Saruman Vs. the Sh*tlords

RaulGroom, what are you doing?

Shorter (MUCH shorter) Mark Minter

Aw, see now, I WANTED the Oogie Boogie to strike on that blockquote because I had this all prepared 🙁

So, he kinda got me in reverse (urgh, that came out wrong…)

Mark. Wtf. Ur too old for this shit.

Oh and @Argenti. I was just desperately trying to make my way through Minty’s spewings, and my mind wandered onto your brilliant comment again, I had meant to mention it.

Jesus fucking Christ on a goddamned pogo stick Minty! I could write out all the relatives between me and Giggleswick, UK and use less words! There are less words between me and 1590 than there are in your comment.

I’m keeping that for my funniest posts ever.

One of my other favourites was on a female drummers youtube video.

Comment after comment was ‘what kind of kitchen is that?’, but the most popular comment was the response to the ‘question’ –

‘The kind where her dick’s bigger than yours, maybe you should make her a sandwich!’ 🙂

Katz: what the hell did your coworker think toes are FOR?

That may have broken my brain.

I just decided to class it under “not even worth responding to” because srsly, if her understanding of science is that poor, I’m never going to make any headway.

RaulGroom, just consider every thread one big trigger warning for lego stepping and bees.

And that’s real.

Are you ready to do this? Because I am ready to do this. Here’s the annotated version of Minter’s 2500 word screed against Columbians, disease and genetics. Thanks to Fade, who I have stolen every good quip from.

(Why bother? BECAUSE I CAN’T SLEEP AND THE INSOMNIA DRIVES ME ONNN)
—

Jeez, I seem to be making this easy for you, lots of content for you Gamma on about.

Holy hell, 0 to weird in 16 words. Well done. You have successfully turned “gamma” into a thing one can do. And you have also laid the problem for your entire thesis, which I will neatly summarize here:
Minter, Not Everyone Plays Games With Other People – Ie: The Not Everyone Is A Sociopath Hypothesis.

Here is more. Print this if you have any balls.

Why the focus on balls? Also this is the Internet, one doesn’t print anything. One posts. I thought you got your creed from the ManoSphere, why do you need public approval and printing from David and his blog? You trying to reach new markets for your strange brand of woman hating and genetics? You can combine the two, do some market research – “Minter Malarky: The Loci of Misogyny” is pretty catchy.

I caught this link on Roissy to ayoutube video. I shall not please the link. But if one would search youtube for the text:

It’s *like* the English language I have come to know after years of studies, yet.. it isn’t. This is fascinating.

” Shit Men Say to Men Who Say Shit to Women on the Street ”

Catchy. I wonder if it includes “Oh shit, what the shit, are you shitting me with the harassment?”

A video shall return under the category “anti-harassment”. It is legitimate video. None of your female readers will find it offensive in any way.

As opposed to illegimate videos, which are all made on imported anti-celluloid and negative ones and zeroes for digital cameras. The UN is really going to have to crack down on those anti natural videos one of these days! Anyway, it’s not bad a video –
— and no one could find it offensive.
This is boring – so far, you haven’t said anything terrible or strange. Come on. Pull out the big guns.

What the video contains is a series, many series actually, of “teachable” moments of what “good” men should say to their friends that “harass” women on the street, meaning “try to talk to women”:

I can take it! We can take it. I know you can do it, I believe in you, deliver something. Make it good!

So there are a series of beta and gamma men, mostly unattractive, all representing the multi-ethnic makeup of the streets of New York, all saying things like

Give me your wor— oh shit there’s the regret setting in. Oh wow. Shouldn’t tempt Fate like that, I guess. Straight from weird to “Beta and gamma men suck it up and are mostly unattractive, because pretty people are the only people that matter” to “multi-ethnic? I hardly knew her!”. If we were playing MRA Bingo, this ONE sentence would win me like, all the games.
Ever.
Wow. Not that greek numbers really *mean* anything when applied to people, and your alpha-beta-gamma thing is out (the wolf expert who published the studies have retracted and restated his comments, changing them – and some of the pack dynamic research was carried out on ARACHNIDS.
SPIDERS.)
Personally, I find all of this much more enjoyable if you pretend he’s talking about radioactive isotypes and types of radiation.
Holy shit, David is pulling a Bruce Banner! He’s going total gamma on us!

“Stop”, “Don’t do it”, “Please stop”, “Your giving Queens/Brooklyn/Bronx a bad name”

… yes, I can see why males would find the notion of being told “Please stop” offensive. Polite requests are misandry! If your sentence does not include a “SHIT” or a “FUCK” you are not respecting mens inability to understand polite communication!

Basically, they are verbally chastising the other males for having the temerity to actually step out of their lowly social positions and actually speak to the princesses.

No, they are chastising other males for having the temerity to actually step out of their lowly position on the way, step in front of the princeses, step by step follow them down the street and speak at them, shouting and bantering statements about how great that princess would look with a dick down her throat and is that an ass you have there? Never seen one of those before! Mmhm, take of your pants lady.
Minter! Human Communication 101: Multiple Choice Test:
You are trying to “Speak” to another human. When “Speaking”, do you:
A) Communicate in a structure dialogue intended to provide meaning
B) Indicate an interest in topics and the willingness to discuss these, namely, the topic of breasts and how much you want to touch them
C) Tell her to blow you in the alley
D) Talk about how great her ass would look bouncing up and down on your flaccid manhood?
I trust you can figure out the right answer! If you can’t, please stop – you’re making the male of the species look bad.

It has this hidden subtext that you are less of a citizen, less of a person with rights, and you have no right to attempt to step outside of your box and break decorum, established and expressed by women, that women do not wish to be spoken to by men on the streets that would dare to circumvent established social and economic pecking orders.

Yeah, it does – the subtext is that women have less rights, are less of a person, cannot be left alone on the streets and cannot rely on the idea that they shouldn’t be haphazardly interrogated by every person they met.
OH, that’s not what you said, you have it the othe way around, because in your mind, “Speaking to people” imply “Harassing them” and you communicate purely in harassment and denigration…
…. That actually explains a lot. Though.

And yes, the male speakers are right. Women do not want men to talk to them on the streets.

Depends, I’ve talked to women on the street and I also haven’t. But it looks like you’re finally getting it! Awesome, the light has been shown and this was all just a misunderstanding so far. Great job, man, welcome aboard the feminist revolution. People can make choices and who they speak to is their business as long as they speak, and not, you know, harass.

And they are also wrong.

Aaah.. wait.. no shit NO GIVE BACK THAT BADGE, YOU DON’T GET ONE FOR PARTIAL CREDITS! So close! Dammit.

They are right in assuming that no woman wishes a man, that probably would be a friend of any of these men in this video, similar in social status and looks, to speak with them.

And here we are.
Everything so far has really just been an introduction. But from this point on, we enter Vile territory. Not bad, not scary, not strange, not weird.
vile.
—
But first, let’s just ask the question – do you normally pick your friends on how they look? If you do, that’s not how the rest of us do it (We pick friends because we like them. The concept of “Liking” something or someone will be covered in an advance chapter). So if you can suss out how their friends look from one video due to some… ability to magically code everyone into one of three groups then I am afraid you’re wrong.
What’s that? You *do* code people into one of three groups and derive arbitrary, conflicting ideas of who they are based on that group?
… Sigh.

See these men are manboobs. And women do not wish to spoken to by manboobs.

If a manboob spoke to me, I would, indeed, be terrified. The lack of any part of the typical manboob that can produce sounds would indicate a severe failing of local reality, and probably an incursion of the gibbering things beyond.

And it is version of the same game you play manboob. See, I had been mistakenly calling your game of sucking up to women as Gamma Game. But I was wrong. I got the term from Roissy, so you have to thank him. He calls is by a better name.

So you admit to just taking other people’s defintions of things and cramming them haphazardly down anyones throat without taking out the time to describe or think about the nuances of the situation, but based on some first hand judgement?
That’s surprisingly candid and self aware of you. It almost makes me think there’s hope.

You have been playing manboob game. Exactly as these men in this video.

But that notion is of course destroyed here. If anyone is checking out my vitals, this would be the bit where my heart flatlined and my brain seized up, screaming in inchoate rage.

See manboob, in this great game of natural selection that provides the evolution of species, the organisms that thrive, do so only if they are able to reproduce with the fittest offspring.

BUUUUULLLLLLSHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT.
BUUULLLLSHIIIT.
BUUUUULLLLSHIIIIIIT—
Okay, okay, inchoate rage over with.
The organism that thrive do so only if they can thrive in the environment they are in, if they are fit for it, so that they can reliably exploit the resources and obstacles available to carry on. That’s what “Survival of the fittest” means.
The things that *fit* in the environment the best, most optimal way.
Not some mythic quality of “fittest” meaning strong, better, faster – and “Fittest” offspring meaning better, faster, stronger offspring. This is the root of your issue, and I am taking the time to type it out, because it underscores your woeful misunderstanding of everything else that follows this.
(And I also think the need to ascertain that the “fittest” things survive in a “great game” underlies your need to call people manboob and beta and gamma, because you see the world in terms of “Heroic figures” and “Slobbering manboobs”, and one is great and fit and good and strives and the other is a parasite unworthy of life.
So basically you’re the Ayn Rand of misunderstood men’s right philosophy and evolutionary psychology.
And Mittens, I say this with the utmost respect for pointless, blathering pieces of work:
You make Atlas Shrugged seem like a well written, speedy and coherent book that could use MORE monologues to spice up the exposition

The organism that can convince or cause another to modify its anatomy and/or its behavior, especially if that organism cannot thrive by mere brute force, or by numbers, or by optimum conditions, well that organism will fare better.

Yes. That is all true. Obtuse, but true.
Survival of the fittest does in fact infer and imply that the organism most fit for the environment would thrive, no matter how it arrives at that “fitness”, because only short term gains count in relation to genetic drift.
(Genes Can’t Plan, good anxiom)

Two examples for you, manboob. The first are plants like wheat, rice, or corn. Those might be some of the smartest organisms ever. Entire civilizations are built and dependent to the cultivation and care of the plants. Another is Marijuana. It provides effects to humans that have caused humans to dramatically devote themselves to the care and nurturing of it. Tulips are an extreme example. They offer no nutrient value, only beauty, but are cultivated with utmost in care and love.

Your point would have some merit if you approached it from another angle. The Tulip Craze of the Netherlands, where mere tulips ended up ruling the economy, provide a great example of people conflating worth, value and personal sentiment. Also, it’s a great study in economic bubbles.
The notion that plants are somehow symbiotically abusing their humans and that this makes them smart is… wrong.
Want to know why?
Because we, homo sapien sapiens, have mass produced wheat, rice and corn for thousands of years in gargantuan, environmentally unsound crop concentration camps and once they have sucked up enough of the suns light and the earths blood, we? WE humans eat them. Devour them.
If plants were *Smart*, they would *not* be subject to the whim of a predator species with a voracious hunger for bread and rice cakes (Nor would they necessarily be homogenized across multiple thousands of years in order to reliably produce excess crops, resulting in increasing sensitivity to disease and insects as genetic variability in the plants themselves go down).
Huh, this theme of you saying something, and that actually being an example of humans conquering and using another species for its own gain is probably a one time issue, right?

A second example and more similar to what I am referring is rabies. Rabies infects the saliva of an animal and also infects the brain, driving the animal crazy, mentally unstable, to act in manners that are not in its best survival and reproductive interests. Rabies causes the animal to attack and bite, any and all other creatures, effectively passing the rabies to a new host to further reproduce and procreate. It literally makes the bitten animal insane. And it is often killed for biting, for coming out of natural behaviors that would have furthered its own survival, but rabies causes it to act in the behest of the rabies.

Okay… right… SO where are you going with this?

Rabies is an interesting viral disease, but if you wanted to stick with your theme, you should have gone with the cordyceps fungus – an endoparasite with multiple species.

One variety infects ants, makes them climb grass strands to be eaten by ant eaters so that the parasites eggs can be safely hatched in the ant eater internal environment.

… I see where this is going. You’re going with the “feminisms is voracious, mind altering meme that abuses people and use them to spread itself by degrading their health and rendering them a byproduct of its own reproductive cycle”.

Dude.
Ideologues aren’t vira.

Now back to manboob game. (You might already be making the connection, manboob)

I’m… not.
Tell me, what connection are you going for here? Is it funny?

See manboob. Some men, those particularly attractive, confident, and sexy men, have discovered there is certain duality to what women say and what they do.

No, it’s trite old misogyny clothed in the thin veneer of science and given a smattering of prose.
The “Duality” is a construct and your mental need to boil things down to two opposing viewpoints is consistently indicative of an inability to think in larger trends… Also, you mention attractive, confident and sexy men… But those people are not necessarily intelligent, observant or perceptive.
How would they figure this out? Your theory is flawed…

And women primarily judge the actions of men entirely as a basis of their perception of the “social position” of the man, meaning alpha or beta.

… Oh shit, my bad. Your theory isn’t flawed, your theory is wrong.

Now don’t confuse your stupid manboob definition of alpha. Alpha is not the leader dude, the successful dude, that you like to think. Alpha is the guy women want to sex them. Alpha is guy they do in the bathroom at the club. Alpha is muscular, confrontational, arrogant, unfaithful, and lastly in importance, attractive, good looking man. Basically, the guy you and all of these manboobs in this video are not.

So the definition of an “alpha” is “dude women have sex with, for whatever reason”. And that’s the *only* definition?
So male porn stars in man on women pornos are the greatest alpha males in the world?
But that’s not a “social position”. That’s a derived attribute. Sleeping with people tells you nothing more than someone is having sex with someone(s). That’s the only bit of information you get from that notion.
If Alpha and beta and gamma and zeta and manboobz are all different things, then your theory doesn’t *work*.
Also, thanks for that necessary slam. People here have *Cats* for Avatars. They post on an internet blog mocking misogyny.
Nothing there TELLS you about their social status. I’m the Prime Minister of Sweden, by the way, so I can tell you my social status is pretty damn high… But nevermind.
So on the basis of nothing more than a preconceived notion (this is what an alpha looks like), you disregard everyone in that video and everyone here – and their friends – despite not having visual information about most of those people.
… So grand, sweeping statements made on a whim?
Sounds scientific.

My research shows that her first filter of assessment are the signals of testosterone, those that Signaling Theory from the sciences of Evolutionary Biology and Evolutionary Psychology state that show to the female that the male has immunocompetence.

Signalling theory?
We’re… you… you are basing a grand sweeping demonization of half the human race on something so vague and unfounded and mathematically still dubious as “signalling theory”?
… I need a shot of gin.
—
Okay. Moving on.
Signalling theory implies communicatin between individuals for increasing fitness, and miscommunicating is an important and difficult to resolve part of that notion. The first thing a female checks for COULD be testosterone, but that doesn’t matter if the person being checked can fake that signal.
Tadah, deodederants.
Except, shit, it’s not – the first signal anyone checks for is “Alive / dead” and then a whole bunch of others beyond that. Genes don’t know what testosterone even is, because genes don’t know anything, and a simple “If So, Then Yes” statement does not cover up the myriad, thousands of ways random miscommunications and communications can be construed.
Peacock feathers indicate that the male in question can grow large peacock feathers, but tells you nothing more than that – which might be a useful stand in for actual health, fitness and scavenging ability but it might also just mean that the peacock has had a ton of extra feathers glued on by a meddling scientists.
People are not peacocks.
Signalling theory is not good for describing the behaviour of sapient, salient species with an ability to INTENTIONALLY MISCONSTRUE SIGNALS.
MORE GIN.

It is so important as a filter that she will only accept those men that have these signals, and then further tests for other traits.

No.
Wrong.
It is an important part of a larger whole in one instance in one moment if currently looking for a mate but most likely not and we can’t tell because we studied this on birds unrelated to mammals unrelated to humans.
If you are turned on the moment you see a lipstick, because the lipstick implies lips, and lips
*as we all know* implies vaginas, then I have a house on the river Rhines I want to sell to you because your ability to read signals and contracts and symbols is non existent .

(Get this, manboob, the following is very very important).

… Okay. I’m listening.
So far we’ve just had gross statements and misconstruing biological research. Go on. Surprise me.

But studies show that she is “viscerally repulsed” by men that to not have those traits, viscerally, manboob. (Viscerally means she physically experiences the feeling).

That doesn’t even connect to the previous stateme.. oh nevermind.
Did you do this research? You said it was your research. What studies? How did they define viscerally repulsed? How did they measure the physical feeling she was totally feeling? What actual data do you have? How are you arriving at these conclusions?
If people test for health and fitness, and are viscerally repulsed by those who are sick or have leprosy, what you have just discovered and stated is that:
disgust is an emotion people feel
That doesn’t help you underpin a regime of the “puddy pounders”.

The actual data shows she is repulsed at a number TWICE in value to those traits that she rejects as she is attracted to the traits she finds attractive. (She “likes” things with ranges of 7 and is “repulsed” with ranges of 13-15)

Twice what value? Twice nothing? Twice 1 for 2? Twice -2 for -4? What ranges? Your NUMBERS are meaningless without context, and meaningless even within context.
Science doesn’t work like that, and don’t even get me started on the problem measuring apparently inherent attributes of mate selection based on responses to words because that is just another whole kettle of fish that we are not getting into today.

(Oh yeah, those traits that repulse her: nice, warm, intelligent, faithful. Real swell bunch of people you defend, manboob. She is literally repulsed by the best “Citizens” and attracted to the biggest assholes. The trait “Good father”, it didn’t mean shit to her. “Muscles” blew it away. So did “arrogant”, And especially “unfaithful”, especially this one. They despise “faithful” with a score of -14. Gotta love those women, manboob. Re they swell. Real credit to society.)

… That are getting into today, right now, right here.
First, cloaking your woman hating misogyny in some scientific jargon that seems to postulate that women are less moral and more wicked than me is so old school.
Old school like the time before Christ

Secondarily:
Attempting to describe, on a spectrum of numbers (which is still bloody weird) how people react to things is not impossible. “This word, grade that”.
Okay, easy.
Attempting to describe how people might have arrived at those conclusions is harder, but still not impossible. “This word is often used to talk about murder, and so people think murder when we use it…”
Works.
Attempting to describe inherent attributes of mate selection based on a proximate language is not only juvenile misuse of the core tenets of science, it’s also a hypothesis you cannot test. If people react badly to “faithful, nice, warm or intelligent” how do you know that is what they are reacting badly to?
They could be reacting to the way you phrase it, the surroundings, the things you measure, the thing you associate those words with (faithful? That sounds like a fantatic cultist to me).
You cannot, CANNOT, use their words to describe an apparent biological truth because language is outside of biology. It is independent of how people were acting on the savannah millions and thousands of years ago. Words describe concepts.
At *best* these “Slutty, uncivilized women who hate all that is Good” – which is what you’re really saying here, women suck, so it’s okay to hate them – have just given you a list of concepts they find particularly troubling.
In English, no fucking less.
That tells you not a damn thing about their signals in relation to mate value or what they’ll do in any circumstance.
And weren’t you harping on the fact that women are dualistic creatures with no ability to send less than two signals a few paragraphs ago? SO if you take them at their word, you’re assuming they speak the truth and really have that reaction to those statements and aren’t trying to mess up your data and a little consistency in your delusions is all I ASK FOR is that so hard? Is it?

Got that manboob? She hates the beta twice as much as she likes the alpha. Especially nice, warm, smart, faithful betas.

No! She hates, IF ANYTHING, nice, warm, smart, faithful and intelligent people twice as much as she hates the opposites of those but that doesn’t make any sense.
How do you hate something twice as much as you like something else?
You are using mathematical models to describe a normative concept. You are using spectrums to add the thin veneer of quantification to concepts and notions that are, at best, fuzzy, because the world has no atoms of niceness or particles of loyalty and you cannot measure those.
It means nothing, and if I go so far as to willingly assume it means anything, all it tells me is that those people you asked, that time, were “viscerally repulsed” by their understanding of the concepts you measured, somehow.

The same way you measured how everyone’s friends in Manboobz and that video are beta losers who can’t get laid nor talk to women. Despite no evidence, confirmation or ability to know that.
So out your ass.
This data is extracted from your anus.
You are running a bullshit mining operation from your colon.
Your hypothesis is derived from pure bullshitonium.
Uranus called. They want all the Handwavium you stole from them back.

Now yes, manboob, enough money can override this hatred, for a while. And lot of money can override it indefinitely. (That speaks volumes also about their character doesn’t it, manboob, money matters, big time, no?)

“Enough money”? Enough money overrides biological imperatives inherent in human mate selections and signals? The colour of green can override the savannah imperatives?
Wear a green suit when going to town then. It must be the colour, because you can’t tell me the female mind is evolved to compared 100000000000 usd to the levels of testosterone in mg / l of the male body.
Either humans are evolved to understand the concepts of a “dollar” and it’s part of our genetic legacy to understand, instinctually, supply and demand and the value of money in relation to other things…
… or it’s socialization, and socialized abilities inferred from groups can alter and change the parameters of an interaction.
Oh my. You either get the bullshit or the truth. Which one you gonna pick?

This is all very important manboob. And it’s science manboob. Science. All new data that has come out in the last 5 years. Not old shit like you subscribe to. University data, by Phd people and most of them were women.

Sir.
This is not Science.
This is trite, bullshit makedo explanations derived from sources lodged so far up your own ass your peers could not find the papers and every citation of your work just reads “AT Least WE Think So, And That’s Real”
—
Anyway, this isn’t important – this is misogony cloaked in the thin paint of science with a dash of graffiti to enable young men to learn it and understand it and then go “Cor blimey, guv’nor, this is why women are all such skanky bitch hos! I need to get my PuA on! It says so right here in the Red Queen!”

So she hates the beta twice as much as the likes the alpha.

No, she hates concept you have arbitrarily decided mean something twice as much as other concepts you have abitarily decided mean something.
At best, she hates the alpha half as much as she hates the beta.
Great! In this world view, women at least get to hate everyone.
… Equality, at last

She has eggs to protect. It is so important to all female species in nature that her fertilized eggs and their offspring can withstand the microbial attack that the world sends at the child that it is behind her conscious control. Got that? Microbial attack, germs, viruses, cancers, worms, bugs, etc.

The world sends nothing at the child. Microbial evolutionary pressure is a thing, and is why humans have an immune system. But it does not mean anything more than the fact that the world we live in is full of germs, and our bodies are evolved to cope with that fact.
This is why your skin is mildly acidic, for instance.
And because of the lowered ph value of the top layer of your skin, it is clearly that when you hug a female, she registers the current acidic strength of your dermal layer and decides whether or whether not your acid warrants enough to reproduce with
SEE? I can’t do it too.

See, manboob, up to about 75 years ago, more people died from germs than war. Typhus killed more soldiers in the civil war then bullets. A flu epidemic in 1918 killed 20 million, many more people than all of the deaths, both civilian and military, during the 5 years of conflict, notoriously bloody conflict. 50,000 men were killed on the Sonne in a few days. And it wasn’t shit compared to what that flu outbreak did a few years later.

Yes, but up until 13.0000 years ago, people did not live in concentrations large enough to warrant fighting of diseases that much. Animal husbrandry brought on a whole new world of germs.
COWS ARE MISANDRY, is what I’m getting at here.
Nothing about this indicates female or male behaviour, except to note that outbreaks do in fact kill many, many people – because passive death by infection will always be much, much larger than war. Soldiers miss.
Germs don’t.

She has no conscious control over it over this filtering, manboob. It is like a built in thing. Like how everyone is repulsed by feces or vomit or like how there seems to be a general consensus that “red is red”. She comes with that built-in firmware, manboob, that beta hating disposition.

No, she comes with built in firm ware to recognize the immunostatus of people around her based on pheremonic signals generally paired with receptors in the human brain – this is why some sick people have a smell around them, it’s your brain helpfully indicating that they have a fever.
You are right about the evolution of defences against germs.
You are wrong about every other thing, ever, and that is just so sad.

And it seems to be more prevalent in descendents of western Europe than anywhere else. That place had a far more tumultuous history of epidemics than any other place. The plaque killed 25-30% in the 1300s. You name it, any disease, and it tore ass through western Europe. Ever notice who all the men from those places say the women are better in other places, Eastern Europe, South America, Southeast Asia? The women all say “well they’re poor and you can “rape” them.” But trust me, it is more than that. Those women don’t hate men like our women hate men. Those places didn’t have the diseased past that Western Europe had. So immunocompetency are more important here than there. Our women are selectively bred to seek it.

Holy fucking hell. This is the motherlode of inconsistencies.
Feminism is evolutionary selected for because of the black plague? They are poor. You can rape them. That’s… Why.
It’s not genetic drift, because there is not enough genetic variants in those populations to explain a theory so absurd in its implications.

Here, I’ll give you some data. Which women in South America are the most popular with American and European men? Colombia. And least popular? Argentina. What is the difference in the makeup of the people? Argentina was second only to the United States in immigration from Western Europe. Colombia was isolated by mountains until the latter half of the 2th century. And analysis of the genes of Colombians show that the female mitochondrial makeup is 98% indigenous people. Spanish immigration into Colombia was about 99.99% male. So those women almost have no genetics common to western women other than the variable aspects that males bring to the “soup” that is the genetics of the Colombian people.

… No. The reason people go to Colombia, and not Argentina, is because the Colombian infrastructure, economy and social security services are different from the Argentinian ones. A few years ago, everyone went to Ukraine. Then everyone went to Slovakia. For a brief moment in time, a high way near the German-Poland border was the sex tourism capital of the world.

Genes cannot plan long distance travel.
Genes do not send out complicated messages across the planet that call to men and magically tell them that Colombia is the land of milk, honey and willing women.
That is the wholly and completely the same reason you can find examples of posters declaring that the wild, wanton women of the New Americas would mate with any man, at any time.

It’s marketing.
It’s people going to Colombia, reporting to other people, who go to Colombia, who spread the news, who go to Colombia.
The implication that Colombias are genetically pre-disposed to niceness towards men and a less discerning filtering mechanism for alpha / beta / gamma zeta dynamics is astounding in its wilful obtuseness and inability to understand, parse and relate to historical, economic, sociological and factual circumstance.

This is the sickest, vilest thing I have read in years.
And no, that is not some feminist ploy at shutting down debate.
That is because you are mangling the very concepts of science and genetics in an attempt to prove your point, a flawed point, by the way.
Come on man.
Come the fuck on.

Ours have a harder standard for the men, a more rigorous pass/fail, “I like you or I hate you” subconscious criteria. They are selectively bred to have it.

And selective bred to like milk more.
That, or it’s… Feminism telling people they can have choices and a social history steadily progressing towards the notion that women are people, coupled with rising economic self dependency so one is not forced into sexual slavery.
You don’t need to invoke genetic explanations when real ones will do, y’know.

And she makes that determination of that immunocompentency on sight, manhoob. It takes about 1 second to shoot down most men as not having sufficient “alphatude”.

No, it takes about one second to shoot down men who do hot have the sufficient immunocompetency.
That’s it.
Your calling it “alpha-tude”, but it means nothing and is a descriptor you use to invoke a sense of the heroic into your ramblings.

And after that assessment is made, it percolates up from the subconscious into her emotions and then her conscious thought. And it colors her social impressions of men.

I’ve read Malcolm Gladwell: Blink and Predictably Irrational and textbooks, endless textbooks, on cognitive psychology and I don’t say this to impress you, I say this to impress upon you the notion that what you are saying here is:
Wrong.

See manboob, testosterone is immunosuppressant, and the possession of the signals of it, show a highly functioning immune system.

No, the possession of it show a healthy immune system, working in full accord and producing the necessary hormones required for homeostatis.

Muscles are the number 1 factor in female attraction and it takes a superior constitution to possess them because possessing them is a “high cost” signal that detracts from the resources available to the immune system.

No. No.
Gods no.
Man.
Muscles are the *basics* of locomotion. Possessing them is a *requirement* of *life*. You literally cannot live without muscles. The modern obsession with abs and pecs do not mean that the world revolves around them. Adonis is beautiful, sure, but he’s not a superior man. If muscles were really the key defining factor in womens attraction:

You would not find people stating otherwise
You would never see people dating those without visible muscles
Bodybuilders would be revered as the puddy magnets of the world.
All communication would consist of someone flexing and someone else cooing admirably.

Posessing muscles is a signal that you can move yourself around. Possessing visible muscles means you are strong.
If anything in your idiotic theory holds any water, it should be that visible skin with no blemishes and a lack of open sores indicate health.
Because it does.
But no more than that.

And those other attributes she loves, arrogance, confrontation, infidelity, even stupidity, manboob are also signals of it, signals of congruence, as the PUA boys say. The data also shows she despises intelligence but likes stupid. So she “likes” the man, the masculine man, with these signals. She sees him as alpha. Yeah, she “likes” him.

Congruence is a social term for describing a social event.
Testosreone is a hormonal reaction.
Muscles are a biological function of the body
Arrogance, confrontation, infidelity and stupidity are all activities and emotions one engage in.
So which is it? Socialization or evolution and the body?
Or is it C) Your theory is hogwash because it assumes facts not in evidence and parameters not applicable and realities without existing.

But she HATES the beta.

At least twice as much as she hates the alpha. Yes, we get it. Repeating it doesn’t make it true. She doesn’t hate the beta – she hates his immune system. If the guy lived in a plastic bubble, she could love him just fine, is what you’re saying.
Any evolutionary theory that can be foiled by a plastic bubble is no theory at all.

So when the beta, like the manboob friends of these manboobs in this video, dare to speak to her, the special princess, her eminence, her royal highness, on the street then that repulsion and revulsion kicks in.

We’ve been through this back in the multiple choice test! Time for the exam
Did you pick D? The right answer is A, not D. Dialogue. “Speak” is not “harass”. Saying someone has “great tits” does not indicate high amounts of testostereone.

See manboob, men don’t have an equivalent psychological reaction towards women, even ugly women. They may find them humorously unattractive, but there is not deep seated revulsion. They are shocked when women violently reject for merely speaking with her.

Dude, you have seen the people you associate with? Right? You have talked to them? You have noticed the vehement hatred of anything ugly, right?
This isn’t even wrong, this is just a lie. I can’t argue a lie.

You see, manboob, men generally like most women. But women generally despise most men.

Again, have you seen your movement? The people you talk to? The Sphere you so desperately wish to get credit in, like a lone, slobbering beta desperate for a shot at the egg so the egg can spawn some sort of fittest credit offspring but you’ll never get your chances because your low testosterone means your sense of smell can’t pierce the plastic bubble and your blogposts just indicate a malfunctioning immune… the gin just kicked in, woaaah, I think I lost track of the metaphor there.

It’s that egg protector thing they do. That’s why rape, any rape, violent, date, etc is so horrific to women and men don’t get it. That’s why a man can make a rape joke and it so offends women. And men don’t get why it offends women. They have no comparative feeling with which to empathize. And make no mistake, manboob, I am not minimizing what women feel. I understand how they feel. And you obviously read what I write and you can never ever find any writing that is disrespectful towards this subject. Never.

Men do get it.
You don’t understand how they feel.
You wrote you “Hate women” and are a “Women hater”.
You also wrote that they’re all bitches and sluts who deserve all that happen to them for being who they are.
And you are stepping just short of invoking the patriarchical stereotype of a wise, genetically pure man who can lead the stupid, blind, alpha-slaves around.

To me this is very important in understanding the inherent misandry that exists in the United States and western Europe, the whole reason behind feminism, the whole basis as to why women despise and oppress men. There is more than a societal bias against men. It is biological, psychological, even more than the worthless sperm, valuable egg thing.

The wage gap is genetic.
The glass ceiling is because of your mitochondrial soup.
… COME ON.
Women do not “Opress men” by existing.

Because they hate men, most men. That is because most men, 85%-90% are beta manboobs, like you. That is where these female fears come from, manboob, the words like “rapey”, like he had these “rapey” eyes. He was probably only thinking she was an idiot, but she regards them as “rapey” eyes,

No, they hate most men’s immune system. Be coherent, it’s all I ask for! But you can’t even manage that.

You haven’t seen any of us in real life, again – why do you claim we’re manboobs? Have you seen anyone’s latest testereone levels?

if he was a beta manboob, manboob, then she thinks “rapey”. Got it?

So let me get this example straight… If she doesn’t like someone hitting on her, she dislikes the activity of labels him a creep…

Now if is he’s alpha, then it is all a totally different story, then they are “sexy” eyes.

… But if she does like the person hitting on her, the activities are not creepy…

So then she interprets actions of men as a function or her assessment of him.

… Well, fucking duh?

Your entire spiel boils down to “If she likes you, it’s because she likes you and if she doesn’t, it’s because she doesn’t”?
You don’t have to invoke the evolutionary paradigm of egg sperm Colombia beta slub manboobz video harassment bees bees my god bees to do that.

This isn’t about evolution any more. This isn’t about the reproduction of the species or the works of germs. This is about your inability to understand why other people get away with things you don’t.

This entire, elaborate display of rushed scientific boils down to you thinking “Damn those alpha people ! They get away with so much!” because you don’t get why something should work for someone else and not for you. Why can’t you if I can’t?
That’s why you’re so angry about someone wanting to be a princess or becoming Miss America, or your neighbour sleeping with someone who isn’t you. People having desires that don’t involve you is impossible.
That’s why you keep coming back here and desperately wanting more cred in the ‘Sphere.

Minter.
Mittens.
Mark.

That’s pathological narcicism, not evolution. That’s an inability to empathize, not the immunocompetency of others.
That’s your inability to realize that what you say and do is not what other people say and do.

Your privileges sir.
CHECK THEM,.

A beta manboob, manboob, tells a “Dongle” joke, then its sexist and offensive. But if George Clooney or Brad Pitt tells it, then he’s “naughty”.

If someone tells a sexist and offensive joke, it’s sexist and offensive. No differences between who does it. The way its done and the why and the how and the joke itself, that’s all that matters.

But you don’t understand that, because to you, it’s unfair. You think someone getting yelled at because of a joke and someone else not being yelled at for the same joke is indicative of a conspiracy against people who don’t look conventionally attractive.
Bees. My god.

If an alpha gives her a compliment, then she “loves loves loves” it. A beta does it, then it is harassment.

And that’s why you started with the video. You need to arrive at that point to explain why it makes you so angry and upset. Because other people get away with yelling “Nice ass!” and you don’t and it hurts you. Viscerally.

An alpha gives her a gift, then it is a treasured memento, kept sacred, viewed when she is older. But a beta that gives her a gift, then he is desperate.

Well, if she’s already oppressing him, then yeah, I’d be pretty desperate too.

And particularly on the street, the beta manboob that approaches is harassing her, a “creep”, manboob.

Because he is and also because..

Notice the word, manboob, “creep”. Spiders are creepy, snakes are creepy, horror movies are creepy, and beta manboobs are creepy. Not inconvenient, not even a hassle, pushy, impolite, but creepy, testament to the visceral nature that women feel.

… yes, creepy. Horror movies are scary, snakes are snakes, spiders are spiders. All of those apply but you of course choose to go with the one that impigns people who do it, as it’s an insult against you, because it is, it really is, any time anyone anywhere speaks out against any man it reflects back to you and talks about you and it’s all about you I SEE THE FUCKING MATRIX.

Ah, but the alpha, manboob, when he approaches, then he is confident, sexy, masculine, all of them gush, flip that hair, answer, smile, bat those eyelashes. So the alpha gets approval, her eggs want his sperm, but not that creepy slimy beta sperm.

And here’s the fantasy, the power bit ,the flip around from what everyone else is not and from what you totally are, you alpha male you. Of course.

So what your manboob game is saying is “I am a manboob”, and the only reason you play it is because you cannot be an alpha, because if you were, you would not see things as you do. Your experience would tell you that what you say is a fucking lie.

“If you were not, you would see things differently”
“If I were not me, I would have different eyes and a different face and a different mind – this is true.
But I wouldn’t be blind to suffering or misery or pain.”
“You only care because you can’t get pleasure from it, you only disregard their notions of goals and “Puddy” because you’ll never get any”

“And you are wrong. But you’ll never even know why”

You would not be saying those women want men to be as you think they should be. Because they don’t. They do want manboobs to be as you say. They want you to be that way. And I mean you. Because what you do and what you believe is living proof you are a manboob.

And there’s the shame and the attack and the flip around against us, the belittlement of all we do. The ostracization and the marking of us as “Other”, as somehow defective, as weaker and wrong and stupid. Our choices are not choices, our choices are what we are, because we are automatons without will.

They want men like you to be the way you think, but not the alpha. They want the alpha, only the alpha, and they want him to approach like the fat girl wants the cake. But not the manboob beta.

Not you, Me, not you, Me, you are not, will never be…

And you have bought into it, manboob. You are like the dog infected by the rabies. You are like the botanist that tends the marijuana like it were a baby. Or even better like the rancher that cares, feeds, and protects the cows, then stands back when the prize bull is brought to further her biological goals of producing the best offspring possible.

The first two might work. Kiiiind of.
Marijuana is of coursed smoked and enjoyed by the botanist, and crops that don’t work are ruthlessly removed.
Price bulls are medicated, steroid wasted hunks of meat barely salient of their surroundings and only allowed to mate by choice of the master of the herd, the rancher, the person in control.
If the choice is “Be the cow, be the bull or be the rancher”, you pick the rancher.
Because he protects the cows, raises them up, and eventually – eats them. No one wants to fuck a cow.
COWS ARE MISANDRY
(See? I was going somewhere with that, earlier. It wasn’t totally random).

And you write in a way to cause both women to despise men and some men to despise being men, to compel men to act as second class citizens in their own country, in a way that facilitates the agendas, economic, social, and sexual of women, at the expense of men.

You are the enemy, you are wrong, you do this with intent to harm me, all your activities are evil…

Basically, Rabies.

… But not conscious evil, it’s not really your choice, you are just an infected drone who I hate and who I will destroy and who I care for not a whit…

Manboob.
Priint this motherfucker

… so please print this letter and give me the approval I so desperately crave.
—

Standard formula of narcissistic attacks:

“Declaration
Belittlement
Shame
Self aggrandatization
Self martyring
“Logic”
Ridicule
Personal attacks against unworthy enemy who are mere drone driven by impulse
Appeal to inability to change, call evil
Ask for approval”
—

… I need more gin.

So, interrupting the detailed fisking to ask one simple question…why should women be sexually aroused by the trait “good father”? According to Minty’s assdata the women weren’t repulsed by the idea of a good father, it just didn’t get them hot under the collar. And why would it? “Muscles” is a potential sexual trigger in a way that “parenting skills” is not. This is not a women are evil bitches thing, it’s a “how human sexuality works” thing. Like, if you show a man photos of women being motherly and nurturing and that doesn’t give him a boner is he evil too?

If a manboob spoke to me, I would, indeed, be terrified. The lack of any part of the typical manboob that can produce sounds would indicate a severe failing of local reality, and probably an incursion of the gibbering things beyond.

*dies*

And Fibinachi wins the internets again. He’s the Schumacher of the internets, I tell ya!

That ungodly screed, too revealing.

He has to believe that shit, or he wouldn’t be able to get out of bed in the morning…or god forbid, he’s have to admit that he needs to work on himself. Women don’t like it when you talk to them in the street? I believe you. You’re just an online presence here like the rest of us, but god damn I wish you’d stop posting/talking.