCs during critical developmental times in utero. But common sense, nature, humanities history, GMOs, will show you how quality of the seed will always change and vary (usually for the worst unless intently preserved, which does not happen in a society that loves the opposite of mental and moral precision). Same applies to the human body.

Anyways, even people with intersex conditions are not completely 50/50 male/female, though they are some that get close. And, if my suspicion is right, i think that the majority of human males do have intersex conditions, Maybe not entirely physical and sometimes mentally, (though, you can still observe the excessive curves in most males vs a authentic transgender, or lack of jaw in males but prevalent jaws in women models as as well as transgenders)),,,as the male biology has always since the start been rarer to produce and procure. And they are no mistakes in nature. No feature that does not have meaning behind it. Anyways, so i think the case is likely a significant amount of actual intersex women mascaraing as men, as well as the pool of regular women, intersex women, and then intersex men. The order of prevalent percentage in that order also, making authentic biologicals males (physically and mentally), very rare or last on the list. You can easily prove this by comparing and mixing traits of pre estrogen transgenders to your average men and women. You will very quickly observe prevalent traits in T men, that are not as common with your average men, and some traits of T men, which are common with average women. Reverse this process and you can reverse mix traits and eventually have a pool of different traits of males and female. Do the data right, and they will be certain types of men (physically) that you seriously do not see often. Its like how NFTs have different rarity percentages. And this isn't even classifying mental effects (since sex hormones effect the shape of your body and features), which would make the pool even more significant. So unlike what the transgender in your post said, the configurations don't stop at male/female. This is the simple delusional way of looking at it. And perhaps it should not even start with those 2 categories either.

This means a significant pool of men who are more prone to turning the other way or being attracted to the womenly way of thinking and fem nature, and also things like intersex women who associate themselves to the masculine way of thinking and such. This is clearly observed today. They are also varying studies and terms that describe this attachment of behavior like women are wonderful effect, and other observations. Then on top of that, you have the "be yourself" propaganda media which deliberately lures men to become more feminine, plus the other factors such as the significantly dominating matriarchal systems placed in modern society, which make it extremely hard to live as a male and associate yourself to the masculine mental and moral precision way of thinking. This is why i think they are a significant boost of transgenders and DL gay people.


The books of people who tried to find god should have never been introduced to normies. Its not something your average person can comprehend lest it turns into some low IQ fem/carnal slave following shit where the actual content is tossed to the side and instead is replaced with "religion" aka a social group and order that social vamps join to play around and pass time.

The books of people who tried to find god is not something your average person can comprehend lest it turns into some low IQ fem/carnal slave following shit where the actual content is tossed to the side and instead is replaced with "religion" aka a social group and order that social vamps join to play around and pass time. It has derivatives of truth but it isnt the meat of the content. Sadly though, these derivatives become more of a popular take than the meat, which influences others to share the same rock IQ takes.

Thats why you have so many people who say jesus this and jesus that as a person, not even knowing "jesus" was best used as a figurative of. Because obviously the name jesus was probably not the same name that was first introduced in the writing. Its the same with all the other religious books. If you pay attention, the redundancy becomes obvious. Good content and information turns into carnal worship and shit when these types of people blindly interpret it. "Grass is green because of chlorophyll" turns into, "grass is green because god loves you" Both could be correct, but ultimately it depends on how deep your knowledge about the situation is. And the way information works, it can get infinitely deep. The only problem in todays time ab religious thinking, is that theres no accurate foundation nor accurate progression to the knowledge of the situation. So you have people saying grass is green because chrorophyll and then you have people saying grass is green because god loves you, and none of them recons the level of understanding in both (how both of them can be true, but one more practical and considered a progression of intelligence in todays time).

You learn not to touch fire when you are a kid because your mom warns you about it. Then you learn again that you shouldnt touch it because fire is hot. Then as you get older, you learn again the science of why fire is hot, and as you get even older, you learn the science of what happens when you touch it etc. This happens repeatedly. But the issue with the books of religion is tricky, as many dont learn past the elementary infant stage, and the whole matter just becomes low IQ and non practical. So we have wars and shit, (according to the book) end time prophecies and whatnot going on, yet theres no coherence or understanding between it all with these people as they are either missing prerequisites, or further understanding.


This. By default, there will always be a massive power imbalance in a relationship that favors the woman. She can leave the relationship at any point and immediately have hundreds of other men being willing to be in a relationship with her, whereas 95% of men will never have this kind of opportunity. It creates an emotional dependence from the man on the women and compels him to be desperately submissive to her and make concessions to keep her around.

Women have no objection to taking advantage of these power imbalances when it favors themselves though. It's only a problem when men do it. Feminism in a nutshell.

That whole sub should be deleted from reddit. Its a mockery to people who actually have legitimate issues with dating and such. Most of it is relative entitlement. People who are eating grass fed ribeye complaining about never having wagyu.

Just scroll down. Many posts are about them not having "as much" attention as what pretty girls have had. I see claims with these same women claiming they get male gaze, and that they are trying to remove themselves from it. They consider it toxic. This is equivalent to a man complaining on a forum that women actually talk to them or even consider then irl. It makes no sense and ive noticed these types of women spaces are made from spite. Like purplepill debate, pinkpill, women going their own way. Its always a reaction or derivative from authentic male movements. Theres a reason why these pilled movements orgin primarily by men. Its because statistically and logically, men actually do have issues with these things.

The main problems is what women(and most people) think love is. Love as a human, is sensuality. To the human body, sensuality is love.
Men who want to have sex with you is fulfilling the requirements of sensuality they so so desire. This is why men say these women dont want to be loved, they want to be worshiped. Because actual "love" is something that everyone has without exception, and does not require sensuality and shit like constant stimulus. Love(or even derivatives of love such as hate) is akin to the act of consciousness and life itself. Proof of intent.
But human(body) love is sensuality, and this is something all of these women get to significant degrees, yet they are unable to recognize it. Instead they call it toxic. So its not like they dont have love, its that they are tired of this certain form of it. And lets not even go into how man and women work differently biologically, and how libido works. The whole concept of "he only wants me for my body, actually makes no sense at all". As people who say this fail to recognize that they are in the body.

What they desire so much is moreso of a different type of sensuality, a worship. hence why i compare their experiences of human love akin to a spoiled child. If your desired sexually by men, regardless of how toxic you think it is, regardless of how much you hate those groups or types of men, its not a problem with you not being desired, its something other than that. Its preference of the type of "love" your getting. The issue is that they dont admit this and try to act as if incels or men spaces of the same subject are on the same level.

And to top it off, they are relationship focused. Inceldom is more about relationships, its about socioeconomic status and shit too. Like how your biological composition affects what jobs you get, what your expected to do in life, friends and family and other life/death situations. Factually, 80% of men are in general, at a worst place in todays society compared to every single women. There's even syndromes and studied terms that probes this (like women are wonderful effect)

Real incel categories are things like not being sexually attractive statistically to the opposite gender. No sex, nobody wanting to have sex. Also things even branching out past just sexual attraction. Everyone has these issues, but the real issue is that a extremely significant more amount of males that have it than women, and that the discussion of the causes behind them are always blotted.
This is why i can sympathize with the male inceldom as it makes more sense, its not someone eating steak dinner and complaining about apple pie, its not someone eating shitty McDonald meals and not having steakhouse. Its someone not even having leftovers and crumbs to eat at all. Its a total non negotiable lack of life quality, no options. Though, i do believe women inceldoom could exist, i think if we remove a lot of those psudo classifications with ideas that people have not understood like "men only want to have sex with me, not "love" me""... or emotional triggers, it would be significantly less women who actually fit the bill of being incel. Id think this group would be primarily transgender's, people with mental personal conflicts, people who are widely deformed, or extremely obese to the point of high risk. Not people who have preferences.


We live in a very gynocentric society that is sexist against men. To give a few examples, men get longer prison sentences, are convicted at higher rates for the same crimes, and receive longer sentences for killing women than for killing men. (i.e. men are disposable)

We always assume men to be the aggressor in any encounter. Women actually commit more domestic violence than men, yet we always assume it's the man who is abusive. Another example, "My husband tells me what I should wear" Sounds bad right? How about "My wife tells me what I should wear." The first sounds worse because we assume that a man with some power in the relationship will abuse his power, but we don't assume the same for women.

Men have to be extraordinarily careful not to sound like they are blaming women whenever they vent any sort of frustration or emotion. For instance, "Why do women like that asshole and not me?" is something that you might find mocked in r/niceguys or r/justneckbeardthings. Yet if a woman says something like "Why does that guy like the hot girl but not me?" she would be most likely receive sympathy. Men have to be super careful in choosing their words, which is ironic because we encourage men to express their emotions more. Yet when they do, we shame them for it.

Male sexuality is considered shameful. Men are considered creepy if they have a blow up doll, for an example. Yet it's perfectly normal for a woman to have a collection of dildos. Men are shamed if they date much younger women, even if she is a consenting adult.

Perhaps this isn't too controversial, but women are attracted to status, masculinity, power, and good looks. They are more attracted to a man if other women want him. They are no less superficial in their sexual preferences than men. Weakness is unattractive to women. Being an emotional, sensitive man is a death sentence in the dating world.

RPillers have a right to be angry and upset because men are almost always blamed for everything. They are assumed to be the bad guy. TRP is the one place that they can get relief from this and where women can be the bad guy for once. I also feel like all women are partially responsible for their state. We should have been the ones to stand up and defend men. Men have a hard time standing up for themselves without being perceived as weak or misogynist.

The more power the man has in the relationship, the longer the relationship lasts and the more power the woman has, the unhappier the relationship.


@ProklysmosThe "never change" thing is pretty strange to me. There have been numerous times in my life where I've had people call me out for expressing opinions or behaving in a way that contradicts things I said or did when I was much younger. It felt like they were basically pulling a "gotcha" or attacking me for changing over time. Some people actually do stop becoming more mature or mentally developing at a younger age than other people. Those are the kind of people who have "immature" thoughts, temperament, and interests long into their adult lives. One example I'm thinking of is when I recently told my 30 year old sister that paying $400 to get her hair dyed seemed excessive to me, she brought up how when I was a teenager I would pay to get haircuts at a relatively expensive barber shop. I responded by saying something like, "yeah, but I was immature and materialistic back then" and she got offended. This same sister still listens to the same pop music she listened to back then 15+ years ago. She bought tickets to a Taylor Swift concert in 2020, but the tour got cancelled due to Covid. This year she got free tickets for the redo tour, but the resale price of the average ticket was ultra-inflated because people had been waiting for 3 years. I asked my sister how much the tickets were going for online, but she wouldn't tell me. I asked, "what, $1000?" she laughed and said no. 1500? She laughed again. 2000? She shook her head and made it obvious she didn't want me to keep asking. They were tickets for good seats in a Los Angeles tour date, so they were definitely somewhere between like $2500 and $5000 a piece. And she had two tickets for herself and her fiance. So they passed up on a free $5000 at minimum because she was very attached to a pop culture fantasy experience she's been living since the 00's. She and her fiance have been engaged for several years now, postponing the wedding for financial reasons, and they have put off having children because they don't think they've got enough money for that either. Sorry, wall of text for illustration purposes, basically I agree with a lot of what you're describing here. Our mother is extremely narcissistic and I worry that my two sisters acquired a lot of her traits, though they aren't nearly as toxic.


People who always complain about not being loved despite going through so many relationships. You see this commonly with narcy women and carnal men. Loved??? No they want to be worshipped they want to cause stress while you shoulder it, want to hold you to traditional gender roles while seeking liberation from the traditional balance to those roles, thjen claim you’re not a real if you question the hypocrisy do you not hear the attitude


A surprisingly interesting subject. For my entire life I had accepted the conventional wisdom that men and women had the same IQs on average, but that men had a greater variance, thus there were 3x as many men that scored as Genius on IQ tests (and presumably 3x as many men that scored as idiots, but that part was never clearly elucidated). But there is a huge problem with the data set, it is based almost exclusively on 18-22 year olds, and just presumes that IQ is fixed throughout life for each sex. And it appears the tests were manipulated to exclude questions that men scored considerably better on than women.


shapeshift nature of women into anything they want, this is why people dont see the truth about female nature correctly especially the nature the word speaks of.

The nature of women and male nature is automatic. the reason i feel some way about fem or male content that reveals truth about feminism or whatever is because my association to this animal. After the spiritual disassociation it becomes like looking at how animals in the field work, like learning about horses and whatnot. My anger or emotion is moreso about my situation of animalistic domination.
your wrong on this part
" IN TERMS OF DATING. a guy has to be 1 tall, good lucking and thats it,"
No idea where you got this idea from. You must have never heard about preselection or women are wonderful effect. Anyways, men are known to have an extremely different level of qualifications to be acceptable in dating, one that literally is dynamic and ever changing relatively to all of the other men due to hypergamy. This is why old age men did not let the female nature take over societal wise and kept power(and thus their wives). If you think tall and goodlooking makes you passable then you have no idea about society and are looking through the lense of female influence. Aesthetics matter more to you, but not as much to her.

your worng in the sense dating and mating and human nature doesn't care about society, your looking at it as whats acceptable to society , this has nothing to do with a womens lenses, this is just babble talk. When that tall good looking guy is fucking multiple women it doesn't matter what societies think. Your mixing what society thinks is acceptable and dating success of tall good looking men. This notion thats looks matter more to men then women is bs talk we literally have data that shows women have much higher standards in terms of looks compared to men.
 
  • +1
Reactions: bwrauycnee, Shkreliii and dreamcake1mo
Dreamcakes post
I think the vast majority of incels are high disgust standard-cels with more feminised sexuality than most men. We already know women are mostly Chad or HTN+ only, but that’s reasonable because they have the desirability to be so.

A lot of men get fuck all from women they are actually attracted to but the masculine imperative is to fuck by any means necessary. High disgust high inhib incels however, have adopted the female sexuality without the desirability to back it up.
Ironically this is the case i observed too.

Thats why a lot of people who are known to be traditionally incel still rave over stacy and becky, or oogle around rating men and women. I noticed them to be just as standardly hypergamous, without the actual masculine nature that equalizes the women aesthetic across board. To me, theres no such thing as a 10/10 or 1/10 women. This lack of fulfillment in the feminine hypergamous nature is what creates that typical feminine pattern i see so often with men who complain about how they cant be chad. Being traditionally masculine while still holding a high disgust leads to another form of reaction that is not "why cant he be me". This is the true level as it curbs the desirability problem through masculine imperatives.



MY take on it
This sounds like some blue-pill beta-cuck talk. Men are not hypergamous comapred to women you sound insane we literally have data, yet folks like you bring up this non-sense. Women view 80 percent of men lower tier below AVERAGE on daintg apps/online dating. Men are more willing to date across and down compared to women. You bring up men comparing women who are becky or stacy or being attracted to ATTRACTIVE women means their hypergamous this is some low iq shit.


Dreamcakes post
Think of all the old age beauty standards that we in todays time see as shit. Also think of all the supermodel faces you and people here call stacy yet i think are actually very masculine and intersex. Attraction is truly subjective, but its mainly influenced socially. Im not saying black people are ugly, but if you look at the fact that less than 50 years ago black people were considered monkeys and ugly to women, its very very very easy to see what caused the change. Media.


Wdf are you talking about, black people were seen as monkeys as a way to remove guilt of white supremaist and bigots. They wanted blacks folks to be seen as less than human, so they wouldn't feel bad about killing them or enforcing jim crow laws. What forced the change wasnt media promotion its was the civil rights movement which gave black folks rights . Attraction is not that much subjective, we literally have dating app/online data and studies. Most men are gonna find yovana ventura sexually attractive.

1701911023288
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii and dreamcake1mo
youre retarded if you think any average org user will read it.

btw, yeah DNRD
i did not read that giant wall of text , i looked at some key parts and commented.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii and dreamcake1mo
Dreamcakes post
I think the vast majority of incels are high disgust standard-cels with more feminised sexuality than most men. We already know women are mostly Chad or HTN+ only, but that’s reasonable because they have the desirability to be so.

A lot of men get fuck all from women they are actually attracted to but the masculine imperative is to fuck by any means necessary. High disgust high inhib incels however, have adopted the female sexuality without the desirability to back it up.
Ironically this is the case i observed too.

Thats why a lot of people who are known to be traditionally incel still rave over stacy and becky, or oogle around rating men and women. I noticed them to be just as standardly hypergamous, without the actual masculine nature that equalizes the women aesthetic across board. To me, theres no such thing as a 10/10 or 1/10 women. This lack of fulfillment in the feminine hypergamous nature is what creates that typical feminine pattern i see so often with men who complain about how they cant be chad. Being traditionally masculine while still holding a high disgust leads to another form of reaction that is not "why cant he be me". This is the true level as it curbs the desirability problem through masculine imperatives.



MY take on it
This sounds like some blue-pill beta-cuck talk. Men are not hypergamous comapred to women you sound insane we literally have data, yet folks like you bring up this non-sense. Women view 80 percent of men lower tier below AVERAGE on daintg apps/online dating. Men are more willing to date across and down compared to women. You bring up men comparing women who are becky or stacy or being attracted to ATTRACTIVE women means their hypergamous this is some low iq shit.


Dreamcakes post
Think of all the old age beauty standards that we in todays time see as shit. Also think of all the supermodel faces you and people here call stacy yet i think are actually very masculine and intersex. Attraction is truly subjective, but its mainly influenced socially. Im not saying black people are ugly, but if you look at the fact that less than 50 years ago black people were considered monkeys and ugly to women, its very very very easy to see what caused the change. Media.


Wdf are you talking about, black people were seen as monkeys as a way to remove guilt of white supremaist and bigots. They wanted blacks folks to be seen as less than human, so they wouldn't feel bad about killing them or enforcing jim crow laws. What forced the change wasnt media promotion its was the civil rights movement which gave black folks rights . Attraction is not that much subjective, we literally have dating app/online data and studies. Most men are gonna find yovana ventura sexually attractive.

View attachment 2593771
I unironically agree with this. This specific post came from another user (like most of them).

Men are definitely not as Hypergamous as women. I think the point was that the users here sometimes spread a Hypergamous tune. Forum specific. But ofc not even close in practicality or nature comepared to women. TYour point about men being more willing to date down i agree 100% and i have made posts saying exactly that before.

I never thought about how jim crow effected smv imo. I know it started somewhere though.

Your point on attraction for black people makes a lot of sense. I remember watching a interview from a guy who had the most kills in the army. He spoke on how him seeing the afgans as a “piece of meat” instead of a actual human was a coping mechanism for him. When i said the change happened because of media i dont mean immediate. Obviously its been progressive, from jim crow etc. moreso what i observed significantly impacted smv within 50 years. Its a low effort post but made for questions. Thanks for the comment and information.
your wrong on this part
" IN TERMS OF DATING. a guy has to be 1 tall, good lucking and thats it,"
No idea where you got this idea from. You must have never heard about preselection or women are wonderful effect. Anyways, men are known to have an extremely different level of qualifications to be acceptable in dating, one that literally is dynamic and ever changing relatively to all of the other men due to hypergamy. This is why old age men did not let the female nature take over societal wise and kept power(and thus their wives). If you think tall and goodlooking makes you passable then you have no idea about society and are looking through the lense of female influence. Aesthetics matter more to you, but not as much to her.

your worng in the sense dating and mating and human nature doesn't care about society, your looking at it as whats acceptable to society , this has nothing to do with a womens lenses, this is just babble talk. When that tall good looking guy is fucking multiple women it doesn't matter what societies think. Your mixing what society thinks is acceptable and dating success of tall good looking men. This notion thats looks matter more to men then women is bs talk we literally have data that shows women have much higher standards in terms of looks compared to men.
women have higher standards. I agree with your comment 100%. I should probably improve my literacy in the near future. I agree with you but this does not really do this subject justice. Thanks for the feedback..
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii
unironically very good read, thank you for putting this together

formatting could be better, needs to be indexed so its easier to skim through
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii, acv700 and dreamcake1mo
nice wall text too bad ill be putting it into a ai sentence simplifier
 

Attachments

  • raf,360x360,075,t,fafafa_ca443f4786.jpg
    raf,360x360,075,t,fafafa_ca443f4786.jpg
    13.1 KB · Views: 0
  • +1
Reactions: Shkreliii and dreamcake1mo
Hey.
Here's a compilation of truth/conspiracy/female nature/blackpill etc/ posts submitted and typed by various ORG users across this and other platforms.

Lately, i have noticed there has been reports of this forum to bad actors, as well as observable server downtime. For this reason, i think it may be beneficial to amalgamate high effort discussions and posts, so that if one day this forum goes bye bye, it could still be possible to reintroduce these posts and topics to the next boat. Feel free to copypaste/archive these texts or add to the collection. Also, i apologize if i fail to source you or the original author in some texts. A lot of sourcing information is lost in translation.

WARNING. LONG TEXT POSTS.















I'm not missing that fact, its just that emotions don't mean anything, everyone has them and they don't really have any importance except to that individual. Except the real world is unforgiving no matter who you are which is why we have to judge things objectively and not through each persons individual lense. If you want to treat women as children that get stressed out and struggle with minor things then they should also have all rights and responsibilities stripped down to a child like level. You cant give women all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men while simultaneously claiming that they need to be constantly forgiven and made special care for because they're actually incapable of handling all the rights, responsibilities, freedom and power as men.

Capable people and incapable people should be treated accordingly and the instant you start straying from this, it can only result in incapable people being thrust into positions that they should never have been in and cant handle. Unconditionally forgiving women's flaws for no other reason than "its their nature" is as ridiculous as saying men should be allowed to rape and murder at will because its "in their nature" and we should just be understanding of that. The purpose of civilization is to overcome nature which is why we place rules and expectations on peoples behavior instead of just allowing them to act however they want at any given moment

But there's literally no need to understand the emotional perspective of an individual since it doesn't matter. How is any one individuals emotions relevant to anything that actually takes place in the real world? Understanding women is very easy and every culture in human history came to the same conclusions: if women, or anyone for that matter, are not capable of getting over themselves and thinking/behaving rationally instead of being slaves to their emotions then what they think or say doesn't matter. Not everyone's perspective is important, especially people who can only see things from the lens of their own emotions and ego instead of just seeing things the way they are

A good example of this is your own response. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it or not, civilization is the opposite of a natural state and cannot exist without controlling peoples nature and their base instinctual urges which is why every civilization in human history has had strict laws and rules on what people are allowed to do and not to do. You don't have to like it and it also doesn't matter whether you do but the more civilization advances, the further and further we are removed from our natural state. It is unhealthy to go too far over the edge but its still happening anyway and will continue to happen. This is achievable, every first world country on the planet currently operates like this and areas of the world that did not set increasingly strict control on human behaviors never developed past the third world because everyone constantly engaged in their most primitive urges with no sense of order which makes it impossible to advance

If rape and murder were not a part of human nature then why do they exist so commonly through human history and why has every properly established culture have laws against them? An example of what's not a part of human nature is grazing in a field or swimming up stream to birth a bunch of eggs. It doesn't matter how you feel about rape or violence, they are a part of human nature and that's why we create laws to control and prevent it. Entirely hypocritical to say that civilization is not about conquering nature and then say that rape and murder is "beastly" when in our most primitive and pre-civilisation eras, these things were extremely common. Go to any third world country on the world where there is a breakdown of infrastructure making it difficult to control the worst of human behavior and you'll see just how common it all is


evil can sometimes be described as militant ignorance. the original concept of sin is a process that leads us to miss the mark and fall short of perfection. While most people are conscious of this, at some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness check. Those that are evil attempt to escape and hide from their own conscience (though means like self deception and such etc.). Now thing of the evil of see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil archetypes. The unwilling to listen to clear truth and such. Ignorant mindsets in todays time where people actively and popularly disregard and have a sort of "happiness to disregard" things of good consciousness.

Antichrist was never referred to be a person, but instead a spirit. They are many people with the antichrist spirit.

Donald Trump just posted this image on his Instagram page. Many will say this picture represents Jesus being by his side through persecution. That is not what this photo represents. This is Trump’s persecution being likened to Jesus’s persecution, as has been done many times before by many including his son, Donald Trump Jr as I’ve pointed out before. Make no mistake, Trump in his heart believes he is a Christ-like, messiah figure that will save the world so he can take credit for it. Trump sees the praise and adoration Jesus receives and wants that for himself. His entire life philosophy has always been about being number 1. This is exactly why the religious zionists in his corner are and will continue to push for him to fulfill these messianic prophecies of protecting Israel and bringing peace to all nations. So that he can claim to be the messiah. Lucifer fell because of pride. And so too will the Antichrist be led into perdition. Because he magnifies himself in his heart. That’s what the biblical Antichrist is, a man with the prideful characteristics of Lucifer who tries to be Jesus. This is exactly the strong delusion talked about in 2 Thessalonians 2:11. Keep your eyes and heart on Jesus Christ alone, and look not to earthly princes to save you.


@justlolatthisworld7917 "Einstein" means "a rock" in German. "Einstein" was literally "as dumb as a rock". Open mocking in plain sight. I thought of this yesterday and it made me think of you anon, since I've heard you rightfully mention how Einstein was a literal moron.


Honestly its a lot of complication in the bible. Many things are not to be taken literal, or to be taken BOTH literal AND nonliteral. And i dont think this is because the bible was made to be inherently complicated, but even moreso the fact that language translations lose meanings overtimes. This is the reason strongs concordance exists.

We have to remember were reading the book in english. Theres so many double meanings in the English language, and words that categorize new meanings outside of the predecessor synonyms ETC.

For example, the beasts referenced in the bible. Clearly that is not literal but moreso referencing a country/system (technology hub in todays time) sort of thing. Christ was also implied to be the living law. Its even hard right now to explain in words.

But the point im trying to make is, i think the whole categorization of "demon", to a singular independent being, is kind of shallow thinking. The word demon is limited to what we learn about it. For many, this means some singular metaphysical deity. But lets look at it from a physical perspective. There has to be a system to everything. Thats the physical world we live in. Anything that materializes or influences behavior in such a manner has to sort of have some sort of physical(or metaphysical) process to incept or influence. Especially a demon, which has questionable authority over life. For example, the body in itself i guess could be a called a demon, or a host of wickedness, and that being dedicated to fulfilling the bodys desires leaves you "possessesed" into the bodies lusts. Hence why demons and body sickness are strongly correlated. Technically all of the prerequisite boxes would check off. Meaning the fruit of the "demons" which is posession (leaving you to do its own will, weather the lust is the satification for abusing, or all the other carnalities that people grow to adapt and be proficient in).

Not saying this is exactly how things work, but just to give a perspective. I feel like your question in itself is too narrow and it reminds me that sometimes the confusion is not in truth, but perspective of whats actually going on.


You lot of you would be better off learning how to be more cunning in society as that's how most social normies operate.
Also realising how they are taken by appearances. Not just appearance of your look but appearance of your general demeanour, as they use this to both gage how good life is going for you and whether you are a social success.
Learning that beauty standards are higher in major cities like London, LA, Miami, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Toronto, Sydney etc. No shit. It's a city. The rate race is stronger.
Most normies are not that talented at much. They just conform with mannerisms, slang, mainstream ideological narratives, shit they wear and what they believe in. They are followers and very agreeable until they see you being disagreeable to popular culture. They aren't that insightful, interesting or humorous.
Even guys with their own minds and that are not followers learn this. Unless you are making a deeper connection with a person, all that matters is how you appear on the surface. And if they are a matrix plugged in normie you should not even be making a deeper connection. They should be your associate to connections.
Realise everything is about immediate identifiable perception with normies. While you might be more open minded before sussing what somebody is all about, they ain't the same way lol. They are so plugged in that they run on autopilot and everyone needs to be in a box that they can understand otherwise something is off and fishy about them. So identify yourself before they identify you and treat you the way they think you are. This is very subtle.
And yes if you are someone bordering on chadlite you will be even more under this scrutiny, because the last thing a normie wants to see is a guy that looks stand out good and is not plugged into normie wavelength of communication


This is because the concept of being a "loser" was created to shame men by other men. Men created the concept of being a "loser". Now, since women hold so much power in society and the dating market the idea of being a loser has shifted toward a more superficial end. Where you were judged in the past by other men, now you are judged mostly by women who aren't rational and will judge you off how you look rather then what you do. Men in power are meritocratic, whereas women in power are emotionally unstable eugenicists. Whats worse is there is now no checks and balances to control these power that women hold. Affirming these ridiculous, and useless standards for an actual flourishing society.


About trying to settle the deal about inceldoom to official channels. They have there own skin in the game to keep this ideology from spreading. Skimming the paper, It doesn't seem to really consider WHY this ideology is becoming popular, just how to stop if from doing so. Now, it is written in a journal of criminology so I can see the reasoning, but why is it even in a journal like that in the first place? You would think a sociological or cultural journal would be better. They only wish to understand the blackpill because it's becoming a threat to the social order, and to women. I would be more sympathetic to these authors (both of whom are women, which could lead to some subconcious bias) if they would try to consider the plight of these men that fall into this ideology, but all it appears to be is more damage control from a system that is inherently against men's interests and intends on fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.
This.


when it comes to animals (carnal humans), a human (in this case a "spiritual" focused person) needs to cage them up or structure them somehow less they themselves get killed or affected by animalistic behavior. Why do you think religion is always what follows after truth seeker movements, after the few individuals that actually gave a crap about truth. Thats why i call it a derivative. Pest control. Carnality is the way of the animal. Religion is the ordinance of the animal nature. Islam, christianity, whatever. Its the same thing. And they are all flawed. The frustration behind the argument for your religion is misdirected and carnal imo.


Cancer growth and metastasis in a fueled by the immune system being in a hyper allergen state (TH2).
Fasting greatly reduces allergic reactions to food, promoting a TH1 mediated immune response which is required for cancer cell clearance.
Excess histamine = Excess cortisol = Estrogen dominance = TH2 mediated immune response.
Liver and gallbladder function play a crucial role in these issues.
The problem is, when the allergen sensitivities stop, and TH1 mediated immune response turns back, the immune system will start going after any latent infections you were harboring.
This is known in holistic health circles as a “healing crisis”.


I don't wanna bring a son who will suffer in a matriarchal society or a daughter who would turn to OF hoe while i can't do nothing, we need to keep old school ideologies, it's even helps against hypergamy
Your better of creating or starting your own movement. Islam is already toast. Its doing what its always done. But for the animal, a country sized fence is almost as if it were no fence at all. Its going to have to be a new religion or derivative. Ultimately to get the attention of the carnal nature your going to have to use different tactics. Marketing, deception, favoritism etc. Look at how "hebrew isrealites" secluded the bible and used the race bait as a pull.


Areas with high population density (many people in an area) and high interaction (something as simple as seeing someone, even online or on a newspaper counts as an interaction, independent of if they know them or not) creates inequality. The more dense and the more interactions, the worse the inequality.
This is because, if there's a group of 5 people, things are more equal in every domain compared to if there were 500, or 5 million or 5 billion. The more people, the more outliers there are. These outliers create inequality (economic, dating, etc.)
The population density allows people to see the gap of their situation to their outliers. This outlier affects the normie.
High population creates outliers.
High population density allows people to be aware of the outliers.
These environments created what John B. Calhoun called "behavioral sinks". Basically, a behavioral sink is a collapse in productive social behavior, where increased negative emotions, disrupted social structures, and abnormal behaviors prevail.
The rats formed social and dating hierarchies, Chads got the women and the non-Chads usually either...
  • Developed non-straight sexualities
  • Became timid, weak, apathetic, withdrawn asexual hikikomoris/neets (adolescents and young adults who become recluses in their parents' homes, isolated from society)
  • Or desperate, erratic and unsuccessful (pickup autists and redpill roaches)
Chads became aggressive, and since the non-Chads were all withdrawn from society and responsibility, the women had to fend for themselves and protect Chad's children (with humans, it's either the cucked normie's child or she's childless, since Chad doesn't want to reproduce with her, only sex). The female rats became aggressive, neglectful of their children, and non-motherly.
Infant mortality rose due to neglect, male and female rats gave up on dating due to discontent and negative emotions, birth rates dropped, and the new and smaller children grew up to be asexual since they never really learned sexual behaviors due to their parents giving up on mating. The rat society aged to death due to population collapse and low birth rates.
Of course, this isn't perfectly applicable to humans, remember that. For humans, economic, and other kinds of inequalities also play a major role in behavioral sinks, but if if the trajectory of society keeps going where it's going, we could very well get a comparable result as human beings to what the rats got. Birth rates are plummeting and our societies are mentally ill, just like the rats.

Anyways, Why am I showing you all of this?

Because dating environments differ in blackpill severities. Due to population density and population count.
There could be "tiers" to the blackpill.
Basically, in some dating environments, you'll need to literally be perfect, in other environments, you have to be HTN at least.
Also, consider that the fact that dating environments men and women have been in the past also can influence their mating decisions.


Anti oxidants can actually be pro oxidants if you have mitochondrial membrane complex issues or NAD metabolic problems / imbalance with age.
How do free radicals get quenched and removed from the body? The body cleaves electrons off of the substance, reducing its reactivity, making it less dangerous and easier to incorporate or dispose of.
But what happens if large amounts of anti oxidants rapidly quench and reduce free radicals and pollutants in the body, releasing massive amounts of electrons?
Normally, those electrons would be shuttled into the electron transport chain and used to make ATP. But, as you get older, or if you have mitochondrial membrane complex 1 to 4 issues, your body is less able to handle a flood of electrons.
This can lead to metabolic bottle necks or even overflows.
What does this mean? Those electrons can lead to a flood of hydrogen peroxide in the body. If the H2O2 levels overwhelm the ability of Catalase to quench it all down to water; If it builds up: greying hair, stem cell issues, mtdna number decreases and telemorase issues, leading to lowered maximum replicative lifespan of stem cells and mitochondria.
Rapidly increased aging.
Vitamin E, a powerful anti oxidant, can significantly lower lifespan. The studies can never accurately tell you why. I can. It's the overwhelming flood of electrons into the ECC.
Resolving electron transport chain issues is important for healthy aging.
As for NAD+ and Nadh. NADh is an electron donor. If you have too high NADh, it shows metabolic disorder. Shows you have electron transport chain issues.
If you don't resolve them, it's possible supplementing NAD will just rapidly convert to NADh, adding fuel to metabolic fire.
The fix for that, in leiu of fixing the electron transport chain, is combining all anti oxidants with electron acceptors or getting more in the diet.
They can mop them up, order them properly, recycle them for use, or help dispose of them.
We need more electron acceptors and less electron donors in our diets. Especially when combined with NAD or anti oxidants.


I dislike most quotes and similar forms of socially popular truth "memes" shared online.
Theres no influence of truthful behavior (teaching people their own faults and to not do the same) without proactive and introspectively constructive honesty. Without this constructive honesty, there becomes a influx of people who highlight other people who know the truth, but are not even honest enough to recognize their own behavior and warn against that instead, as that would require actually knowing (being proactive and introspectively constructive), and not just speculative or socially influenced to think or perceive. When women or men repost or rethink about common troupes against each other, they don't really have any intellectual depth, but is sort of low effort, simple minded bait content used to alleviate common (sometimes unaware, or misguilded) frustrations. The reason i dislike this, is because its not coming from a place where the individual (viewer or even reposter) is actually self reflective on their own behavior that may have enabled such frustrations to occur, thus usually no intellectual response from the poster thus, usually no intellectual discussion or gain to the viewer. Think of the common trope that; “men are not shit”. Or even low iq incel bait posts like “women are this” etc, where the lack of intellectual discussion (in depth questions such as why, how, what, etc) do not occur on an individual level due to the format of the post not engaging the viewer to do such. I highlighted proactive honesty because only when a person is able to be proactively honest and introspective about these questions, and are honest about their behavior that may or may not enable such things, real discussion and data analysis can occur, Instead of just reposting. Think of how airplane investigations work. Constructive analysis where there is no side taken, where the women or man admit (be honest) of their behavior and the data is unbiasedly discussed and analyzed for accuracy and future correction. But of course this does not happen with these posts, nor does the UX structure (or even sentencing format the OP would use to create simple posts) allow introspective discussion or constructive analysis to happen. People see it, agree with it, and move on. Holding tight the building frustration until eventually the simple frustration becomes a trigger of hatred, regardless of if that person is actually enabling their own frustrations or not (which may often be the case). For this reason i strongly recommend and prefer data rich communication, no matter how "long", "aspie, autistic, or socially weird it may seem. Ultimately when working with data, its best to receive the best quality.


The following text was taken from the website “Shedding of the Ego” by Mr. K and reviewed by Savage, it's been adapted by John Cracovizk (literally me) for an easier (and less MGTOW) read to my LooksMax.org fellas. The link to the original text is available in the end of the thread, good read!

1. INTRODUCTION - What is Hybristofilia? The Joker and Quinn example

"Ok, gentlemen, today we are going to discuss hybristophilia, a term that seems to me to best summarize the female penchant for the “Bad Boy”.

First, the definition of the term according to an online medical dictionary:

Hybristophilia - Paraphilia in which a person is sexually attracted to someone who has committed a bombing or horrific crime.

It may be best to start with some examples found in pop culture and work our way up to real-world examples.

Many consider the dynamic duo of the DC comics universe, the Joker and his equally psychopathic companion, Harley Quinn, to be a clear example of the “Florence Nightingale effect” (In reference to the dedication of Florence Nightingale, who many consider to be the founder of modern nursing, demonstrated in her patients).
The Florence Nightingale effect is a situation in which a caregiver develops romantic and/or sexual feelings for their patient, even though there is very little communication or contact outside of basic care. The feelings may disappear when the patient no longer needs care, whether through recovery or death.

I believe this is a misdiagnosis of Quinn, or at least only a partial diagnosis.

If you're well-versed in the origins of Joker's bitch, you'll know that Quinn started out as an asylum psychiatrist in Arkham and her name was Dr. Harleen Frances Quinzel, M.D, who was tasked during her internship with the psychoanalysis of some of the worst and greatest psychopaths and criminals of Gotham, one of which was the Joker himself. During the interview process with the Joker, Quinn was mesmerized by his Charisma (personality pilled once again
:soy:
), a trait psychopaths often cultivate to hide their true nature.

Swayed by the strength of the Joker's personality and charm, Quinn fell deeply in love with him, culminating in helping him escape, unleashing one of the most dangerous psychopaths in the DC comics universe back onto the streets (women), until she finally gave up her comfortable life as a psychiatrist and joined him on his crime spree, taking on the persona of Harley Quinn, as we know her today.

Harley Quinn suffered not only from this “Florence Nightingale effect”, but from an advanced case of hybristophilia.

Furthermore, we speculate here that hybristophilia is a condition that is still poorly understood, which appears to be categorized into a very simplistic classification of women who are hybrostophilic and women who are not hybrostophilic, without there being a middle ground between the two.
2. EVOLVING DESIRES - The Complex Relationship Between Violence and Attraction
Now, think back to our remote existence, when human beings led prehistoric, short and often violent lives.

The comforts of our modern, technologically advanced civilization simply did not exist.

The caveman, who sought to have reproductive access to the female sex, had to offer something in return.
  • He needed to assure the females he wanted to mate with that he would provide them with resources, shelter, and sustenance on a regular basis.
  • He had to be violent enough to kill enough animals to feed himself, his women, and the children he would have with them.
  • He also had to have an innate ability to kill other men who wished to move into the resource-rich land that he controlled or that was controlled by the women he had sexual access to.
To put it bluntly, violent men have been selected by women for reproduction since time immemorial, and despite the fact that we have, through a manipulation of evolutionary impulses, built a civilization that largely mitigated this burden of violence, many women still yearn for violent men.


The average woman, of course, does not want to date a violent psychopath, at least not one of the status of a serial killer like Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez. But she longs for some of that caveman violence to emerge through the civilized exteriors of the men she is occasionally attracted to. In essence, women seek to ensure their security and provision in society through a kind of standardized double assault.

Simply extracting male provision via taxpayer subsidy is not enough.

The obsession with protection and provision that we see for women is expressed on a macro scale, through the occasional application of laws involving violence against women, such as “Rape Shield Laws” and “primary aggressor laws”, etc.

Spoiler: What is a Rape Shield Law?
Spoiler: What are Primary Aggressor Laws?

These laws often do not fully consider concepts of equality, such as due process and the luxury of a legal system that presumes innocence before guilt has already been established (this made me remember of this thread of mine where I talked about how your friends would probably leave you be eaten by wolves if someone came accusing you of rape, even though there isn't any proof).

To the collective unconscious, the hive mentality that drives the female masses, due process is irrelevant, they are voting with their hindbrain and therefore vote to ensure that their most primal needs and desires are met and satiated.

The problem is that women can never be satisfied; they point out and demand more security and more provisions… always.

In this way, while female involvement leverages the electoral process in her favor, and after the legal system implements as much gynocentrism as it can handle without collapsing, the individual woman also simultaneously cultivates her particular instinct for her own protection and provision.

In the form of what we call: “Alpha Brute”.
3. THE ALPHA BRUTE - Low Inhib and Dark Triad? Yes, but also a tool for the feminine

An individual prone to violence and physically imposing enough to do a lot of harm with hostility, who is also usually not intelligent enough to understand that he is in a servile position to the woman he is involved with, existing as a hired criminal who gets paid with sexual access.

It's like a pincer attack, designed to maximize benefits for the female collective, and frankly, men's lives, health, or rights have never influenced this process in any meaningful way.
This is just gynocentrism at its maximum power.

Take the following video as an example, preceded by a quick synopsis.

> The woman enters a cafeteria and skips the line.

> The man responds to whoever was on the phone that a woman jumped the queue.

> The woman hears and immediately intimidates him by staring at him, in a very rude, incisive and, finally, violent way.

> By chance, the boyfriend, a 150 kg ex-convict, enters the conversation, and at that moment there is a brief confrontation between the man and the boyfriend.-Out of nowhere, the boyfriend [ex-convict] punches the man, beating him violently.

See for yourself.

So... what do we witness here other than a vicious attack? Well, let's start from the woman's perspective.

Let's assume, hypothetically, that this woman could have started this confrontation without her boyfriend to protect her and that the man who attacked her in self-defense after she initiated the violence.
This woman would probably have no problem trusting the front line of gynocentric protection at her disposal, that being the macro-scale protection of a police force or a white knight who jumps to her defense without even questioning who initiated the violence.

This is why women advocate for first-offender laws, as blame almost universally falls on the man in domestic violence disputes, despite evidence to the contrary, if any. Once again, women want it that way, they are not concerned with due process and equal rights for men, they are concerned with leveraging the State and strengthening their fundamental reproductive habits.

However, in this case, it was her boyfriend who was nearby, who was, for all intents and purposes, the alpha brute we've described. He is prone to violence, physically imposing, and almost seems to take pleasure in subjecting another man to the brutality he can unleash in his master's name. This is an extreme example of what all women want to some degree, community protections from non-violent men in the form of a legal system, and individual protections from violent men in the form of these thugs who are more than willing to disregard those legal protections.

This is what drives the female tendency toward hybristophilia, which appears to only be pathological in the most extreme examples, but which actually lies on a continuum.

This is a spectrum of hybristophilia that ranges from the woman who prefers a beating from her man behind closed doors, to the “serial killer fanatics” who gained notoriety for fainting with excitement in the presence of hyper-violent serial killers, such as Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez, during the fanfare of his trials.

Every woman who asks you to choke her, spank her, spank her ass, or spit on her in a safe, controlled environment during consensual sex is acting on this misunderstood desire.

She is asking you to release your inner caveman, she is asking you to become a violent weapon that she can use for her protection, and in doing so, she receives vast sexual stimulation.

I don't hate women for that, much less do I expect them to change. I believe this is an innate quality of female sexual attraction. Nor do I absolve them if they act on these impulses in some way in real causes of violence, rather than simulated, against other human beings like the woman described above.

Women who are so dependent on their primitive impulses to the point of directing one of these brutes to harm others through violence should be locked up and kept away from civilized people. But in terms of desire, of female attraction to violent men, I suspect there's very little we can do to combat that.
Spoiler: Is there a solution maybe?

We will have to understand women's tendency to select violent men and we have to manage and discourage it as best we can. And so I begin my efforts here with a simple material.

5. EXAMPLES - Abandon all hope, ye who enter here

First, we start with , the “cultural Marxism” conspiracy theorist who killed 77 souls, most of whom were young teenagers. An article titled Norway’s mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik gets hundreds of love letters a year states the following:

STOCKHOLM (AFP) — She calls him by his first name, sends him letters every week and promises to wait for him.

It could be any love story, but Victoria's heart belongs to a mass murderer: Anders Behring Breivik. Responsible for Norway's worst peacetime murder since World War II, Breivik, like many other famous killers, has his share of admirers, a phenomenon that can be accompanied by sexual attraction and, in this case, there is even a term: hybristophilia.

“I really wouldn’t want to live a life without him,” says “Victoria,” who doesn’t want her real name published. A young Swedish woman in her 20s appears distant and impassive, ignoring her fresh cup of coffee in the lobby of a Stockholm hotel. But her voice breaks when she talks about her “dear Anders”.

From a small town in Sweden, she is doing everything she can to get Breivik's prison conditions eased: he has spent the last four years isolated in a high-security penitentiary. He is currently serving a 21-year sentence, which can be extended if he is still considered a danger to society.

Breivik killed 77 people on July 22, 2011, when he detonated a bomb near government offices in Oslo and opened fire at a summer camp for young workers on the island of Utoya. For Victoria, Breivik's isolation amounts to “torture”.

“I worry about him even more now that he's in such a vulnerable situation,” she says.

Unemployed due to health problems, she writes to him to encourage him—far more than the 150 letters ever written—or sends him small gifts, including a dark blue tie that he occasionally wore during his trial. In return, she received two letters from him — which she showed to AFP — the others were blocked by prison officers tasked with censoring his correspondence.

Marriage proposals:

It is not easy to define her relationship with Breivik, a man she has never met, since all her requests to visit him were denied.
She describes him as her “old friend” and as a kind of “brotherly figure” and protector, but admits that she finds him attractive and “there were romantic interests, at first, at least on my part.”
:lul:


She says that their first contact dates back to 2007, when they met through an online game. He cut ties with her two years later, presumably to focus on planning her attacks. But in early 2012, Victoria reconnected with the man who had by then become the most hated person in Norway. And she is not alone.

The Weekly Morgenbladet (A Norwegian weekly, intellectual newspaper, covering politics, culture and science.) reported last year that Breivik receives “at least” 800 letters a year, many of them from admiring women.

During the 2012 trial, a 16-year-old girl (a JB ) asked him to marry her.

Hybristophilia is a term used by criminologists — but not scientists — to describe a sexual attraction to violent killers in prison, who often receive racy love letters or sexy underwear from their fans. Also known as “Bonnie and Clyde syndrome,” it exists across time and place, .Josef Fritzl of Austria, who held his daughter captive and repeatedly raped her for 25 years, and American killer Charles Manson also have their own fan clubs.

According to Sheila Isenberg, an American author who interviewed 30 women for her book "Women Who Love Men Who Kill", says that these admirers often have a history of sexual abuse.

“It's a chance for a woman to be in control (the man is behind bars for life and has no control over anything), when previously she was abused by her father (or) by other men,” she explained to AFP.

“Plus, it’s romance with a capital R: exciting, thrilling, a never-ending rollercoaster. Nothing dull or ordinary about these relationships.”

However, there is no scientific evidence to support the widespread belief that these women feel they are on a mission to help the killer get on the right path in life, said Amanda Vicary, assistant professor of psychology at Wesleyan University in the United States.

“Some women tend to be attracted to famous men — it's possible that the reason some women are attracted to men who have done horrible things is not so much what they did, but the fame they received from their actions,” she said.

Victoria, Meanwhile, she says she's not looking for fame. Her involvement with Breivik has already cost her relationship with her sister, who, upon learning of her ties to him, told her: “You are dead to me.” And she distanced herself from her friends. She admits to “more or less sharing” Breivik's Islamophobic ideology, but says she opposes violence.

So how can she love a man who slaughtered dozens of terrified teenagers, some of whom begged him to spare their lives?

“I think I had to separate Anders from the real Breivik. I think of Anders as my old friend and Breivik as the person who did all these things. The years pass and yet she refuses to give up on him. “I miss you more and more every day. I think my feelings got a little stronger.”
Another interesting article I stumbled across will give you some real insight into the nature of this phenomenon, titled Editorial: On Love, Sex and Murderers and it's quite long so I'll only publish the parts I judge relevant:

At the same time, we are both repelled and fascinated by studying sociopaths and their quest for blood — and most of the time, men seek women's blood. The idea of the “good” Dexter-style serial killer is relatively new, but it is a known fact that women flooded Ted Bundy with love letters, a woman married Richard Ramirez while he was in prison, and there are countless other examples. of lesser-known criminals and their fanatics. Montages with Ted Bundy? Why? We wonder why serial killers do what they do all the time - perhaps that's where the fascination begins for people who identify as "hybristophiles."

A few years ago, I met a sixteen-year-old girl (another jb, I'm starting to see a pattern
:feelsthink:
) who identified herself as Ted-Head (a Ted Bundy groupie). It was easy to ignore the romanticization of a man whose horror she had never experienced. Other interests of hers were, like many of mine, dark and subversive. My thought at the time was that one day she would grow up and realize that finding a person interesting is not the same as finding them emotionally or sexually attractive. After all, Bundy used the fact that he was a handsome man to kill women. He's not exactly the kind of guy you'd want to date (you wouldn't want to go on a date with Rodney James Alcala either, but he won The Dating Game).

I wanted to write a little about the Ted Bundy phenomenon and how it continues into a new generation. I started on a site called Bundyphile, hoping to start at the source in my efforts to write about gaining some understanding from the young women who followed Bundy (one Facebook page referred to him as “The Misunderstood Voice of a Generation”) .

The themes presented on these sites were repetitive:

Bundy wasn’t “that bad.”

Bundy was misunderstood.

Yes, what Bundy did was wrong, but you can love and admire him without idolizing his crimes.

Many of the women and girls who are obsessed with Bundy and other serial killers seem to think that they could be the special person who would change or train them, or be “the one” who would be there for them and stop all the bad things that happenned. In one blog entry, a woman calling herself “Lolita” proclaims, in all caps for all to see, “EITHER WAY, IF MY OWN DEATH COULD FILL TED BOUNDY’S HOLLOW SOUL, I [REALLY] WOULD LOVE TO BE HIS LAST VICTIM." (Can you imagine being adored like this?
:feelsgiga:
)

She claimed they were similar, claimed to understand him. He was “different” (
:coffee:
) from other killers (remember, Ted Bundy was probably dead before this woman was born). Within minutes of my research, it became clear that you can't search for Ted-Heads without encountering Dahmer's “fangirls” and the obsession that many Internet fans have with gay male sex (suddenly fujoshi reference?
:dafuckfeels:
). Specifically, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer engaging in gay sex (wtf?
:feelskek:
). It was around this time that my research took a sharp left turn. Up until this point, women had not only seemed emotionally invested, but obsessed. They seemed to believe that a woman's love for them could have saved the violent men they so idolized.

When I reached the Mrs.Dahmer’s Infinityland website, it became clear that there was much more to this phenomenon than the tendency of high school/college girls to fall in love with “misunderstood” and “shady” men. The whole point of it was about sex. OK yes. I think we knew that, but this was deeply dark and disturbing sex, based completely on how violent and terrible these men were. A post on Tumblr says:

- Most girls: you've seen his big body, right?

- Me: You saw his death counter, right?

The page “Mrs. Dahmer” features several photos of Dahmer, most photos typically taken after being arrested or photos of him in prison jumpsuits. The photos have sweet captions, the same way a high school girl would caption a photo of her favorite Disney crush in her diary (
:dafuckfeels:
)

After I discovered the “hybristerotica” tag on Tumblr, things got really dark, and it happened really quickly. A Tumblr dedicated to celebrating hybristophilia drags me to a corner of the internet I never expected to find.

Sex and Crime All The Time features, among other things, photos of famous serial killers with sexually explicit “confessions” emblazoned on them and a serialized erotic story called Stockholm Syndrome, focusing on Richard Ramirez.

I want to take a moment to state here that I understand that rape fantasy is not the same as wanting to be raped and that many women with healthy sex lives are adept at this type of sex — however, I think this fantasy becomes a little different when the fantasies are focused on men known for violently stalking and attacking women.

I also wonder about this fine line, as these women proudly identify themselves as “hybristophiles” and defend the legitimacy of this attraction, although the profile of women who fit the definition is not a list of positive personality traits, and many of them admit this sexual dysfunction outside of situations where they are fantasizing about the killers.

Hardcore hybristophiles don't always bother to claim that the men they obsess over are “misunderstood” or “only half bad.” When an anonymous Tumblr fan asks if Ted Bundy loved his wife and son, the blog owner responds, “I don’t think so.” There seem to be limits, however.

One user says she is “sad” that Eric Harris’ diary featured homophobic sentiments. The blog owner comforts her by assuming that he would have overcome these feelings if he were alive (can't believe this shit). The conversation, however, had nothing to do with the way these men treated women. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, the more violent the fantasy.

It isn't over yet.
For some reason, I find the obsession with men like Bundy and Ramirez less disturbing than the sexual and romantic fantasies associated with more recent killers. There's a good chance that women who idolize Bundy will wear a pendant with his photo on it and look at his photo alive, given that Bundy died in 1989. He could be seen as a “character” like Loki from the Avengers or, yes, even something like Dexter. No one they know has had contact with him, they have not felt the fear and horror he caused personally.

But women fantasizing about Elliot Rodger were definitely alive and well when he opened fire in Santa Barbara in May of this year. Their obsession runs much deeper than their appearance — these women have studied their hate-filled videos and their manifesto. His hatred towards women had no effect on removing these hybristophiles. In fact, it seems to do the opposite, all the women attracted to Rodger have a common desire — to be his first girlfriend. Be the girl who calms your anger. Some fantasize about Rodger with Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris from the Columbine shooting, claiming they could show him how to win women. Hybristerotica presents two pieces of erotic “fan fiction” about Eliot Rodger, one written from his point of view and the other told from a woman's point of view — In Come Over and Fuck Me, she imagines herself as his lifelong friend, without realize his desire for her.

The erotica isn't well written, but that's not the point. It doesn't have to be like this. The very thought of fucking these dangerous men is what captivates the women who participate in the hybristophilia tags on Tumblr. Serial killer and hybristophile fans receive a lot of negative attention from other Tumblr users, particularly those who like true-crime but don't want to be associated with people who fetishize and idolize killers. If you go through any of the popular hybristophilia tags, you will see the defenses of hybristophilia over and over again. They insist that they are not mocking the victims or supporting the crime, they respect the victims — they are just attracted to the killer. The most interesting case is the group of young women obsessed with the high school shooter, TJ Lane.

While his fans insist they respect victims and their families, they also praise him for wearing a 'KILLER' shirt to court and share GIFs of him telling his victims' parents: “The hand that pulled the trigger to kill your children is now gone. Masturbates with the memory of them. Fuck you all,” while shocking everyone.

They call him “sass” and tag photos of him as “The King of Sass/The King of Attitude.” Almost all of TJ Lane's memes, GIFs, and collages involve this quote, either in full or just part of it. They love him, in large part, because he was disrespectful to the families of his victims. It seems that the worse the offense, the more these women are attracted to them, and the more violent the fantasy.

Some hybristophiles claim they are completely normal, one even cited her therapist in defense of her obsession with TJ Lane. Others assert that it is no different from any other paraphilia (a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depends on fantasy and engagement in atypical and extreme sexual behaviors) and as such should be respected.

It's worth noting that pedophilia is the most common type of paraphilia, and no one is suggesting that everyone supports pedophiles as normal — not even hybristophiliacs who like men who have abused children. The four most common types of paraphilia involve a rejection of consent — pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, and frotteurism — the act of rubbing against non-consenting people. Another fact worth considering in “respecting” as “normal” in hybristophiles is that paraphilia often leads to sexual dysfunction — needing what attracts them for sexual gratification.

If hybristophilia makes women [lovers of serial killers] unable to have a healthy sex life with men who don't want to rape or kill them, I would dare say it's not normal at all. These observations are not intended to judge hybristophilia communities, per se, but being fair to them also means showing the side that does not support their claims to normality.So why do women seek out sociopaths? Why does a killer with multiple victims attract them so much? There were even searches for Timothy McVeigh in the hybristophilia tags — there seems to be no limit. Some are purely sexual, some are borderline romantic, and some are downright disturbing considering the men are at the center of the discussion. Here are some of the tags about Jahar (Dzhokhar) Tsarnaev.

The deeper I dug into the hybristophilia tags and sites, the less sense it seemed to make. Going into this, I admit, I thought I would find some groups of misfits who still admired Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez. Like many, I read the published articles showing that the Tsarnaevs, James Holmes, and Adam Lanza (fucker kills lots of innocent children, females get wet) had attracted a female audience — but most of the content cited seemed to be “Wow, how hot he is,” which may be a real opinion — although Most people have a harder time separating a person's attractiveness from their actions.


The desire, the claims of love, the endless support and hero-worship definitely shook me. When I first glanced at the sexually explicit stories, I felt like I was losing my sanity. My brain really can't understand this, especially in cases like TJ Lane, who is not only someone without a shred of remorse, but also took joy in bragging about his crimes in front of the families of those he killed.

I've always watched things like Halloween, horror movies and books, and had a fascination with the dark and disturbing things, being a healthy reaction to a terrifying world. People study serial killers because we know that even though they behave like monsters, they are human. By learning about them, we gain knowledge and this helps us feel proactive and therefore safer. Because when we enter into horror and the supernatural, it becomes a terror that we can control.

It's like a paper mache skull that you can hold in your hand and know it's not so bad. What's troubling about hybristophiles on the internet, what becomes so disturbing, is knowing that they've crossed that line in some way. They went beyond a desire to understand, beyond a fascination, and into an uncontrolled obsession.

Link to the original text: http://sheddingoftheego.com/2015/08/23/hybristophilia-the-female-attraction-to-violence/

After adapting the text, I need to say this topic is DISGUSTING, but thanks for reading.


Womens wickedness is really subtle. The wicked carnal male nature is more upfront. Its like a beast. Fighting for resources, killing for pride/respect or mates.. and such carnalities. While womens are more subtle. Theirs is hypergamy, delusion, ambivalence.

I think in todays time the average person is more afflicted continuously by toxic women carnal nature than by toxic carnal men behavior. Though, as you rise/to rise in the ranks and popularity, you will be eventually gatekept by extremely toxic men behaviors (gang mentality, cuthroat, fight for resources/mates).

From what i observed they are equally toxic and work as a system. Both human carnal natures are unrighteous. But they are different in nature. But i agree, the intensity of a mans toxicity is way greater than a womans. Though, a womens toxicity is farther reaching, longer lasting, and more infectious, yet lower in potency. I compare it to water torture vs execution. Think today with feminism (90% of women now share some extremely feminist or hypergamous view, as well as a significant portion of men, of at least 50% who also share the same. And then you have women are wonderful effect). I think more women than men are legitimately toxic, but in a very small potency and in a more unidentified/hidden manner, compared to the men or masc beliefs that are so potent there isnt even a need for as much. Her toxicity (like hypergamy or the typical delusional takes and views) often goes unchecked also, and more readily accepted into society which it spreads like wildfire. Whereso a mans toxicity often requires some sort of RL force behind it to go anywhere.


One of many comments extolling the justice of God and calling Job out that his attitude was placing his own 'justice' about God

"If you sin, how does that affect him?
If your sins are many, what does that do to him?
If you are righteous, what do you give to him,
or what does he receive from your hand? Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself, and your righteousness only other people"
(Job 34:6-8)

This is one of Elihu's most important arguments, as it pointed out to Job that the righteousness of man cannot 'buy' God's favor, nor do the sins of man 'harm' God. Rather, God created his perfect law for the benefit of man. Elihu, conversely, promoted the righteousness of God in taking any course of action, regardless of the good or evil of man. He took Job to task for thinking that it was futile to be good then, if the good could face trials as well as the wicked. He pointed out that the Lord will repay men for what they have done (in this life or the next), so it is very profitable to fear the Lord even if one does not see immediate ben trying to explain the nature of God with only the limited information available to human knowledge, chrisolivertimes we are in book of job, story of cian aand abel first book of adam cain eroused by jelousy. jelousy good/bad perspective used to entice cain mimd pattern with xxxten vice city aka gta mind pattern supericial benifactors mind with story of job lesson


"God" mathematically, scientifically, and logically has to be real as long as we have a consciousness and can perceive living in any fashion. Forget how religion explains god, and forget the concept of "god" being exclusively a singular deity. Think of it like this,

Life has a paradox. The paradox of life is that something had to have created something else. Cause and effect. If aliens created humans, then who created aliens? If water and bacteria created flesh, then what created that? If energy created the big bang, what created energy? This question and paradox goes to infinity. The answer to that paradox is an equal infinity based concept. It is "god". All encompassing, or at the very least to our understanding, a thing or concept that is in that realm of infinity (nothing before it etc.). In shorter terms, the proof of gods existence is the answer to the paradox of life.


Women are not creatures of action, they operate best in a weak nature, hence why for example they are more proficient at doing things like organizing protests and social media hashtags. if they had the same mental aspect as males, their toxicity would manifest itself in much more abhorrent events and atrocities. also, the iq bell curve plays a part. almost all women are in the middle lower while men are more distributed along the curve. so more men can be unpredictably violent and impulsive.

Women nature were capable of acting out their desires like men, india, africa, and asia go bye bye. eugenics become officially government enforced policy. but they don't, instead they keep those thoughts secret and virtue signal. and all virtue signaling comes from fear of being discovered. why many male feminists are rapists. they virtue signal to camouflage their true nature and thoughts. and women and them are often the biggest virtue signallers


Its a deep rooted issue. Humanity itself is a sort of war between the animal body and the mind-(which implies higher intelligence). What differentiates us from animals are our minds. Our level of perceptions and mental and ability to manifest these things collectively. This is why i never see animals praying or deviating from the script, as much as humans are able to do.

Strong carnality is in most cases most associated with wickedness to the human level mind. As we are not just beings of the body(animal) intelligence. This is why animalistic natures such as murder are seen as okay and even righteous for a wild animal to do (as it is a being of the animal nature), but not okay for humanity(as we are not just exclusively beings of the body animal nature, and are observable to ourselves to posses a higher mind state than most if not all land animals). The essence of the mind, and the body work together, but are somewhat at conflicting states. Carnality and the ways of the heart are at odds with the higher intelligence that our mind implies. Its hard to explain exactly why, but the best way to see it is the body(the animal) and the mind as sort of separate systems. The case we have in todays time with humans are that most humans are more in agreeance with their animalistic nature, instead of their mind and higher intelligence (why this is the case is a variety of reasons to long to explain in this particular post.). But in essence, the cultivation of one side, usually means the abandonment/impairment or pain of another.

In other words, Most people operate in the carnal human body nature and are most familiar with it. Carnality is strongly attribed to wickedness, and humans are more familiar with carnality(thus wickedness). Wickedness is attractive to the human body as it usually manifest itself as carnality(animal behaviors). This is why wicked people, or popular people in general are known to be carnal. Think resource money hungry cartel boss, killer gangstar, sex fiend women. To become popular in generally usually means some sort of excessive carnal success. etc. To take it up a notch, the diety that represents evil is strongly associated with carnality. Satanists actually practice carnality. Their favorite day is their birthday.

Anyways, carnality includes standard female and male nature. For females, as an animal, carnality is what they are attracted to. Carnal male behaviors. This is why bad boys, mafia men, alpha guys who delve into that polygamous, cutthroat male carnal behavior win and imply to the female a strong sexual desire, than lets say a BETA(who plays into a feminine women nature) and even moreso a person who chooses to focus on a higher intelligence(think messiah figure), that actually is even below beta and alpha (a non participant in the dating pool).
This cycle is also why women always get left after their hypergamy, as the ones they chase are statistically more likely to be carnal, and thus toxic or toxically polygamous due to the preselection of such carnal behaviors. Also why this whole men blaming is seen as a circlejerk due to the predictability and cycle of events that occur. Ofc the war is waged, and the ones that will suffer and get the strays of hate will be the non participants.


This is wrong. Very baised. Men have it far much worst dating. While this one observation may make some sense, you fail to compare the mens side of things against women. If you were to do that, youd notice that men have at least double the amount of issues when it comes to this niche, compared to this one observation you made about women.

And while you may be somewhat right, its important to understand that this is an issue that they create for themselves due to their own hypergamy.

Hypergamy is relative. Put 1000 "gigachads" in a room with 10000 women, and the modern women nature will still find a way to statistically, and exclusively desire only the top 10-15% preselection wise. This is studies and observable in every facet of modern society.
What your explaining is post hypergamous decisions. Of course she will have trouble competing against the same men.

This issue is even more worst because men are statistically rarer than women, yet with all of the social structures that favor matriarchy and female natures, women just have an advantage socially and socioeconomically. Nor are as libido magnetized as a man. Theres no reason any men should be having trouble dating, yet here we are.

It is dishonestly wrong to claim:
" IN TERMS OF DATING. a guy has to be 1 tall, good lucking and thats it,"
No idea where you got this idea from. You must have never heard about preselection or women are wonderful effect. Anyways, men are known to have an extremely different level of qualifications to be acceptable in dating, one that literally is dynamic and ever changing relatively to all of the other men due to hypergamy. This is why old age men did not let the female nature take over societal wise and kept power(and thus their wives). If you think tall and goodlooking makes you passable then you have no idea about society and are looking through the lense of female influence. Aesthetics matter more to you, but not as much to her.


Women are very impressionable socially and are similar to children mentally. They learn and operate a different way than biological men. More proficient or prone to being; Subservient(which is why they excell in rule-following forms of academia), socially interested, impressionable and subject to subjective emotional bias. Anyways, i find it interesting why we can see in society, women or homosexual(or low T/intersex) men who are often in gatekeeping positions of power ,fame, money, and caste. Theres a reason for this. Women are generally are more influenced socially then biological men, better at following and creating a social acceptance to rule. Less divergent in thought. The male mind is more proficient or prone to being sidedly; independent(energetic to strive for freedom), deviant etc. Its been like this for a long time. Even old kings were known to have eunuchs around them instead of men in the courts due to the nature of men.

So its not just white or black. All women will naturally be programmable to propaganda, and especially social effects. Modern societys culture is their safe haven. So if the media and such tools that determine society's culture, exclusively advertise black or white men as sexy, then guess what comes next. Just look at the covid vaccine fiasco. Additionally, a women's main attraction comes from preselection. Things that imply attraction such as caste, status, wealth, money, looks. Does not have to exclusively be logically beneficial or objectively attractive traits. This is also a key to how to truly be attractive to women(also why babyalien can pull more women than 99% of people on this forum). To top it off, humanity is strongly attracted to unrighteousness, as carnality and the ways of the flesh are strongly associated with wickedness, thus wickedness more familiar and impressionable to the person than other moral levels.

Combine this with media that loves to garnish minorities who display deviantly exciting forms of poverty influenced behaviors, and you have a really interesting situation.
The most popular forms of media is hip hop and pop. Hip hop is majorly black . This sort of lights the impressionable brain that black people (as the amalgamation of western melanated people, regardless of actual ethnicity or facial looks), share the same SMV caste wise to the medias representation, especially if the person prolificates/displays the same archetypes that are socially known to be popular. This is why people say that if your not thugmaxxed as a black guy then your basically incel tier.

Think of all the old age beauty standards that we in todays time see as shit. Also think of all the supermodel faces you and people here call stacy yet i think are actually very masculine and intersex. Attraction is truly subjective, but its mainly influenced socially. Im not saying black people are ugly, but if you look at the fact that less than 50 years ago black people were considered monkeys and ugly to women, its very very very easy to see what caused the change. Media.


I think the vast majority of incels are high disgust standard-cels with more feminised sexuality than most men. We already know women are mostly Chad or HTN+ only, but that’s reasonable because they have the desirability to be so.

A lot of men get fuck all from women they are actually attracted to but the masculine imperative is to fuck by any means necessary. High disgust high inhib incels however, have adopted the female sexuality without the desirability to back it up.
Ironically this is the case i observed too.

Thats why a lot of people who are known to be traditionally incel still rave over stacy and becky, or oogle around rating men and women. I noticed them to be just as standardly hypergamous, without the actual masculine nature that equalizes the women aesthetic across board. To me, theres no such thing as a 10/10 or 1/10 women. This lack of fulfillment in the feminine hypergamous nature is what creates that typical feminine pattern i see so often with men who complain about how they cant be chad. Being traditionally masculine while still holding a high disgust leads to another form of reaction that is not "why cant he be me". This is the true level as it curbs the desirability problem through masculine imperatives.

Im conflicted about female desirability. I dont think they should have as much desirability. Its the feminine hypergamous nature within those starved men that help create such a thing. I also think its artificially inflated with social structures that favor the female nature. Truth is, men are biologically rarer than women, even moreso mentally and sex preference wise. So to me, its not reasonable for them to be hypergamous torwards an excusive class of men, considering their perception of exclusivity is relative. It was never reasonable and is always relative, and this is why men should (and have in the past) totally dominate the sexual market, even if it was by force. Like disregarding a childs cries when you take him out of the candy store. Its for their own good.


The concept of a common adversary as a unifying force in society is a notion that has been observed throughout history. The idea is that by having an external "enemy," whether it be a person, a group, or an ideology, the internal members of a community can strengthen their bonds with each other, focusing on this shared opposition rather than their internal differences. This external threat becomes a rallying point, a reason for solidarity, reducing the likelihood of conflicts within the group. My theory is that similarly, in building long-lasting relationships between individuals, a shared adversary or challenge can create a strong bond. Partners may find common ground and mutual understanding when faced with an outside force that tests their unity, encouraging cooperation and deeper connection.


W have a chameleon nature where they will learn and know the bad parts about their nature yet keep it "hidden" (conflict of interest). Part of the reason the exposed pilled information was led by mens revelations. Its like how you have a girl in a guys friend group who acts like the bros just to go around and tell her female friend group about men behaviors and such. The latter rarely happens. Its probably a nature within them built to ensure protection. On the bad side, they also have a tendency to not know shit about what they are saying and move their bais based on emotional reaction. Id say this is more biological and an estrogenic (female hormone) effect. Add that emotional bias and female nature, to the conflict of interest, to thirsty men, to harsh truths, to matriarchally dominated social structures, and you'd see this forum gone within a few months. Hence why women on this forum will eventually turn this into a shitshow. Hence why its easy to see who is male or female sometimes even based on the quality and types of post. At best this will overnight turn into a club. Also they are groups of intersex or gay/feminist women who actively sub out these types of mens communities. For whatever reason (sometimes due to cause-effect of hypergamous nature), (or even because of the significant pool of intersex men mascaraing as the rare biological men) they show a strong dislike towards men. Going as far to push the categorization of pilled truth subjects socially, under derogative labels. Just like how they labeled redpill/blackpill content "incel". Or how people who predict the goverments or wistleblow are considered socially, conspiracy theorists. Socially, they work to sort of disrupt and disturb mens spaces of this nature. Most people have no clue on what a real masculine nature is and will just label anything of this nature mysogonist or "hateful", despite the facts and statistics. Wheather its emotional bias, conflict of interest or whatever, theres a lot of reasons why this happens. Some of it is automatically encoded in their nature and DNA. It can also be a combination of all these factors. For example, subservience and this worlds natural Ai which ensures humanities progression, is observed to cull men and use women/matriarchy as a way to gatekeep excessive diversion/the (naturally proficient) male nature of mental and moral precision. This is just an example. More factors could be at play. Also, like i said before, women have a conflict of interest when it comes to subjects such as bad male nature (beta) bad female nature (feministic) and other such subjects, as they quite literally enjoy the wine of their fruit in todays time. Speaking up and encouraging mental and morally precise karmatic consequences when it comes to beta pedestaling, is for a lot of women past initial halo, seen as spiteful. Despite the behavior in itself being extremely toxic for humanity, for the male, and for society in general. They are similar cases where we can observe where we see this same conflict of interest.


Always has been like this. Love does not source itself within animals. The animal body is a automatous being. Although natural and not something like a iron artificial robot, explaining love as the ways of the body (male or female) is like observing a packaging machine to have the capability of love. Everything the carnal man and women think is love is usually sensuality or influenced by it. Giving, kissing, cuddling, sex. Its all sensuality. Its for the body. Just like how sensuality is a derivative of love, but love itself is not limited to sensuality. The capabilities of love in the human body is vastly limited and will ultimately revolve around neediness, as the human body is in a perpetual state of need, suffering, motion, decay etc. So we can only truly imply love. Some are better than others when it comes to love. Sometimes, the less sensual the derivative of love you display, the greater the essence of "love". This is why one of the greatest forms of love are known to come in a way where the reciprocate party may dislike or not agree emotionally or physically, with your action or behavior (like telling harsh truths, or mentally having the best interest for a kid).
Love is something far more complex, and in a way, love is already at full capacity as love can be described in essence, as intent. Life itself is love, and things like hate, sensuality, are also synonymous or derivatives of love.
This modern day level of love of money and resources is a real animalistic and carnal form of love. Its needy, just like the body. Its not respectable to me for a human being with a functioning consciousness to act like this. But regardless, Im no animal abuser so im not that proactive of harm, or eradication. Its just that people with these level of consciousness should not represent or be put in the position to influence others to share the same view (reason why i dislike carnality, because it proves to be the most influential behaviors). Even so, this behavior is as a animal, and people ultimately prove how they should be treated based on their level of consciousness and mental and moral precision. But to determine that, it depends. For SOME women though, paypig behavior is a common theme. Its despicable, and in most cases a telling sign of their level of consciousness as their QOL and nature relative to the male species more easily reveals their own actions and behaviors that led to this form of love to show fruit (same reason causes of such behaviors and views are so commonly predicted by many people in pilled communities).


Intersex conditions have their brain wired both sides.

That transgender statement of configuration has some truth into it, but its lacking important information. They underestimate the system we call the body. Science does also. The body is extremely complex and almost falls under the quote "physicist Emerson Pugh famously said, “If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

Think of all the electrons, atomic systems that work together, and the almost impossibly large amount of micro and macro chemicals that react with each other to create a functioning system. Testosterone and estrogen are simply the macros. Those chemicals are not even close to the only ones that actually make a man or a women, musicalized or fem. Things like DHT, Control Hormones, and other varying androgens and the varying ratios between male and female are not mentioned but are very important. This is why you cant turn a man into a women, or a women to a man via hormones or by cutting of your dick etc. If anything, the only chance you have at actually sharing both traits is intersex, and that runs though biology and genetics itself. This process is secretly referred to as "in utero"

The key is intersex. This is a personal observation, but i can see clearly that society is increasingly intersex. They are a lot of variables that would come to play. There is Evidence that shows how endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment can cause reproductive variation through dysregulation of normal reproductive tissue differentiation, growth, and maturation if the fetus is exposed to EDCs during critical developmental times in utero. But common sense, nature, humanities history, GMOs, will show you how quality of the seed will always change and vary (usually for the worst unless intently preserved, which does not happen in a society that loves the opposite of mental and moral precision). Same applies to the human body.

Anyways, even people with intersex conditions are not completely 50/50 male/female, though they are some that get close. And, if my suspicion is right, i think that the majority of human males do have intersex conditions, Maybe not entirely physical and sometimes mentally, (though, you can still observe the excessive curves in most males vs a authentic transgender, or lack of jaw in males but prevalent jaws in