Feminism = divorce

Feminism was invented to destroy families and the core identity of women. Like the snake whispering the wrongs, feminism is disguised as a friend of the women, where it is in fact the devil itself. The only aim of feminism is to make out every woman a slut, using her sexuality either to climb the ladders of work, either to steal wealth from men. The sole goal is to render men useless to women: financially, intellectually, socially and emotionally. Feminism is the personification of hypergamic, animal and amoral behaviors. And almost all women – even conservatives – firmly believes that this is good.

Feminism is a humiliation for women today, but also for all the good mothers and wives who gave their life to bring us to the world today. Feminism makes women ugly, amoral and despicable beings, caring for nothing else than themselves and their little privileges.

Alt-Right, alt-light or liberals, they eventually think the same: that politics is something they can participate in. But no. Their contribution is limited to their pretty faces on a screen, opening their mouth to repeat what a man told them. If only they would realise that supporting a man who fights is more effective, natural and constructive than to fight. No, they don’t, they even prefer detracting the males already doing the job, bringing an overall negative contributions to the cause. No-one asks them to take positions or get involved in politics, on the contrary.

On the verge of our extermination through cultural marxism, feminism is still in the head of the right wing women. We shall repeal everything but not their privileges. On the verge of death, they still think about themselves. That says a lot about feminism and female nature. This is why feminism works as it was designed for, revealing women as incapable of seeing the elephant in the room. Introspection, a quality redeemed void in their head – does it seem.

Feminism absolutely never had another objective but to humiliate women in their duty of child carers and family cornerstone. Because what is a family without a true mother, mistress, and house keeper? Nothing.

How a boy could become a man, and a girl a woman if the mother is no more? They can’t. The boy will be half a man, and the girl half a woman. What an opportunity for the enemy not to have any resistance, don’t you think?

Judge for yourself what all your girls had all their life in their mind. This is what they saw, what they became, whatever they like it or not. Otto W. said that women become hysteric when confronted to their nature, a way to say that women do not handle criticism – at all. Well, how do you expect your girls to respect men when they were raised like that for 18-30 years?

Why women act as they do

That is the brain map of a man (up). And that is the brain map of a woman (down). See the difference? Now that is what our left and right brain do:

One doesn’t need to be a genius to understand what it means…

Women do no clearly separate their thoughts. They do not separate – biologically – their emotions from their reasoning. That means that women biologically tend to see the world through their sole perception, meaning their emotion. Since emotions are always self centered (even empathy), they can only be solipsistic. Their truth is not built through reasoning, it is memorized and felt.

They are unable of separating the abstract from the sensorial… But that is the foundation of morality! One can’t build moral standards if his emotions perturbate constantly his logic. Their sole escape is therefore an emotionally memorized morality. And to be fair, this exactly what the leftist school does: showers of emotions and codes of conduct (e.g. poor black babies die in Africa, help them! Men are bad and do not respect women, take from them!)… and obviously, that works.

When women think, they think according to what they feel right now. If it feels bad, it is bad. If it feels good, it is good. There is no separation in the brain that enables sorting the reality according to a broader perspective.

Since their brain is also self and emotionally centered, they also tend to believe that everything is either black or white. It is almost impossible for them to have a negative opinion without a good emotion, nor a positive opinion with a bad emotion. Example below with their translations:

“you ALWAYS do that”, “you NEVER do that” =  right now it feels like it was always there and never ended. Do what I want, or else it means that you give me bad emotions, and so it means that you are bad.

“all MEN are bad” = right now a man did (or I was told a bad story about) something that gave me very bad emotions. Therefore, all men are the same.

“I know one good black man” = One gives me good emotions, and this person defines my entire reality about race. Therefore, they are all good.

“I know one bad black” = One gave me so bad emotions, that this persons redefines my reality towards race, and I hate them all. We must kill of them, they are all bad.

I guess you got the logic: everything comes from what they feel. That is also why they fall for assholes easily: their emotions can make them blind to anything that is morally bad – plus Hollywood and school condition them to screw up. It works that way:

Behavioral memory built on wrong moral standards + emotions = conditionned disfunctional behavior

That is why it is impossible to have a serious rational discussion with a woman. Especially about this blog post: they will never agree and most likely enter an immense rage.

Exceptions will always be rules, and rules will always be exceptions, because there is no logic to drive rules out of their emotions.

Of course men also have the same property, but they are biologically advantaged not to behave that way. Men acting like women are called gamma. They think they are bosses or secret kings, while in fact, they are just women. Most of the so called “Alpha gammers” are actually gammas: their so called self development is fully focused on developing a better understanding and adaptive behaviour to women biology, rather than their own masculine biology.

Most politicians are also gammas, Trump and Putin being more or less the only western exceptions. That is why it is impossible to talk or solve any problem at a political level nowadays: we are led by women, trapped in the body of men – probably even worse than women. We are led by intellectually castrated men, some kind of “post modernist beta transsexual male”.

Now, add to this thinking pattern feminism, and you have an individual that is convinced that her reality and her feelings are morally right, good, smart and efficient FOR EVERYONE (because all that matter is themselves – what they feel). In a nutshell, a despicable being ready to do anything for her own good. Not pretty I would say.

Let’s conclude with a positive tone. Hopefully not all women are evil, and we still love them. The bright side is that we can control them for their own good, and as they are excellent at communicating with toddlers: make nice white babies and great families.

3 women manipulative behaviors

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "manipulative woman"

It is for a fact that women are inherently manipulative. In fact, in our society, almost all women are mentally sick, and totally unable to handle normal relationships with anyone; even women.

Evolutionary process or complementarity from the creation, it doesn’t relieve the psychological burden that the modern woman adds on a man’s mind. In every situation, they tend to maximize their own benefits and to demonize their man – the famous guilt trick. Here I want to highlight few techniques that women use to manipulate men within a relationship, so that men can step back from their shit tests, put some perspective and see that a whole forest can actually hide the same trees.

Case study

She didn’t/doesn’t want to cook anything; even if she stayed the whole day at home while you worked 12 hours. Instead of being frank, she will say “we never go out to restaurant together, and you go with your colleagues. You don’t care for us!”. As such, she tries to make you feel guilty for not paying her a restaurant today, while depicting herself as a poor victim. You may not answer, laugh, agree and amplify, or whatever, but you will quickly notice that this game is just exhausting.

Your girl will usually alternate between a combination of these techniques:

  1. Negation and guilt trick: you answer straight “yeah, we never go, but where is the meal today”. She replies “you never understand anything”, starts ignoring you, and maybe texting with her “friends” just to make you feel bad.
  2. Aggressiveness: you keep standing and ignore her. Since no other men would be there to pay her what she wants, she has no other option but to push for it with you. She becomes aggressive verbally and/or physically. She insults you, shouts, hits you, or bites you. She is looking for “physical dominance“.
  3. Sudden calmness and caring: she comes to you nicely, maybe asking for apologies for her behavior. It seems that everything is gone. She hugs you and then she asks again what she wants. That step is the most important. She is now testing your true resilience. If you answer “no”, she will switch to one of the other strategies and give you another cycle, or accept her fate in sign of resignation.

Usually, these 3 strategies are combined over a more or less long period of time. It can last between 10 min to a couple of days depending on her emotional stability (or psycho score). Just note that you do not have to win all the battles to win the war, just the most important ones.

When it comes to women, knowing when and how to lose is also part of the art of winning.

What techniques can you use against this?

The answer is tricky. On one side, I would like to tell you that “agreeing and amplifying alike” techniques are good, but on the other side I want to point out the fact that any behavior that is not natural for you will eventually result in an outburst on your side. I believe that the most important is to remember that women communicate through “shit testing”, and that nothing is really serious. And if it is serious enough, she will leave you. But what is serious for her?

That is only serious if she believes that her sexual value enables her to get better without paying any price for it (social, emotional or material).

That leaves you with only one option: remain calm and do not give too much importance because your fate is already decided – unconsciously. Try not to take it personally, but remember that modern women are not reliable for most of them. They are all ready to leave you under whatever circumstance, should it maximize her well-being (social, emotional, financial or material). So, unfortunately, the sad truth is that whether she will or not stay with you is already communicated in her behavior. If she is not into you, or has better, she will leave you, and tell everyone how a poor guy you are.

That is why my belief is that the best option any man has today is to invest in what he does. Your value as a man is the only thing that will retain her. If you give it away to her, she will leave you. Also remember that any woman will try to take away your value, because if she is with you, it is foremost because she thinks that you are worth more than her. So, she also believes that all women think and feel the same. She projects her insecurity into jealousy and in fine into a “ball cutting” exercise – if she lowers your value under hers, then she can keep you with her, but unfortunately she will then want another man.

The sad paradox of women is that their happiness must always be controlled, always keeping them one step away from their true liberation.

The game, that imposture…

The paradox of man is that the better you become, the more choice you have, the least you care for women.

A few years ago I met the community of the Game. I read Neil Strauss’ book, and eventually got confused.

I saw many men, between 20 and 30 for most, meeting up only to pick up girls. As Neil describes it, it appears to them that picking up women is an art and a symbol of masculinity. But is it?

Game describes fairly well what women wants, and tries to give an answer to what a man is. It is told that women are emotional, hypergamic, and it is simpler to shortcut true masculinity and pretending being a so called “alpha”.

But it seems to me that this is a wrong question. Men should know what a man is, and not look at women to find it. According to me, that is a total scam on weak men searching for a path, a way of life.

To be honest, Neil, like many gamers, has a feminine energy. They look and feel gay. Even the gamer I like the most like Tyler, for his motivational and purpose focus couldn’t escape this rule.

A true man doesn’t look for who he is through women appreciation. Comparing the amount of phone numbers is a mere reflection of a lack of self confidence and identity. Self amusement is not a proof of personal development, it is a proof of submission and despair. That is not freedom, this is not what men are meant to be. Every man knows that.

Starting a hobby to look cooler doesn’t make one cooler, it is the perfect continuation of whom this man should be: a man looking for  identity. Get the right girl, and everything vanishes. Is that what a man is supposed to do?

Men are not made for a daily sexual intercourse with a different woman, just like women are not made to switch from males to males. These behaviors actually undermine our society and break the required trust between sexes. These behaviors are the line between animals and humanity. Which side do you want to take?

By taking women for granted, lie to them, dumping them and selling them the dream of the best time of their life, the “gamers” are not bastards. They are just a bunch of useful idiots in a decadent world. All of that because they did not grasp their true masculinity, nor have what it takes for building a civilization.

So what do I have in mind? It is rather simple. Instead on focusing on pleasing women (for sex in exchange) start doing what you like, for yourself. Meet people through hobbies and work. Avoid wing men, but rather look for true brother.

Build something bigger than you. Realise that you are part of a bigger family. Realise that your cilivisation needs you as a man of value. That your nation needs you. That your people (especially within your race) and your religion need you.

Be honest with yourself. Work on your knowledge and your skills. Focus on yourself and on helping others. Build and give.

When you will truly internalise that you only need one woman to make a family, when you will be of total indifference for a so called “10”, when you will feel that you are on your right way, then you’ll have reached the man that you truly are. And at that moment, you will have much more value in the eyes of every single women.

Sophie Tanner, a typical SJW idiot

Sophie Tanner is one those women who has been corrupted by the political agenda of the Left.

Christian values are very clear: one man, one woman. But for SJWs, this is too easy (or probably too difficult). For this reason,  for  a free and emancipated woman, what is the ultimate goal? To boast your own self until you believe – as does every SJW – that your words are higher than the Word of God.

“When asked if divorce would ever be on the cards, Sophie said: ‘Marrying yourself is a lifelong commitment to be responsible for your own happiness, so divorce is not an option.’”

How Laughable, divorcing yourself.

And God has a way of punishing them. He turns them into eternally unsatisfied crybabies, waiting for big daddy to give them a slap on the face. Worse even, into crazy psychotic people, zombies. Yup, SJWs have much in common with zombies: ugly dwellers looking for the next host to infect and exploit, barely speaking anything understandable.

Sophie, you are an example of what women should not be. Thank you for leading by example.

Does feminism have 2 faces?

What conservatives and liberals mostly fail to identify is: what is a true feminist? Some will say it is a “business woman”, some others a “gold digger”.

Trials after trials, The manosphere tries to define what is a “good girl“. As Vox and the Alpha Game say:

Alpha Game: And … as feminism pushes … to ever more absurd levels, as ever more restrictions are placed on normal masculine behavior, ever more insane definitions of ‘rape’, ‘assault’, and ‘aggression’ are drafted into law in increasingly desperate attempts to somehow, anyhow, cast women as perpetual victims … The sound of the final battle between the sexes will not be heard in the streets or legislatures. It will not be televised or reported. There will be no flags hoisted or victory parades. Because it is already in progress.

Vox: It’s pretty simple, women. Either abandon feminism or abandon all hope of being wives and mothers.

The origin of feminism resides in the concept of “oppressor – oppressed”. Its goal is to win a pseudo sex war, where men and women are in competition for power and resources; in opposition with the Christian principle of sexual complementary. The weapons of men are clear: strength and intelligence. The ones of women: guilt and beauty. As it is a quest for power and resources, there are two means to obtain these: sex and so called “rights”. Conservatism and liberalism.

The spectrum of true feminism is spread from the feminine conservative solipsistic girl to the sexually ostracized LGBT working woman:

  • The hyper feminine, sexy and apparently conservative woman uses the traditional roles of men and women to maximize her profits. Instead of taking full responsibility for her role (keeping the house in check, support of the husband, taking care of children etc.), she will tend to divide the house work with her man whilst also requesting all the “conservative advantages” of a traditional relationship. Hence she will wake up late, go to parties with “girls”, request a breakfast, ask you to clean the house but also to pay most of the expenditures. She could also be that single woman who sells conservative values while partying, having casual sex and even engaging in inter-racial relationships (e.g. Lauren Southern or Maga Pegowska). This type of girl uses men to access resources and openly uses her charm to get them. She cannot commit to a relationship unless it maximizes her hypergamic odds. She is a feminist because she doesn’t accept her female role in society but rather aims at getting resources for herself. She needs feminism and women privileges to exist, and therefore she is a feminist.
  • The working LGTB woman demanding more privileges is in a direct confrontation with the patriarchal model. She acts out of frustration and fear, and probably the absence of a good father. The societal model has convinced her that she is oppressed and that being an independent women is the way to be.

Sometimes these two models are in one woman, that is the ultimate woman you have to either set her straight either avoid her.

Hence our job (as men) is not only to discourage the “obvious feminists” (of the left) but also to set straight the so called conservative women using their charm to manipulate men. We can’t afford more loss for our kind. Men and women are only one when they are united. And feminism is the cancer that destroys trust, families and society.

So, which is to be considered the most dangerous? The working, blue hair overweight “I am not sure about my gender” feminist or the conservative “more vicious type” feminist?

Why does my baby look like an alien?

Don’t be like this English mother, nor like Magda Pegowska. The English mother says:

“She’s getting very dark, isn’t she?” This is what one of my friends recently said about my much adored – 12-week-old daughter.

She didn’t mean to be rude. But it was a comment that struck me with the force of a jab to the stomach. Immediately, I was overwhelmed by a confusion of emotions. I felt protective, insulted, worried, ashamed, guilty, all at once. The reason? My lovely, wriggly, smiley baby is mixed race. Now, I think of myself as pretty ‘right on’. My home is on the border of the London Republic of Hackney. I’ve been to the Notting Hill Carnival, even if I found the music a bit loud. Yet now I realise what a ‘white’ world I inhabit. I am white and I have two sons from my first marriage who are both milky complexioned and golden haired. My twin sister, who I spend a lot of time with, has a Danish partner. As a consequence, she has two boys who are also pale skinned and flaxen haired. Into this positively Scandinavian next generation, I have now injected a tiny, dark-skinned, dark-haired girl. To say she stands out is an understatement. My colouring and that of my children has never really been an issue before. However, three years ago I met the man who became my second husband and who is the father of my daughter. Although born in the UK, his parents came from India in the Sixties. This makes him British-Asian and our daughter mixed race. There is another more PC term for the plump little bundle I strap to my front. She is ‘dual heritage’. It’s a bit trendy, but I quite like it. It implies a pride in coming from two cultures, rather than the less attractive connotations of ‘mixed race’. The usual time something is labelled ‘mixed’ is when it’s a packet of nuts and they’ve bulked out the luxury cashews with cheaper peanuts. I’m not sure I want my daughter to be regarded as an adulterated version of some pure original. Still, it is the most accepted description. The truth is, whatever the label, the fact there is a label proves that my daughter’s conflicting parentage matters. At the more frothy end of the scale, mixed-race children are regarded as pretty dolls — white kids with a nice tan. When I was pregnant and people asked me about the child I was having, and I explained her father was Indian, they would often coo something along the lines of: “Ooh, she’s going to be beautiful!” as if I was discussing a new rose, made from an exotic cross-breeding programme. On a less benevolent level, mixed-race children can receive a hostile welcome from both white and black communities. Being neither one thing nor another may get you on the cover of Vogue, but it isn’t an easy way to make friends. Scroll down for more… {1} But this is 2007, surely things are more enlightened than that? I hope so, but I fear not. One reason for my fear is my own mixed reactions to my daughter. Don’t get me wrong, I love her. She is the child I didn’t think I’d have after my first marriage broke up. She is the only granddaughter in our family and we all dote on her. But when I turn to the mirror in my bedroom to admire us together, I am shocked. She seems so alien. With her long, dark eyelashes and shiny, dark brown hair, she doesn’t look anything like me. I know that concentrating on how my daughter looks is shallow. She is a person in her own right, not an accessory to me. But still, I can’t shake off the feeling of unease. I didn’t realise how much her looking different would matter and, on a rational level, I know it shouldn’t. But it does. Evolution demands that we have children to pass on our genes, hence the sense of pride and validation we get when we see our features reappearing in the next generation. With my daughter, I don’t have that. Do black fathers who marry white women and then have paler-skinned children feel my sense of loss? Or maybe Chinese mothers or Middle-Eastern grandparents grieve when they see a child they know to be their own, but whose features don’t reflect that? I worry that, as my daughter doesn’t look like me, people will assume she is adopted. After all, it’s all the rage in showbiz circles. Madonna famously scooped up a black child when she wanted to be a mother again and Angelina Jolie appears to be assembling a ‘pick ‘n’ mix’ of kids from different countries. It’s all very United Colours of Benetton, isn’t it? In the real world, I fear for my daughter’s sense of self. She has a tiny foot in two cultures. How will she negotiate a path between the two? I worry that my sons will feel less of a kinship with their sister because she is different, although there is no sign of that. As for myself, there is an inescapable status issue to address. White women who have non-white children are stigmatised as ‘Tracy Towerblocks’ living on benefits, most of which they spend on lager and fags. Even if I don’t fit this profile, my daughter’s difference definitely points out the fact that my children come from two different fathers. If I wanted to pass us off as a nice, neat nuclear family, she would blow my cover at once. But it is more than that. I am frightened, frightened of others’ reactions to her, as well as my own. I didn’t think of myself as racist and yet my daughter has shown me a side of myself about which I feel deeply uncomfortable. Even admitting to having mixed feelings about her not being blonde and blue eyed, I feel disloyal and incredibly guilty. I know the obvious comment is that I must have known how a child of our union would look when I married an Indian man, but it is a wise woman who thinks that far ahead when she falls in love. I didn’t think about any of this before I got pregnant. I wanted to have a baby. Her colour and culture were immaterial then. But self-flagellation is not useful. I have more pressing concerns. I am now the mother of a ‘black’ child, even if she is more the hue of weak tea than espresso. This is a role for which I am utterly unprepared. Part of me thinks I should be playing sitar music to her in her cot, mastering pakoras and serving them dressed in a sari, but that would be fantastically fake coming from me. When she was born, pale but with lots of dark hair, I asked the midwife if her eyes would stay blue. ‘Asian genes are very strong,’ she said in what I took to be an ominous tone. No more Brady Bunch kids for me. The midwife has been proved right and every day my baby’s eyes get a little darker. Even so, when she looks up at me as I feed her, my heart melts. My love may not be colour blind, but hers is, and that is truly humbling.”

May god hear you and stop this insanity. As you see, in the absence of light, darkness prevails.

Dearcatcallers, that’s stupid

Sad, very sad. “Dearcatcallers” spends her life taking selfies with poor guys (so-called beta males).

This is what stupid women do when they are set free without any goal in life. They become feminists who do not even understand what they fight for. Anyway, I shouldn’t even bother because she doesn’t look too white to me.

Seriously, what’s the goal of taking selfies with poor guys but getting attention?! What is her achievement?! Nothing but stupidity.

At least she tells something: white men, man up and take back what is yours.

 

 

Let's talk about sex

The Kinsey report released in 1940 was a preamble to modern fornication. Starting from insects, Alfred Kinsey drew the conclusion that all individuals are primarily sexual. To support his enlightening conclusions, he assessed babies, sexually deprived women, mentally sick individuals, and criminals. In a nutshell, he biased his statistical sample to reach his pre-determined conclusions. He was trying to make a shortcut between “a sexual liberated society” and civilization. Nothing could be more hypocritical. In fact, the real and central question to all of this is not the pleasure given during sex, but rather the importance of sexual restriction – as discussed in the article about chastity.

White people (especially Christians and Alt-Right) do not support rape. They have never endorsed “sexual freedom”. Rather, they believe in intimacy: sex should be monogamous and restricted to the marital life from a social perspective. This is the only way to maintain a balanced, happy society. As such, the abundance of research on sexual behavior cannot be endorsed (porn, pedophilia, homosexuality, adultery, gang rape, etc.). Is it really worth researching if children experience pleasure while they are sexually abused?

Morality and feelings are two very distinct concepts, and one can’t build a civilization on the basis of instant gratification solely. We cannot accept asking ourselves questions that make us act like beasts. Not everything has to be put in question. Sexual depravity destroys families and jeopardizes individual energy. Sexual restriction is required to build a civilization (or a nation), to raise children and to defend its people.

This is also where the line is drawn between “We the Christians” and the Muslim world. When these instinctive low IQ males try to justify what is good (morality) based on their own feelings and religion, this CANNOT BE TOLERATED. This cannot be negotiated. Their behavior is not much more than animals behavior. Jews got it right: “what makes a man is his ability to restrict his animal instincts”. On this point, I totally agree with them, and I encourage them to fight cultural marxism instead of pushing for it.

Gamma males are the problem

I have been thinking a lot about the socio-sexual hierarchy and its impact on society. Over time I could not help but start despising gamma males. The lack of clear literature, and the importance of their role in today society made me think about digging more into the subject. The three typical gamma males:

gamma scale 3.png

There is no unique gamma male, just like there is no unique alpha male. Normally, in a healthy society, gamma males are simply disqualified by other males, and hence rejected by women. But who are they?

Gamma males typically represent the opposite of an alpha male. They certainly have alpha qualities, but they lack the self-confidence, direction, structure and identity that an alpha  male has. They think they are bosses on the right track, but they are not. Therefore, the way they communicate, manage relationships, and handle stress is extremely different.

The following type of gamma males can be identified:

  • The useful idiot: this gamma is a typical SJW in lack of identity, but who wants to take a lead in defending cultural Marxism. He makes a point by virtue signaling at defending multiculturalism, feminism, etc. Despite his attempt of defending women’s right, he is a total sexual reject – women would rather commit suicide rather than having babies with them. By being a useful idiot, he goes where the wind goes and believes that it should bring him all the chicks and success. His masculinity is the weakest of all males. He will either hate either gratify women, but at no time he can grasp their nature.
  • The opportunist: he has money, he has a very good position in a company and uses it to promote shit values. Like any gamma, he does not accept any argument and simply gets frustrated. He can’t argue and uses violence to win an argument. He will try to break your will, attack you personally, censor you, humiliate you, etc. This category also encompasses the colleagues which seem to be cool, but stab you in te back at every opportunity. They want to teach you how to respect women, they want to lead, … but it is a total failure! Their lack of identity makes them poor leaders – they do not inspire. They are extremely irritable; especially when they drink. They bully constantly other males to try to look like an alpha male, and seek attention. This gamma is the most dangerous because he is a pure hypocrite, and usually knows what he does. Usually, they can pick up women, but have sexual problems in relationships. Since they don’t understand why, they become frustrated and start annoying their woman until she leaves them or simply cheats on them.
  • The outsider: he is part of some kind of trend like hipster, or whatever. Most Arabic men are part of this category. They surf on the “status wave” like having a beard, skin color, interracial propaganda, etc. Since women usually go where the wind blows – the trend – they usually confuse them with alpha/sigma males. They recognize in them the masculine model spread by the media. But don’t be mistaken, everything is about appearance. Deep inside, their status is everything they have, and if you remove this, they are simple gamma. They are very emotional and think like women. For example, hipster look abrupt but spent more time to look manly than women do to look feminine – being rough and looking rough is not the same thing!

Unfortunately, today society sets trends towards gamma males. Whether you are a total useful idiots, some kind of protected minority or an opportunist, the society protects you. When you speak the truth, society rejects you – that’s the goal of cultural Marxism, after all. Most power positions are in the hands of gamma males. Example? Take most of politicians, civil servants, directors, etc. The problem is that these people use the power for themselves or to serve other people as sick as them. This results in a loss of values and a feminization of the society. Indeed, true alpha males would stop women, put limits, set direction, inspire, lead… look at Trump.

Next time you see some gamma, just remember that they are sick people who should not be tolerated. Your biggest weapons against them are their own weapons: social rejection and humiliation. What makes them strong is the power in place, the trend and their weak followers. Break this and you will break them.